"Bush's Vietnam"

That infamous caption for the battle in Iraq has been a favorite of the pacifist cut & run left since nearly the inception of the effort to liberate Iraq.

However, Senator Ted "Quagmire" Kennedy seems to crave, most passionately, an identity as the senior government leader in opposition to President Bush's leadership. "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam," Kennedy said... (CNN, 4/05/2004) , (CBS, 1/17/2005) , (ABC, 1/09/2007) , to cite a few examples.

Our enemy's media outlet, Al Jazeera, is only too happy to trumpet the refrain of defeatism by Quagmire Kennedy, the sort of doubt-filled, self-destructive (and deadly) pondering that has marked the senator's public life since he crawled out of the Chappaquiddick :
"...are we a force that is perceived to be expanding the kind of uncertainty and savagery and revolution that's taking place there?" (Let us not forget the senator's claim that Saddam's rape rooms were now open under U.S. management.)


Liberals and other critics of the US military action in Iraq seem to suffer from Selective Memory Syndrome when it comes to the lessons of Vietnam. The most memorable number for them is 58,000- the number of US casualties. Certainly, every one of those precious American lives that were lost is a tragedy and deserves to be remembered with honor. From a human (not just American) and historical perspective, however, the more important number to remember is 3,500,000- the estimated number of human souls lost in the Communist holocaust that followed our withdrawl from Vietnam.
Or perhaps it's 2,500,000- those slaughtered in the killing Fields of Cambodia alone.
At very least, 1,400,000- the refugees forced from their homes to flee for their lives.

Ironically, it's the self-hating liberals in this country (riddled with guilt over America's wealth, success, and influence) that usually accuse conservative pro-Americans of not caring enough about the rest of the world's peoples (especially the oppressed and disenfranchised indigents in third world countries) whom are now demanding that we abandon the peaceful and freedom-seeking Iraqis because they're "not worth one more American life".

I question whether the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, and Gore are really so much concerned about protecting American lives, as they are in protecting their own reputations or credibility. In order for them to be right on this- the gravest issue of this generation- America has to fail in Iraq. Understand their dichotomy: If America succeeds in Iraq, they're proven wrong. It's that simple; if America wins, they lose.

If our current efforts (or other strategies faithful to the same basic principles) are successful in helping a free and democratic Iraq to rid herself of Islamofascist tyranny (by one group or another), if they become allies in the struggle against terrorism, and they can prosper as an open society not plagued with constant threats to security and civil order...then Bush was right, and they were wrong. They'll be revealed for the dangerously indecisive fools that they are.

Kennedy has doggedly battled Bush from the beginning. He opposed the 2002 vote that authorized military force to liberate Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power — a vote he called "the best vote I've cast in my 44 years in the United States Senate". He's painted himself into a corner, and his bloated ego won't let him quit now. America must fail in Iraq for him to be right. For him, getting involved in that mess was a lost cause from the beginning, doomed to failure and not worth the effort; certainly not worth risking a life over. Chappaquiddick Teddy all over again.

John Kerry's credibility on judging the potential cost (in human lives) of U.S. withdrawl while the enemy is still a threat has not improved in over 35 years. When interviewed in 1971 by Dick Cavett about the concern for potential Communist violence against our allies if the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, Kerry (mouthpiece for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and eyeing a 2nd run for Congress) opined (in his smarmy Thurston Howell III accent) that "...at most there might be five thousand people killed- a number so small that it was 'lunacy' to talk about it." [Excerpted from Unfit For Command by John E. O'Neil]

His judgement was off by about 3,495,000 human lives sacrificed and nearly one and a half million driven from their homeland. Because America cut and ran.

And they want to do it again.

Then it would be another Vietnam.

And the power-hungry Democrats and turncoat Republicans and all the Bush-haters would cry in unison: "See! See! We told you this was another Vietnam!" Self-fulfilled prophecy.

The surest way to make the Iraq liberation become "another Vietnam" would be for the US military to pull out too soon. As banks are wont to say, there are "substantial penalties for early withdrawl".

Especially for those left behind.

Brad