Iraq As A “Reverse Vietnam” (But With The Same Old Democrats)

InstaPundit has a must-read post on Iraq as a “reverse Vietnam.” You really do need to read the whole post, but the gist of it is that

[i]n Vietnam, the brass talked happy-talk, the press talked to grunts and reported that the war was going worse than we were told. But now it’s Americans who are talking to the grunts….”

….

It’s not surprising, then, that the more connection people have to the war, the better they think things are going. That’s precisely the opposite of what we saw in Vietnam, of course.

That’s because in Iraq the grunts, and the generals as well, are providing — through email, cell phones, talks shows, the Internet — a more optimistic, and more accurate, view of what’s happening than the picture painted by the major media.

If the Democrats are successful in forcing a hasty withdrawal, however, then in the end Iraq may in fact resemble Vietnam after all — not only by what happens in Iraq, but in what happens here at home. On that point, before reading Glenn’s post I sent the following to a friend:

I remain, perhaps pollyannaishly, guardedly optimistic about at least the possibilities in Iraq, but decidedly pessimistic about the home front. Even if Iraq improves, the improvement is not likely to be so rapid or so dramatic as to elicit Democratic support. The Democrats, even the ones who earlier supported the war (Hillary, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, et. al.), — maybe especially them, since they now have to appease the anti-war “base” — so passionately hate Bush that they are not likely to recognize anything that happens in Iraq as a success.

Meanwhile, with the constant Bush bashing from the Democrats and in the press, the public is getting fed up with our continuing sacrifices and, with the Democrats leading the wave of popular opposition, may well force us to withdraw before the fledgling government in Iraq can survive on its own. This scenario might be to the Democrats’ advantage in the short run (that no doubt has something to do with why so many of them are trying so hard for it), but I suspect the more lasting effect would be to tie even more firmly around their neck the albatross of their not being reliable or trustworthy to confront international threats, threats that are sure to appear soon enough even if (actually, especially if) we withdraw from Iraq in a manner that is later judged to be precipitous.

Iraq, in short, so far is indeed a reverse Vietnam, but the Democrats seem to be rushing, lemming-like, to prove that they remain McGovernites.

UPDATE: “The Vietnamization Of Iraq” [28 Nov.]

Jed Babbin, in The American Spectator, writes (HatTip to Power Line):

The whole Democrat menagerie has embarked on a campaign to Vietnamize Iraq: to make it a demonstrable defeat and by so doing regain the White House regardless of the consequences. If they succeed, Iraq will become a far greater failure than Vietnam was because the stakes are much higher abroad and at home. The next presidential election will, like the last one, be a referendum on Iraq. And if Iraq is a failure, the Democrats will be a success

UPDATE II [28 Nov.]

Welcome, visitors from Power Line.

InstaPundit has more on “reverse Vietnam,” here and here.

Michael Hanlon of the Brookings Institution has an article in the Washington Post today that doesn’t use the word “Vietnamization” but whose analysis of “Our Dangerous, Growing Divide” between the military and civilian elites and strategists fits perfectly into that analysis. Although he argues that “objective realities in Iraq suggest that the military is too optimistic — but also that the public and the strategic community are becoming too fatalistic,” the point he emphasizes about military opinion is in marked contrast to comparable military opinion in Vietnam:

The military’s enthusiasm about the course of the war may be natural among those four-star officers in leadership positions, for it has largely become their war. Their careers have become so intertwined with the campaign in Iraq that truly independent analysis may be difficult. But it is striking that most lower-ranking officers seem to share the irrepressible optimism of their superiors. In talking with at least 50 officers this year, I have met no more than a handful expressing any real doubt about the basic course of the war.

Say What? (23)

  1. Anita November 28, 2005 at 10:34 am | | Reply

    the democrats and the media and hollywood have made it their business to teach people that the war is pointless, our men are dying for nothing, it’s all due to oil, etc. among the many negative effects of this is the delayal of the realization that we are at war, the war is real, and is not going away. liberals can’t face that we have a real enemy who is not at all liberal or progressive or wants to remake the world in its image. this is why some of them try to make out that bush caused 9/11. at the same time, however, they justify muslim terrorism. i know that the west and the us will not allow civiliztion to be destroyed. what worries me is what will have to be done to preserve it. the present day pretense that there is no threat and that bush is making up the whole thing will only cause greater fury when the day finally comes that the threat has to be acknowledged.

  2. actus November 28, 2005 at 12:20 pm | | Reply

    “The whole Democrat menagerie has embarked on a campaign to Vietnamize Iraq: to make it a demonstrable defeat and by so doing regain the White House regardless of the consequences.”

    I’d say its the republicans vietnamizing iraq: they’re determined to fight that last war. To fight the people that they blame for the loss of that last war. And this doesn’t mean the democrats who were makign decisions and fighting the war, but the democrats who opposed the war.

  3. Dom November 28, 2005 at 12:43 pm | | Reply

    The task facing us is really very simple. The Iraqis who voted were incrediably brave. They obviously want some measure of freedom and democracy, and they are facing a force that must be described as fascist. The word fascist is used to describe almost everything these days, from bathing suit contests to nearly every decision that Bush makes. But in this case the term actually fits. The “insurgents” are fascists. They want to impose their will on others, they will wage “blood-for-oil” wars and they will even call it that (as Saddam did in his wars) and they will almost certainly eliminate the Kurdish race, just as the Fascists in Darfur are trying to eliminate the black race in Sudan. Surprisingly, the former baathists are very open about their intentions.

    There is only one side to back in this war.

    Dom

  4. Sandy P November 28, 2005 at 12:54 pm | | Reply

    No, actus, we’re fighting the 60s boomers.

    I just can’t believe the greatest generation raised such a bunch of losers.

    But here we are.

  5. actus November 28, 2005 at 1:01 pm | | Reply

    “No, actus, we’re fighting the 60s boomers.”

    By putting one in the white house? Makes a lot of sense.

  6. Cap'n Dan November 28, 2005 at 1:43 pm | | Reply

    Not all of the Boomers, Sandy. Just those who didn’t learn anything the first time around. Plenty of us have worn uniforms, kept faith in the power of freedom, and understood what happened on 9/11.

    Dan H (born 1955)

  7. Dom November 28, 2005 at 1:52 pm | | Reply

    “I’d say its the republicans vietnamizing iraq: they’re determined to fight that last war. ”

    Vietnam was a Democrat’s war. Two-thirds of all American casualties occured under Kennedy and Johnson.

    Dom

  8. Sandy P November 28, 2005 at 3:15 pm | | Reply

    2 – actus – 2 in the WH.

    #41 passed the torch to bubba and the vacation decade began because it’s all about them.

    and bubba and his wife are the posterchildren for what is wrong w/that end of the 60s boomers.

    I know, Cap’t. I’m a tail-ender myself.

    I agree w/Broder – we’re going to be beating each other over the head w/our canes in the old folks’ home.

  9. Dave Johnson November 28, 2005 at 3:20 pm | | Reply

    “If the Democrats are successful in forcing a hasty withdrawal”

    How does it serve the interests of the country to mischaracterize the arguments of the Democrrats rather than respond to them?

    The latest news reports have the REPUBLICANS looking for how to get out of Iraq because it is hurting their 06 election prospects.

    Anita coments, “delayal of the realization that we are at war”

    Perhaps tax cuts in wartime, refusal to initiate a draft, and asking the public to respond not with sacrifice – of any kind – but instead to buy more consumer goods has something to do with a public that is not taking the idea seriously that we are at “war.” Maybe if the President was concerned with more than the next vote…?

    I might add that using the war to divide us instead of unite us – for example, calling for the war vote BEFORE the election when his father in the same circumstances delayed the vote until after the election to avoid division – might also be making people think something besides a serious threat is afoot.

    If you really think this war is due to a serious threat to the country, act like it. Reach out to the opposition because we need to strengthed the country. Cough up a few tax dollars to pay for it. Enlist and ask others to enist.

  10. Dave Johnson November 28, 2005 at 3:24 pm | | Reply

    “Vietnam was a Democrat’s war. Two-thirds of all American casualties occured under Kennedy and Johnson.”

    During the 1968 Nixon made a deal with the South Vietnamese government to block the peace talks, saying he would get them a better deal if he became President. Then he dragged the war on for four years so they could announce “peace is at hand” a few weeks before the ’72 election. The war could have ended several years before it finaly did, except for Republicans playing politics with war.

  11. John Rosenberg November 28, 2005 at 3:40 pm | | Reply

    I think Dave Johnson makes good points in both comments above. The Republicans have certainly not provided models of wartime leadership, either now or with Nixon. Still, on the subject of my original post, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are pushing for a withdrawal that could prove disastrous. To the degree that Republicans give in to/go along with that pressure, they’ll share responsibility for what happens as a result.

  12. Richard November 28, 2005 at 4:02 pm | | Reply

    I’m wondering if the Democrats are so invested in the “Vietnamation” of war that they cannot conceive of what victory means anymore.

    After all, if “War IS the Answer” their world view takes another in a long series of beatings.

  13. Sandy P November 28, 2005 at 4:55 pm | | Reply

    I seem to recall there was a vote on Rangel’s draft and Rangel voted against it.

  14. Dom November 28, 2005 at 6:00 pm | | Reply

    “Perhaps tax cuts in wartime, refusal to initiate a draft, and asking the public to respond not with sacrifice – of any kind – but instead to buy more consumer goods has something to do with a public that is not taking the idea seriously that we are at “war.” Maybe if the President was concerned with more than the next vote…?”

    Tax cuts were enacted before the war and they made good economic sense, then and now. Initiating a draft is a bad idea, even the military does not want it. The people who say they want it are generally the same people who fought hard to end it.

    “The war could have ended several years before it finaly did …”

    The war could have ended under Kennedy.

    Dom

  15. actus November 28, 2005 at 8:22 pm | | Reply

    “The war could have ended under Kennedy.”

    Try Truman.

  16. Dom November 28, 2005 at 9:30 pm | | Reply

    “Try Truman.”

    Truman … Democrat … your point?

    Dom

  17. actus November 29, 2005 at 8:26 am | | Reply

    “Truman … Democrat … your point?”

    That it could have happened earlier than kennedy. Or are you just interested in partisan sniping?

  18. Dom November 29, 2005 at 9:36 am | | Reply

    The remark was wrong of me, and I was sorry I posted as soon as I did.

    Slightly OT: Has anybody listened to the Johnson tapes? Why are these not making it into our collective memories of Vietnam? You can find him talking to senators about how and why the war can not be won, and at one point he even says (not verbatim) “I am only sending young Americans to die.”

    We always hear, as one commenter on this thread mentioned, that Nixon prolonged the war, and that was the correct history before we knew of Johnson’s tapes. But now? Johnson pursued a policy of “war with dishonor”.

    Dom

  19. actus November 29, 2005 at 10:44 am | | Reply

    “But now? Johnson pursued a policy of “war with dishonor”.”

    He indeed did. And he also looked for a piece deal. which nixon scuttled.

  20. actus November 29, 2005 at 12:42 pm | | Reply

    “He indeed did. And he also looked for a piece deal. which nixon scuttled.”

    duh. Peace. not piece.

  21. Bill November 29, 2005 at 5:29 pm | | Reply

    The Dems did not regain the White House by opposing the Vietnam War.

    The antiwar wing failed to get the nomination in 68 and when it succeeded in 72, it was crushed in the general election.

    The Dems regained the White House because of Repub malfeasance. That was the “winning” strategy then and the greater concern today.

  22. actus November 29, 2005 at 6:13 pm | | Reply

    “The Dems did not regain the White House by opposing the Vietnam War.”

    A lot like civil rights, they took a hit for doing the right thing.

  23. Cobra November 29, 2005 at 8:25 pm | | Reply

    Dave Johnson writes:

    >>>””Perhaps tax cuts in wartime, refusal to initiate a draft, and asking the public to respond not with sacrifice – of any kind – but instead to buy more consumer goods has something to do with a public that is not taking the idea seriously that we are at “war.” Maybe if the President was concerned with more than the next vote…?”

    Excellent examples, David. The fact is that, according to a noted Princeton economist, there aren’t any examples of nations cutting taxes during a time of war in recorded history. Second, you make salient points regarding the committment of the American people that this President has asked for, which amounts to zero sacrifices.

    I don’t have to rehash all the negative facts on the ground, the mounting death and casualty tolls and the stupendous hundreds of billions being borrowed from foreign governments to bankroll this quagmire, because facts apparently don’t matter to those who still support this endeavor.

    –Cobra

Leave a Reply to Dom Click here to cancel reply.