|
SwiftVets.com Service to Country
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10 Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004 Posts: 6503
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject: John O'Neill: "Don't Repeat Mistake of 1974" |
|
|
Don't Repeat Mistake of 1974
by John O'Neill
Posted Oct 20, 2006
Dispirited conservatives and Republicans rightfully appalled at the Cunningham, Abramoff, and Foley scandals should remember history as they contemplate not voting in the 2006 elections because of disillusionment.
In early 1973, the Dow approached new highs in a booming economy. In the 1972 election, the new left was rejected in almost every state. The Paris Peace Treaty was concluded with North Vietnam memorializing its pledge not to interfere militarily in the affairs of South Vietnam. The nation was prosperous and at peace.
Worst President
Within a short time, the mainstream media were able to dismember and destroy the Nixon Administration, using as their sword the Watergate affair. In the congressional elections of 1974, Republican candidates were pounded, losing 48 House seats and five Senate seats.
Until the 1990s, the so-called “Watergate Babies” (i.e. left-wing Democrats) ruled Congress. As its first act after the 1974 election, the new Congress cut off all aid to South Vietnam. Within a short period of time, this led to Communist conquest of all of Indochina, the massacre of at least 4 million of our friends in the killing fields of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, and the displacement of millions of “boat people.”
In 1976, the left wing captured the White House with the worst President of modern times—Jimmy Carter. By 1979, the U.S. economy was in shambles with 12% inflation, 11% unemployment, and vast deficits. Our military was reduced to a shadow. With even our embassy officials held hostage in Tehran, the United States became a powerless joke to the world. It may be fairly said that but for Ronald Reagan the days of our democracy might well have been numbered by the consequences of the 1974 election.
It is not clear why the voters of 1974 thought it wise or just to indirectly cause the destruction of millions of allies in Southeast Asia because of the cover-up of a minor burglary at the Watergate. They certainly did not know that by their votes they would punish themselves severely, leaving, by the end of the Carter years, a U.S. economy that was a burned-out hulk and a nation that was humiliated.
I wonder whether history will repeat itself this year. Despite mainstream media distortion, the economy is in its strongest condition since the Reagan years with low unemployment and inflation rates and diminishing fiscal deficits. We have recovered from the implosion of the Clinton Internet bubble and the shock of Sept. 11, 2001. We have crippled al Qaeda, assembled an international coalition to deal with North Korea and made reasonable progress in defeating at least the foreign insurgency in Iraq. We have seen no terrorist attack on our heartland in more than five years.
Despite the second-guessing by Democrats who have no military experience and by a few veterans who question the Iraq policy, an overwhelming majority of active-duty personnel support the Bush policies and the Republican administration. For example, in 2004, an Army Times poll of active-duty military personnel showed less than 15% voting for Kerry and more than 80% voting for Bush. Despite the token military veterans trotted out by the Democratic Party as Trojan horses in Republican areas, it is clear that a large majority of veterans and active-duty personnel reject the “cut-and-run” policies of the fringe element now in control of the Democratic Party.
In the spring of 1975, I watched in horror our refusal to aid our South Vietnamese friends and their collapse. I watched our friends die by the millions in the gulags of Cambodia and Laos and in frenzied attempts to escape on the high seas, and I remembered my friends, who died in Vietnam, and whose sacrifice was so casually discarded by the “Watergate Babies.” I lost faith in the United States for many years.
I wonder now if we are so blind and ignorant of history to actually allow a new crop of “Watergate Babies” to install clearly unfit leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), John Conyers (D.-Mich.), and impeached Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) as the guiding force in our nation. Considering that a Democratic win could mean the rise of John Murtha (D.-Pa.) from Abscam to majority leader, and Hastings from impeached federal judge to House Intelligence chairman, it is no exaggeration to say both parties have bad actors. The distinction is that the Democrats promote them and the Republicans fire them.
Finally, I wonder if voters (like those in 1974) are going to actually vote for the betrayal of our Iraqi and Afghan allies and the sacrifices of our troops. I wonder if our Iraq War veterans will watch the mass execution or flight of those who fought with them and believed in us. If so, history teaches us that in the end we will suffer terribly ourselves. This is particularly true here, where we face adversaries who have said they will not stop at the waters’ edge but have already reached across the ocean to destroy our nation’s largest buildings and thousands of our people.
Mr. O'Neill is a Houston attorney who clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist during the Supreme Court's October 1974 term. He authored the New York Times No. 1 bestseller, "Unfit for Command" in 2004.
Not a subscriber to HUMAN EVENTS? Sign up now!
Human Events |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Schadow Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004 Posts: 936 Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A timely corollary to O'Neill's fine piece appears in National Review. James Robbins explores the press reaction to the whispers of similarity between the setbacks in Baghdad and the tragic misinterpretation of Tet (emphasis added).
Quote: | Tet? Not Yet
Victory by association.
By James S. Robbins
When President Bush said that there might be some parallels between the Iraq and Vietnam wars, you would think he had declared unilateral surrender, judging from the press reaction. He mildly agreed with Thomas Friedman’s assertion that the recent uptick in violence in Iraq (during Ramadan, note) could be the “jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive,” and the frenzy began. It may have been a first for the President, but the Tet analogy is nothing new. Arthur Schlesinger touted Tet with reference to Fallujah in 2004. I first started debunking Tet comparisons back in 2003, during an earlier spate of Ramdan-related violence. For all the Tet talk, we have yet to see anything remotely like it.
It is not a very good analogy, even with the qualifier “jihadist equivalent,” which is not setting the bar very high. Take for example the respective levels of violence. There were 73 US dead in Iraq for the first three weeks of October, 2006. The average number killed during three weeks in 1968 in Vietnam was 957, over thirteen times higher. As well, a simple uptick in indiscriminate violence is hardly something on the level of Tet, which was a comprehensive, three-phased plan to foment mass uprisings in South Vietnam as prelude to a conventional invasion. The planning a preparation for the attack took at least nine months. It was executed nearly simultaneously in cities and hamlets across the country. And even though it was a failure, the insurgents in Iraq have shown none of the strategic or operational acumen of our enemies in the 1960s.
But they really do not need to since the North Vietnamese already did the work for them. The most important difference between Tet and any similar (or dissimilar) situation today is that the insurgents in Iraq know what the North Vietnamese did not know, at least at first — they do not have to actually win a battle to achieve a strategic victory.
The reaction to the president’s statement is a case in point. The insurgents do not have to conduct a series of coordinated major operations, they only need to create enough chaos to harness the power of analogy. They do not have to mount major attacks, but just seem to mount them. So long as there are journalists willing to make the comparison to other, more significant battles of the past, the insurgents achieve victory by association.
The terrorists have long studied how our media operates. Check out an August 2006 jihadist chat room post by Najd al-Rawi of the Global Islamic Media Front entitled "The Global Media: A Work Paper for Invading the US Media.” Ironically, among the people the insurgents seek to influence, al-Rawi lists “well-known American writers such as [Thomas] Friedman.” I am not saying Friedman is complicit in some kind of terror plot; I am saying the terrorists know how writers generate story lines, and they seek to provide the hooks.
Nevertheless, it doesn’t always work. Recently an insurgent group release a video of (they claimed) the bodies of American servicemen being dragged through the streets. Shades of Mogadishu 1994? It was clearly an attempt to evoke that event and the withdrawal that followed, but the manipulation was a little too obvious and it did not catch on. Another and more fitting attempt at engaging the media’s propensity for seeking Vietnam analogies was the planned attack last spring on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. (See my original piece on it here . ) Nothing would get the Tet comparison going better than an embassy attack, since during the actual Tet offensive the poorly planned, ineffectively executed and quickly dispatched strike on the Saigon embassy was immediately dubbed a “symbolic victory” for the enemy by the American media. A similar attack in Baghdad would also not have to achieve anything to enjoy the same decisive status.
Analogies are exercises in perception management, they have nothing to do with the actual course of the insurgency or the facts on the ground. The press is reacting so fervidly to the president’s statement because they have been pushing the Vietnam analogy all along, with its connotations of “quagmire” and defeat. To say that the president “admits” that there are parallels to Vietnam is hardly news. Both conflicts are revolutionary insurgencies, and most irregular or unconventional wars are similar at that level of generality. However, while one can draw parallels in some respects, in the most significant respect one cannot. There is no North Vietnam, no PAVN, and no chance of an escalation to conventional warfare under current conditions. The enemy force that came crashing through the gates of our Embassy in Saigon was not a guerilla army wearing black pajamas, but a conventional force riding Soviet tanks. The war in Iraq cannot be lost that way. But perhaps it can another way.
If you want a good Vietnam analogy, look to electoral politics. The 1974 midterm congressional elections demonstrated the power of the left wing of the Democratic party as antiwar congressional candidates swept into power. The Democrats, already in the majority, took 43 Republican seats, some of them in solid GOP districts. One of the last acts of the emboldened 93rd Congress was the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut aid to South Vietnam and left the Paris peace agreement unenforceable. The House passed the bill after Senate action on December 11, 1974. Exactly one week later, North Vietnamese leaders convened in Hanoi to formulate their final attack plan. By the end of April, 1975, South Vietnam was in its death throes, and the last evacuees were being lifted off the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon.
If the Democrats take one or both houses of Congress this election, putatively riding a wave of anti-war fervor, very little funding for the conflict in Iraq will survive. We may yet again see Americans being choppered to safety as another former ally is abandoned, to insurgents, to foreign intervention, o a combination of both. If you want analogies, look to ’74, not ’68. Tet was a victory, won by American arms. Six years later we lost the war by a stroke of the pen.
— James S. Robbins is author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point , and is currently writing a book on the Tet Offensive. |
Source
Schadow _________________ Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|