The Vietnam Card

If ignorance is bliss, George W must be ecstatic
--Jim Hightower

_______

Desperation is in the air when GWB must play the Vietnam card as a positive example of why we must perdure in Iraq. GWB's thinking appears flawed regarding this historical, geopolitical issue (Ranger struggles not to make any potshots over the bow).

Let's consider the U.S.'s entrance into the Republic of Vietnam, rather than its ending.

Let's also use a rifle as a mechanical analogy for the structure of all historical events. Like a rifle, all wars consist of three basic parts -- the front, the back and the middle. For the rifle to function, it must be assembled properly. The same for building a correct historical analogy.

GWB's understanding of history is as flawed as his interpretation of current national and international affairs. To be understood, Vietnam must be viewed within a proper historical context.

Presidents from Wilson through GWB have been touched in one way or another by Vietnam. All presidents from FDR through RMN were actively engaged on the issue.

The U.S. involvement with RVN started with OSS support of Escape and Evasion networks sponsored by Ho Chi Minh. U.S. fingerprints and support of French policy in Indochina were present throughout the First Indochina War. In short, the VN experience was a long-term association that was not based upon the views of a few radical unelected elements within the defense establishment.

The U.S. involvement with Southeast Asia was based upon a long-term bipartisan program called containment, which had the larger mandate to prevent the spread of communism worldwide. S.E.A. was just another brick in the wall.

When U.S. forces were committed, it was to support that larger project; the idea of a democratic R.V.N. was a secondary issue. The war in VN was, from the American side, a clearly justifiable foreign policy tool.

In fact, the earliest justifications for U.S. involvement revolved around the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). Throughout the war Thai, Korean and Australian forces (albeit in limited numbers) served in active combat in theatre.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, real or fabricated, was simply a justification to expand a war that was already being fought through policy action and military means.

In short, the elected leadership of America was dedicated to a global strategy to contain an ideological threat. And of course, when the U.S. disengaged disingenuously, there were ripples in the pond that can still be seen today. One example is a draft-dodging president visiting the old battleground (Ranger lied--it would affect his GERD negatively not to offer even one dig.)

Throughout the entire VN venture, the security of America was the real world issue. But there are no larger geopolitical issues being played out in Iraq. The entire venture is a fool's dream -- one of profit, and of arrogant imposition of an ideological structure -- which is destabilizing the entire region and is destructive to U.S. interests both in terms of its position is the world, as well as its domestic safety.

GWB refuses to acknowledge that Nixon's ending the war was a reflection of the will of the American electorate. Similarly today, the majority of American's favor a withdrawal from Iraq, but George stands fast. Karl Rove has promised him that his legacy will be favorable, somewhere down the road. Of course, he was not elected to ensure his legend for posterity, but rather, to do right by the American people and their nation.

The front, back and the middle of the Iraq enterprise is all a muddle. Lies and spin cannot change this. Let the Iraqi leaders deal with Iraq. GWB should deal with America.

As we say in the South, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.