The Tet Offensive was a major American defeat in the Viet Nam war, right? Wrong. It came to be seen as such because Walter Cronkite, John Kerry, and others convinced a significant portion of Americans that such was the case. From that point on, public opinion went downhill, and the ability of the US military to serve its purpose in Indochina went with it.
Then Richard Nixon became hounded by the Democrats. Seeing potential impeachment on his horizon, President Nixon resigned. Thereafter, there was no more stomach for the Viet Nam war. So we just packed up and left. And the Vietnamese lived happily ever after, right?
Wrong.
Liberals never cared about the Vietnamese. They only cared about winning. And that meant that that America had to lose in Vietnam. The only Vietnamese that liberals really ever cared about were the relatively few who were just like them--who lusted for power and domination over their fellow man.
American liberals got just what they wanted, and they never apologized for the mayhem. Because they won!
Following the unceremonious departure of America from Vietnam, thousands of Vietnamese were rounded up, tortured, and killed. Tens of thousands were forcibly relocated. Tens of thousands more fled the country on makeshift boats, many of which were not seaworthy, causing thousands more to die. The carnage of man's domination over man spilled over into neighboring Cambodia, where terrorists forced nearly everyone (but themselves) from their homes. Ultimately the lives of 2 million Cambodians were taken from them by the relative few who knew what was best for them. This amounted to nearly one third of the entire Cambodian population.
Abandonment is costly. Is Iraq different? It's pretty hard to say, but I think not. Will the same thing happen in Iraq when we leave? The likelihood is much greater that it will than is the likelihood that man is causing global warming. But which problem are liberals focused on?
I don't know for sure what would happen if the US and coalition forces exercised as precipitous an exit from Iraq as we did from Vietnam. But liberals don't care. Because they will have won.
The Tet Offensive was a major setback for the Vietcong--until Walter Cronkite convinced the American media, and the media in turn convinced the American people--that it wasn't. In much the same way, today, liberals highlight the negative incidents in Iraq, unfairly convincing a majority of Americans that Operation Iraqi Freedom has no chance for success. Our resolve is flagging in just the same manner as it did in Vietnam.
Because liberals don't care about Iraqis, except to use them as poster children when they are in pain. Liberals only care about winning. And in their minds, that means that America must lose the OIF campaign.
2 comments:
The bottom line, Frank, is that sometimes countries have civil wars, civil wars are always bloody, but the concept that the US should intervene to prop up one side or another in a civil war is ridiculous.
Actually, I agree with you on that one. However, we are there now. And to pull up stakes and go home will unleash a havoc only seen since we left Vietnam (well, I guess there's Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, etc.)
But you did raise in my mind an interesting question. If the US had never gone to Vietnam, would it have resulted in fewer deaths (less genocide) there and in Cambodia?
Post a Comment