History Lessons Not Welcome

The last time the US looked to the Left and the Democrats to define what was a civil war and when we were "defeated", was during the Viet Nam War.  Back then, they said that the Viet Nam War was simply a civil war that we shouldn't be involved in.  Of course that was completely wrong, and the movement of the NVA into Laos and Cambodia shortly after their victory in the south put the proper face on what the war really was about.
The Left and the Dems (and a TV News Anchor...sound familiar?) declared our defeat after the Tet Offensive, and of course that was also completely wrong.  The Tet Offensive was a stunning military defeat for the Viet Cong.  Though US deaths spiked at that time, the Viet Cong deaths were even more horrendous and they ceased to exist as a military formation from that time on.  All the fighting after that point was conducted by the NVA.
The end result of the Left's and Dem's inability to understand warfare at even the most basic level, and their outright cowardice, was that they believed we were defeated in Viet Nam and that our best option was to cut and run (is any of this sounding familiar yet?)  Which we did.  After we abandoned the South Vietnamese, the ensuing fight and political cleansing resulted in over 2.5 million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotian deaths, twenty straight years of political upheaval in those three countries, and almost thirty years of economic stagnation.
The Left and the Dems have never acknowledge that they were wrong about Viet Nam.  I'd say the opposite is true; they view their opposition to the Viet Nam War and our abandonment of the Vietnamese people as a shining star in their past that guides their every movement today.  Why we would be looking to that group to define and set a course for the Iraq War is completely beyond my ability to comprehend.   

Comments

[MissBirdlegs in AL]

I'm not lookin' to that group for anything substantial, are you? The older I get, the less patience I have with drivel and that's all I've heard from most of these personally ambitious folks. The only history they seem to know anything about is what they've made up to suit their agendas. I'm 66, and we seem to have lived in entirely different countries, with entirely different histories.

[madconductor]

You touched on a point I have not thought about much - that the left still considers their cut and run win in Vietnam as a glorious achievement. And you are exactly right. So 2.5 million people died and all they can regurgitate is a Tet offensive as a loss, My Lai, and John Kerrypuff's less than stellar performance while developing his purple heart collector hobby.
My son just left for Iraq. I have encouraged him to be flexible in his thinking and determined in his work. I also encouraged him not to trust the Democrats in providing the military what it needs but to be resourceful and get it himself. And not to expect anything from them when he returns. I suspect that the Vietnam attitude will start to prevail in the left wing shop and, like Vietnam, they will try their grand strategy again. After all, they're sure it worked last time.

[Democrat]

You've got this group of conservatives abd liberals who want to make the Iraq War a copy of the Vietnam War. There's Cindy Sheehan and that group who holds demonstrations and sings songs, and there are people like "Diggs" who makes postings like his.

There are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, but there are just as many differences. One big difference is that today there's no youth counterculture like there was in the 1960s and 1970s when the baby boomers were coming of age, so you don't have this anti-military thing going on like you did then. Looking at Digg's picture, I suspect he is too young to remember what it was like.

Another difference is there's no draft, so you don't have people marching in the streets against the Iraq War. Rangel's proposal to start a draft is sheer hyperbole of the sort you see from politicians on all kinds of issues. You know like the conservatives and Teri Schiavo. Same sort of deal. But the reality is that the Iraq War is fought by volunteers who have joined for a variety of reasons, including those big bonuses.

Another difference is that in Iraq, there are actually some real issues at stake. Vietnam was a completely theoretical war. There weren't any direct consequences of defeat. The U.S. defeat in Iraq is going to change the map of the place where we get our oil, so the consequences will be far worse than the Vietnam defeat.

War is the use of force to compel an enemy to do your will. The U.S. doesn't even control Iraq's capital. We are doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wanted us to do. The sooner the leadership, or what passes for it, of this country wakes up to that reality the better chance we have of limiting the damage to come.

[Diggs]

I expect the Lefties and Dems to do exactly what they did thirty years ago. With precisely the same outcome. They will cut the Iraqis free, claiming that there is no strategic reason to put additional military effort into Iraq. The only problem with that thinking is that al queda and Iran understand that there is a huge strategic gain should Iraq fall to them. Both are expending a great amount of manpower and financial resources to destablize the country, and would not do so just to "free" the Iraqi people.
For al queda, they wish to have a base from which to continue their destabilization of the rest of the middle east. For Iran, they get to eliminate a thousand-year-old thorn in their side and bring fellow shia (albeit arabs) under their sphere of influence. Both would also gain influence within the muslim world for "defeating" the Great Satan.
Because the Dems and Leftists still don't see any problem with the 2.5 million deaths in SE Asia after our withdrawal from Viet Nam, I don't expect them to see any problem with the deaths that are sure to follow a US withdrawal from Iraq. The big difference between the two is that it is clear that North Viet Nam never posed any real threat against America, but al Queda and Iran do pose a threat to America. The loss of Viet Nam only doomed a few million Asians to death and a lifetime of slavery and poverty, so it's understandable how Leftists and Dems could still view that as a "victory". The loss of Iraq and the death of tens or hundreds of thousands of brown iraqi people will also be called a "victory" for the Left and Dems, but it will increase the threat to America. If the Lefties and Dems think that we are less safe now because we are in Iraq, wait until we leave Iraq in defeat.

[Democrat]

It would seem that George Bush's father's Iraq Study Group is going to advise that the United States leave the country. They won't call it that, because they want to allow for a way to save face. Is the Iraq Study Group a bunch of "lefties and Dems?"

[Democrat]

By the way, I understand the costs of the U.S. defeat in Iraq. This one's going to hurt. The big winner is Iran, which has run circles (figuratively and literally) the United States. Diggs, it looks like you'll get your wish and that Bush will reject the ISG recommendations and stay there. Who will benefit from that?

[Linda Morgan]

Democrat said: "Looking at Digg's picture, I suspect he is too young to remember what it was like."

If I could just roll back my own personal clock one year for every time somebody thinks Diggs is as young as he looks... I'd still be - and look - old enough to remember it all.

[Diggs]

Ahh, lindav, thanks. I look even younger now, since I have my retirement papers in.

[Diggs]

Democrat, if someone states correctly that every maple tree is deciduous (they are, you don't need to google that), it is not correct to say that ever deciduous tree is a maple.
Likewise, just because it's true that every Lefty wants to abandon the Iraqi people to be slaughtered, it's not true that everyone who wants to abandon the Iraqi people to be slaughtered is a Lefty.

[Democrat]

So, Diggs, you don't intend to answer any questions straight up? Why is that?

[Democrat]

You never answered my question of what evidence you have for having claimed that the Democrats have worked hard toward defeat and accepted it as necessary and good. Why not? Are you afraid to admit that you have no justification other than what you've invented out of whole cloth?

[Democrat]

And what about that ISG? It's headed by James Baker, and it is recommending withdrawal. You declined to answer my question about the ISG being "a bunch of Lefties and Dems." Why? Are you afraid to admit that you are wrong? Why?