4/6/2004
This week, during a speech before an audience at the Brookings Institution, Ted Kennedy made the claim that “[url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/235539.shtml]Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam[/url].” Besides the fact that this comparison seems to be the tactic of the month for Democrats, the question still remains whether or not this is a valid claim.
Is there a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq? Ultimately I believe there is, but its not what most people think. Rather than Iraq being a “Vietnam” for Bush, as Kennedy claims, it is really more accurate to say that Iraq was President Clinton’s Vietnam.
Why? Because, during President Clinton’s time in office, the US was not able to demonstrate the political will to do what was necessary in dealing with Iraq. President Clinton was not interested in any conflict which could generate American casualties, as was demonstrated by the pullout ordered by President Clinton after Mogadishu. Unfortunately, by the end of 1998, our enemies believed that killing Americans was the way to get us to run.
During President Clinton’s two terms served, from 1992 through 2000, our policy in regards to Iraq was containment, not confrontation. This was a tactic which even former Presidential candidate Wesley Clark, a man who served under Clinton and an outspoken critic of the Iraq War, admitted was failing.
In Vietnam, our mission was also one of containment. We were there to keep the North from overrunning the South, but we were never allowed to invade the North and finish the job. Lacking the political will meant that it was just a matter of time before the North could claim victory.
Vietnam was a manufactured quagmire, and so was Iraq before President Bush came into office. I say “manufactured” because it was not like the quagmire that Europe found itself in during WWI, with soldiers dug in and massive deaths resulting from foolish charges on enemy lines.
American forces were winning the battles they fought against the North, but they were never allowed to finish the war. American forces would decimate North Vietnamese troops, only to have the North fall back, take whatever time they needed to regroup, and try again.
It’s like going into the ring with some the heavyweight boxing champ and, during the fight, asking for a breather before he knocks your head off in the ring. Well, knowing any heavyweight champ, they would just smile and proceed to remove you from the conscious world. But what if their manager kept stopping the champ, saying, “don’t finish him off, it’ll look bad.” Eventually the champ will wear down, or get frustrated. If you can’t win, why fight? On the other hand, if you are Saddam Hussein, or North Vietnam, and you have nothing to lose, why stop fighting?
See the difference? And that is where we have a true parallel.
Everyone who opposed removing Saddam and who now wants America to cut and run is asking for another Vietnam-like result. If you supported the status quo regarding Iraq, a policy of containment, you were supporting failure.
What President Bush did was to recognize, even before he was elected, that the situation with Iraq could not remain status quo. Even in 2000, while running for President, George Bush began issuing warnings to Saddam Hussein saying that, as President, he would not support the status quo strategy.
After 9/11, President Bush knew that patience in dealing with Iraq might result in thousands, or tens of thousands of additional American deaths. President Bush prevented another “Vietnam” by allowing our forces to, as VP Cheney has said, force Saddam from his Palaces to a bunker, from a bunker to a spider hole, and from a spider hole to a prison cell. Hopefully from there Saddam will go to a small wooden coffin, then into a non-descript hole somewhere in the deep desert.
But I digress…
Thanks to President Bush’s resolve, there will be no Vietnam in Iraq, and the quagmire that existed before the war stemming from our policy of containment has now been eliminated. Before the war, quagmire. After the war, progress.
Lets remember that, for 10+ years, Saddam laughed at us and did whatever he wanted, which included taking potshots at our jets at various times. Now, with Democrats attempting to attach the label of “quagmire” to Iraq, we must Senator Kennedy and others of his party to answer just a few questions. For example:
- How many billions were spent flying over 300,000 sorties in our attempts to contain Saddam?
- How many more billions keeping soldiers stationed in Kurdish territory, Saudi Arabia, and at various other places in the Middle East, again for containment?
- How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered or starved to death while Saddam built plush palaces?
- How many tens of thousands in the Middle East growing resentful of our presence and policies against Iraq during those 12 years?
- Does twelve years of failed attempts to contain Saddam sound ANYTHING like a winning strategy to you?
Sounds more like a QUAGMIRE to me!
Yes, we signed treaties with Saddam in 1991 and gave him the opportunity to show good faith. However, when he didn’t comply with resolution after resolution, what did Saddam learn about our resolve? In the end Iraq became a “Vietnam” during our 12 years of failed attempts to contain Saddam. That is, until President Bush brought Saddam to justice.
So, was Iraq more of a Vietnam for President Clinton or President Bush? The answer becomes obvious when you think about it.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
No Comments
