The Vietnam And Iraq Endgames

National Review Online: Congress May Be Making The Same Blunders It Did At The End Of The Vietnam War

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Peter W. Rodman.

---

For a long time, when it talked about Iraq, the Bush administration avoided Vietnam references like the plague. This was perhaps a reasonable judgment that, even if useful debating points could be made, any mention of the "V-word" would be a psychological and political disaster.

The administration has now dropped the taboo, as we see in the president's speech Wednesday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. One reason may be that in today's Iraq debate, the analogies that work in its favor are too strong to pass up. I agree with that. The analogies relate to the situation on the ground and the likely consequences of congressional action.

Military historians seem to be converging on a consensus that by the end of 1972, the balance of forces in Vietnam had improved considerably, increasing the prospects for South Vietnam's survival. That balance of forces was reflected in the Paris Agreement of January 1973, and the (Democratic) Congress then proceeded to pull the props out from under that balance of forces over the next 2½ years — abandoning all of Indochina to a bloodbath. This is now a widely accepted narrative of the endgame in Vietnam, and it has haunted the Democrats for a generation.

Will tomorrow's narrative be that the strategic situation in Iraq was starting to improve in 2007 but the Congress tied the president's hands anyway — tipping events toward an American defeat, dooming Iraq to chaos, emboldening Islamist extremists throughout the Middle East and demoralizing all our friends in the region who are on the front line against this scourge? How can the president refrain from making this point? Why on earth should he?

The president is absolutely right to include the Khmer Rouge genocide in his recitation of the Vietnam endgame. When Congress, in the summer of 1973, legislated an end to U.S. military action in, over, or off the shores of Indochina, the only U.S. military activity then going on was air support of a friendly Cambodian government and army desperately defending their country against a North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge onslaught. "Cambodia is not worth the life of one American flier," Tip O’Neill declared. By 1975, administration pleas to help Cambodia were answered by New York Times articles suggesting the Khmer Rouge would probably be moderate once they came into power and the Cambodian people had a better life to look forward to once we left.

Trying to debunk the president's VFW speech, the Times has lately resuscitated the hoary claim that it was U.S. military activity that destabilized Cambodia in the first place. This claim, alas, is not supportable. What destabilized Cambodia was North Vietnam's occupation of chunks of Cambodian territory from 1965 onwards for use as military bases from which to launch attacks on U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. Cambodia's ruler, Prince Sihanouk, complained bitterly to us about these North Vietnamese bases in his country and invited us to attack them (which we did from the air in 1969-70). Next came a North Vietnamese attempt to overrun the entire country in March-April 1970, to which U.S. and South Vietnamese forces responded by a limited ground incursion at the end of April.

So the president has his history right. The outcome in Indochina was not foreordained. Congress had the last word, however, between 1973 and 1975.

The strategic consequences of defeat in Indochina were also serious. Leonid Brezhnev crowed that the global "correlation of forces" had shifted in favor of "socialism," and the Soviets went on a geopolitical offensive in the third world for a decade. Demoralized allied leaders in Europe as well as Asia feared the new Soviet aggressiveness and lamented the paralysis of American will. When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, he and his colleagues invoked Vietnam as evidence that U.S. warnings did not need to be taken seriously. That's what it means to lose credibility: Once lost, it has to be re-earned the hard way.

No analogies are ever complete, but — given our global leadership and the number of allies and friends that rely on us for their security — the consequences of an American defeat can be counted on to be terrible. How can anyone seriously think otherwise?

[bluestardad]

ASK THEM HOW AIPAC INFLUENCES THEIR VOTE TO FUND IRAQ! AMERICA MUST CALL THEM ON IT! DONT REELECT THEM!

Write and tell that to AIPAC as they brag about buying your Elected Representatives while American soldiers are being killed!

http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm

Congress email http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

Republican Party email [e-mail]

Democratic Party email [e-mail]


Baucus, Max- (D - MT)
Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE)
Durbin, Richard- (D - IL)
Harkin, Tom- (D - IA)
Johnson, Tim- (D - SD)
Kerry, John F.- (D %u2013 MA
Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA)
Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ)
Levin, Carl- (D - MI)
Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR)
Reed, Jack- (D - RI)
Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV)


Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)


SUPPORT AMERICAN FIRST

[sjc_1]

The problem with present thinking is that there are only a few options for ending a war. One is "victory" (whatever that is) or the other is to stop the funding for the war. The Viet Nam war ended because Congress refused to continue to fund the war during the Ford administration.

It seems to me that we need more than unconditional surrender, the stand off in Korea, or ending funding like in the Viet Nam war. We need to say that if Congress can start a war, they can end that war. Not by refusing to fund it, but just by removing the authorization for that war.

The Iraq was was authorized because of the WMD threat. Lie or not they found NO WMD, so that means that there is no longer a need for the invasion, occupation and war. We know that the real reason for the invasion was oil and NOT WMD, so that reason still exists. Hence, that is why we are still there. It is time that Bush told the people the true reason why we are still there. He will not leave until the Iraqi government hands over all of their oil to the world''s oil companies.

[johndpatriot]

It is entirely understandable that american liberals in the mainstream media and their neo-communist cohorts here and abroad are scrambing to spin public opinion away from the Iraq-Vietnam analogy. The post-Vietnam traumatic stress disorder of today''s Democratic Party goes back to two things: the Democrat''s traumatic breakdown with their radical far left wingnuts during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago is a memory seared in their minds forever. Secondly, the Democrats foray into Vietnam via the Kennedy and Johnson administrations yielded a despicable record which was rewarded by Nixon''s back to back landslide victories. The retreat in Nam from a war which Nixon was winning after the Vietcong were decimated during the Tet Offensive, scarred the Liberals for life. And lets not forget those 50,000 American lives who were sacrificed by the Democrats schizophrenic war effort: they are just as disposable in the revisionism of the left as were the troops who were spat upon and called ''baby killer''s'' by liberal Democrats upon their return to the USA. That''s just in case you actually are buying the liberals'' bolderdash about worrying about ''troops'' being in harm''s way''!

[mimi611]

Let''s be clear about one thing! Whatever happens in Iraq, the death and destruction belong to Bush and the neocons. It''s your souls that must carry this burden. Happy hiking!!!!!

[sjc_1]

There are some similarities, but there are many more differences between the two wars. For one thing, they did not outsource half the war to over paid no bid contractors. I heard Halliburton has received $26 billion in contracts so far. It has gotten to the point where private security guards protect the Army Corp of Engineers. You never saw that in Viet Nam.

[bluestardad]

ANOTHER PRO-ISRAELI NEOCON PUKEING STAY THE COURSE BUSHIT SUPPORTER

Peter W. Rodman is a neo-con liar - the article is an absolute joke, that couldn''t be more one sided then if Joseph Goebbels had written it about the Nazi party.

[elz523]

"Military historians seem to be converging on a consensus that by the end of 1972, the balance of forces in Vietnam had improved considerably, increasing the prospects for South Vietnam''s survival."

What military historians? We were in Vietnam for 15 years and lost tens of thousands of soldiers. And here we are trading with the same countries today with whom we have good relations. There were no dominoes and the fall of Vietnam was pre-ordained. The biggest analogy is that Vietnam was an unwinnable civil war as is Iraq, whose people want us out so they can settle things themselves.

Iraq is not worth the lives of tens of thousands of American soldiers! Rodman if you didn''t have a different agenda from the bulk of the American people you would agree with this.

[bluestardad]

JohnShaft4: GREAT POST I WAS GONNA SPANK THIS CHIMP BUT YOU SAID IT ALL!

[johnshaft4]

We ALL should bve grateful for the wisdom that our dear leaders, Bush/Cheney are imparting to us. These important messages and lessons are based on THEIR first hand experience in Viet Nam from when THEY COURAGEOUSLY SERVED our Nation over THERE. How much more credible can it possibly get...

[brianbwb-2009]

"Democrats already know that the Petraeus Report in September will without a doubt show all the real accomplishments that the liberal media has been hiding from the public." Posted by One_American

And these accomplishments are just what, exactly?

Does any sane person expect the Iraqis to stop their power struggle created when we decapitated the legitimate government?

Do we expect they will lay down and accept the US oil grab? Or forgive us for killing hundreds of thousands of their people over two "wars"?

Do we expect they will stop resisting an illegal occupation of their land by a hostile foreign power? Or that they won''t at best just wait until we are gone, then continue the natural power struggle, which we have caused to become a civil war?

Just what accomplishments are you talking about, dude?

No wonder the article was not only inaccurate, but biased towards GW Bush.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_W._Rodman

Peter W. Rodman, the former assistant secretary of defense for international security in the Donald Rumsfeld-led Pentagon, is a foreign policy insider who has served several administrations dating back to the late 1960s, when he got his start in government working at the National Security Council (NSC) as an assistant to Henry Kissinger. In early 2007 he joined the Brookings Institution as a Senior Fellow and is affiliated with its Foreign Policy Studies Program. [1]

Although generally viewed as being more closely associated with the realist wing of the Republican Party, Rodman has supported the work of a number of right-wing and neoconservative outfits, having served as an editor for the National Review and contributed his name to the founding statement of principles of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neocon-led advocacy outfit that played a lead role in building public pressure to invade Iraq in the wake of 9/11.

The guy is a neo-con - through and through.

[Part 1]

CBS and the National Review Online should be ashamed - there are a number of errors in this article.

Firstly, the author failed to mention that the US had been secretly bombing Cambodia for a number of years. The bombings continued until 1973.

The author claims "the Times has lately resuscitated the hoary claim that it was U.S. military activity that destabilized Cambodia in the first place", but fails to provide any proof.

A number of historians have stated that evidence exists that the US bombing actually led to Cambodian Villagers. They came to this conclusion after studying declassified material and aerial photographs of bombing sites, and correlating this with areas where the Khmer Rouge had increased popularity.

The author claims that Prince Sihanouk complained bitterly about the North Vietnamese bases in his country.

This is incorrect.

Sihanouk had actually made a deal with North Vietnam and China to allow the North Vietnamese bases in Cambodia, and Sihanouk later declared himself a communist.

[Part 2]

The author also claims that the North Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1970 - this is also incorrect.

It was the US and South Vietnamese who invaded Cambodia in 1970, in an attempt to attack North Vietnamese bases.

This happened after the right wing Lon Nol, the Cambodian PM, grabbed control of Cambodia through a CIA led coup.

Sihanouk fled to China and began supporting the Khmer Rouge in the resulting civil war.

When Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge, Sihanouk again became the head of state, although he was removed a few years later.

In Dec 1977, the Vietnamese launched a limited incursion into Cambodia, however, they retreated in Jan 1978.

The Vietnamese again invaded Cambodia in 1978, this time removing the Khmer Rouge from power.

Reagan and Bush Snr later began supporting the Khmer Rouge, and this support continued until 1989.

[kansas1946]

Military historians seem to be converging on a consensus that by the end of 1972, the balance of forces in Vietnam had improved considerably, increasing the prospects for South Vietnam''s survival. That balance of forces was reflected in the Paris Agreement of January 1973, and the (Democratic) Congress then proceeded to pull the props out from under that balance of forces over the next 2= years %u2014 abandoning all of Indochina to a bloodbath. This is now a widely accepted narrative of the endgame in Vietnam, and it has haunted the Democrats for a generation.
*****************************
That is the biggest bunch of horse dookey I have ever read, even from the National Review which is notorious for horse dookey. What a riot. Talk about revisionist history.

[imnho]

I would not mind if the surge worked and the may sides decided to do the right think and form a working democratic goverment. If that were to happen I would gladly admit that I was in error.

It does not appesr to be going that way. It appears that no matter how the surge goes there is nobody sitting at the negotation table. The factions have figured out that the US Army will break sometime in mid 2008. They only have to wait until then and the main event can start between the warring factions. Iraq is akin to dead man walking. Its not a question of if. Its a question of when and no amount of spin will make the situation correctable.

[seatofpants]

To the Bush bootlickers and kill-more-troops crowd:

You are losing your war against America.

Even your war-loving fascist Republicans are changing their position on the war.
Senator John Warner stated that the President should declare troop withdrawals to begin on September 15, just a matter of days before more of the 28% Republican base join the rest of the nation in changing their position.

Republicans know that the Petraeus Report will be, without a doubt, another masterful spin job by the White House. The Report will show Republican lies and misdirection about the war. The conservative press will try to spin the Report to cover for their Beltway Buddies in government; however the American people don''t buy it anymore.

What I expect to happen is an upsurge in anger at Republicans and a call for impeachment against members of the Executive Branch for lying and distorting on everything they have laid their hands on.

Your bootlicking days are coming to an end; the public sentiment against the White House will drown out the whining and crying from the neocon naysayer%u2019s.

No one is expecting you to change position on the war, you have no one to blame but yourselves as your Republican party takes the minority position in government for decades to come. Your children embarrassed and lives ruined, have switched in massive numbers to the Democrats according to the latest polls. Please, just go away quietly.

[wogerwabbit]

One_American, keep smoking that wacky weed... you war mongering nazis are going to be the pariahs. You guys are so delusional it''s pathetic.

[oscarez]

This was just Bush pandering to the old Vietnam vets that have spent to much time in VFW clubs talking about how the U.S. should have won the Vietnam war.

[oscarez]

This was just Bush pandering to the old Vietnam vets that have spent to much time in VFW clubs talking about how the U.S. should have won the Vietnam war.