The lessons of Vietnam, according to the left!
Ever since the counter culture of the early sixties to the present day the Socialist Left of this country has repeatedly denounced US Military intervention. Throughout the history of the US the opposition to conflicts have occurred, but in recent history, as noted above, they have consistently used the war in Vietnam as their personal rallying cry against any form of aggression. They use nomenclature such as “military defeat”; “quagmire”, etc to convince Americans that any form of aggression that utilizes our armed forces will undoubtedly result in a “Vietnam”. They (Left) have been most vocal with the war in Iraq when attempting to debate American policy and that if you have been following the political discussions they have consistently implied that we are in a quagmire, even before the war started. In fact, the election cycles for just about anyone running for office on the left, have tailored their arguments along these lines with the help of the MSM.
January 2002 New York Times editorial pages wrote: "Not since America's humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam more than a quarter-century ago has our foreign policy relied so heavily on non-nuclear military force, or the threat of it, to defend American interests around the world."
January 2003 Times editorial pages wrote: the "first lesson of the Vietnam era" was that "Americans should not be sent to die for aims the country only vaguely understands and accepts." The "second lesson of Vietnam" was that the "country should never enter into a conflict without a clear exit strategy."
Note: Obama wants to invade an ally (Pakistan) because they are not doing enough to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, but nowhere in his tough saber rattling did he even mention how he would exit after he enters.
The war started in March 2003!
The left see Vietnam as a tool for their party as the Democratic Congress of 1975 did when they cut off the funding of support for the Vietnam government. They were successful in stopping a war that they detested and are trying the same tactics of old to compare the current conflict in those terms.
History is rife with events and statistics that show when we fled Vietnam in defeat, the Khmer Rouge entered the vacuum and slaughtered millions that supported the Americans through starvation, execution and forced labor in their quest to impose an extreme form of social engineering on the Cambodians to form agrarian communism where the people were forced to work on state farms and forced labor camps (The killing fields).
When the Democratic Congress cut off funding and we started our retreat, the Ambassador to Cambodia, John Gunther Dean, offered to evacuate the Cambodian Prime Minister Sirik Matak because of his support of our efforts. Matak wrote the following letter to Ambassador Dean turning down his offer of safety:
Dear Excellency and Friend: I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we all are born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans]. Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.
Matak was executed a few days later!
William Kristol (Weekly Standard) expands on this weakness of ours when he refers to a speech Ronald Reagan gave in August 1980 during the Presidential Campaign when he stated:"As the years dragged on, we were told that peace would come if we would simply stop interfering and go home. It is time we recognized that ours was, in truth, a noble cause. . . .
There is a lesson for all of us in Vietnam.
If we are forced to fight, we must have the means and determination to prevail."
When Al Quada utilizes the same nomenclature to describe America as a “paper tiger” who will not withstand to rigors of war and have the stomach to see this through as does the Socialist left we should take note. This is why the enemy had endorsed the Left during the election process here. It is why they want a Democrat in the White House, because they are predictably paper tigers.