[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe

Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose

Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats

Texas Flood

Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas

Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian

PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars

RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ?

Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion

Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days

Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills

Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole

Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands

Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump

Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia

329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition

Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says

Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive

Which Countries Invest In The US The Most?

The History of Barbecue

‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance

Lawsuit Reveals CDC Has ZERO Evidence Proving Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

Trumps DOJ Reportedly Quietly Looking Into Criminal Charges Against Election Officials

Volcanic Risk and Phreatic (Groundwater) eruptions at Campi Flegrei in Italy

Russia Upgrades AGS-17 Automatic Grenade Launcher!

They told us the chickenpox vaccine was no big deal—just a routine jab to “protect” kids from a mild childhood illness

Pentagon creates new military border zone in Arizona

For over 200 years neurological damage from vaccines has been noted and documented

The killing of cardiologist in Gaza must be Indonesia's wake-up call

Marandi: Israel Prepares Proxies for Next War with Iran?


War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: Four Unspeakable Truths
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/120404
Published: Mar 8, 2007
Author: Jacob Weisberg
Post Date: 2007-03-08 07:38:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 3161
Comments: 96

What politicians won't admit about Iraq

When it comes to Iraq, there are two kinds of presidential candidates. The disciplined ones, like Hillary Clinton, carefully avoid acknowledging reality. The more candid, like John McCain and Barack Obama, sometimes blurt out the truth, but quickly apologize.

For many presidential aspirants, the first unspeakable truth is simply that the war was a mistake. This issue came to a head recently with Hillary Clinton's obstinate refusal to acknowledge that voting to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Though fellow Democrats John Edwards and Christopher Dodd have managed to say they erred in voting for the 2002 war resolution, Clinton is joined by Joe Biden and a full roster of Republicans in her inability to disgorge the M-word. Perhaps most absurdly, Chuck Hagel has called Bush's 21,500-troop "surge" the biggest blunder since Vietnam without ever saying that the war itself was the big blunder and that he favored it.

Reasons for refusing to admit that the war itself was a mistake are surprisingly similar across party lines. It is seldom easy to admit you were wrong—so let me repeat what I first acknowledged in Slate in January 2004, that I am sorry to have given even qualified support to the war. But what is awkward for columnists is nearly impossible for self-justifying politicians, who resist acknowledging error at a glandular level. Specific political calculations help to explain their individual decisions. Hillary, for instance, worries that confessing her failure will make it easier for hawks to savage her if she gets the nomination. But at bottom, the impulse is always the same. Politicians are stubborn, afraid of looking weak, and fearful that any admission of error will be cast as flip-flopping and inconsistency.

A second truth universally unacknowledged is that American soldiers being killed, grotesquely maimed, and then treated like whining freeloaders at Walter Reed Hospital are victims as much as "heroes." John Kerry was the first to violate this taboo when he was still a potential candidate last year. Kerry appeared to tell a group of California college students that it sucks to go and fight in Iraq. A variety of conservative goons instantly denounced Kerry for disrespecting the troops. An advanced sufferer of Senatorial Infallibility Syndrome, Kerry resisted retracting his comment for a while, but eventually regretted what he called a "botched joke" about President Bush.

Lost in the debate about whether Kerry meant what came out of his mouth was the fact that what he said was largely true. Americans who attend college and have good employment options after graduation are unlikely to sign up for free tours of the Sunni Triangle. People join the military for a variety of reasons, of course, but since the Iraq war turned ugly, the all-volunteer Army has been lowering educational standards, raising enlistment bonuses, and looking past criminal records. The lack of better choices is a larger and larger factor in the choice of military service. Our troops in Iraq may not see themselves as cannon fodder or victims of presidential misjudgments, but that doesn't mean they're not.

Reality No. 3, closely related to No. 2 and following directly from No. 1, is that the American lives lost in Iraq have been lives wasted. Barack Obama crossed this boundary on his first trip to Iowa as an announced candidate when he declared at a rally, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." With lightning speed, Obama said he had misspoken and apologized to military families.

John McCain used the same proscribed term when he announced his candidacy on Late Night With David Letterman last week. "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." This was a strange admission, given McCain's advocacy of a surge bigger than Bush's. In any case, McCain followed Obama by promptly regretting his choice of words. (The patriotically correct term for losing parts of your body in a pointless war in Mesopotamia is, of course, "sacrifice.") These episodes all followed Kinsley's law of gaffes. The mistake Kerry, Obama, and McCain made was telling the truth before retreating to the approved banality and euphemism

A fourth and final near-certainty, which is in some ways the hardest for politicians to admit, is that America is losing or has already lost the Iraq war. The United States is the strongest nation in the history of the world and does not think of itself as coming in second in two-way contests. When it does so, it is slow to accept that it has been beaten. American political and military leaders were reluctant to acknowledge or utter that they had miscalculated and wasted tens of thousands of lives in Vietnam, many of them after failure and withdrawal were assured. Even today, American politicians tend not to describe Vietnam as a straightforward defeat. Something similar is happening in Iraq, where the most that leaders typically say is that we "risk" losing and must not do so.

Democrats avoid the truth about the tragedy in Iraq for fear of being labeled unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops. Republicans avoid it for fear of being blamed for the disaster or losing defense and patriotism as cards to play against Democrats. Politicians on both sides believe that acknowledging the unpleasant truth will weaken them and undermine those still attempting to persevere on our behalf. But nations and individuals do not grow weaker by confronting the truth. They grow weaker by avoiding it and coming to believe their own evasions.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161385/fr/rss/

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

#5. To: leveller, ALL (#0)

American political and military leaders were reluctant to acknowledge or utter that they had miscalculated and wasted tens of thousands of lives in Vietnam, many of them after failure and withdrawal were assured.

The American left (media and anti-war movement) are unable to acknowledge that they played a key role in that defeat. Because they dishonestly portrayed the results of the Tet offensive in 1968 as a defeat rather than the immense victory it was. Even the North Vietnamese have ackknowledged this. But not the American left. And the media and anti-warriors have been doing the same thing since day one of the Iraq war. Turning victory into defeat. Congratulations...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   14:03:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: BeAChooser, Burkeman1 (#5) (Edited)

The American left (media and anti-war movement) are unable to acknowledge that they played a key role in that defeat. Because they dishonestly portrayed the results of the Tet offensive in 1968 as a defeat rather than the immense victory it was. Even the North Vietnamese have ackknowledged this. But not the American left. And the media and anti-warriors have been doing the same thing since day one of the Iraq war. Turning victory into defeat. Congratulations...

Oye vay. And why am I not surprised by your BOT cookie cutter reponse.

Uh huh - the Vietnam War was lost by the librul media and anti-war movement and if only those 2 thingies did not exist, we would have whooped the North Vietnamese asses and their communist Chinese benefactors' asses something fierce. We would have had to genocide most of Vietnam to get this pyrrhic victory and we would have had 200,000 American soldier body bags come home, but victory was at hand if only we had stayed loooonger.

And here's the rub, by now we'd be engaging in free trade with a thriving democracy if it weren't for the librul press and anti-war groups - Ooops. We are engaging in free trade with Vietnam now and our gov't could care less whether the Vietnamese gov't is comprised of communists or pink purple eaters. But it mattered 40 years ago because of...fill in the blanks, BAC...I'll give you a hint...the missing words have the initials, M-I-C.

Get a clue, BAC - an ill begotten war ( faux Gulf of Tonkin incident)has bad results. Similarly it applies to the Iraq War. Or here's something simpler for your mind to ponder as it applies to our various wars for lies - "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."

P.S. Have you ever fought in a war apart from a war of words in cyberspace, BAC?

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-08   14:19:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: scrapper2, ALL (#6)

We would have had to genocide most of Vietnam to get this pyrrhic victory and we would have had 200,000 American soldier body bags come home

Apparently you are unaware of the fact that the North Vietnamese commander who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam is on record saying that following Tet, General Giap was ready to sue for peace. He said we could have won the war at that point if we'd only cut the Ho Chi Minh trail and bombed the North. At that point they thought the war was lost. But then they saw the way the American media was presenting Tet, saw the actions of the anti-war movement and saw a weak-willed democRAT president. And knew they only had to wait ... that the American media and anti-war movement would accomplish what they'd been unable to accomplish.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   14:46:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: BeAChooser (#8)

The below site has the Wall Street Journal interview of Colonel Bui Tin on 3 August 1995. I think this is what you're referencing, since he's the guy who accepted the surrender. It's posted elsewhere also, this site was convenient. He doesn't say that they were ready to sue for terms, but it is an interesting interview.

http://www.viet- myths.net/buitin.htm

The important part is:

"Q: What about the results? A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was. "

historian1944  posted on  2007-03-08   15:05:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: historian1944, ALL (#10)

The below site has the Wall Street Journal interview of Colonel Bui Tin on 3 August 1995. I think this is what you're referencing, since he's the guy who accepted the surrender. It's posted elsewhere also, this site was convenient. He doesn't say that they were ready to sue for terms, but it is an interesting interview.

http://www.viet- http://myths.net/buitin.htm

Pardon me, you are correct. It was General Giap, commander of the North's forces, who admitted in his memoirs that his army was shattered in Tet and that he was ready to sue for peace. He said he changed his mind after watching American news programs that proclaimed the Viet Cong the winners in the TET offensive and after watching the American antiwar protesters attack their president and attack the war effort.

*********

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1113369/posts

"Analysis: A mini-Tet offensive in Iraq?

by Arnaud de Borchgrave

WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI)

... snip ...

Before plunging into an orgy of erroneous and invidious historical parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, a reminder about what led to the U.S. defeat in Southeast Asia is timely.

Iraq will only be another Vietnam if the home front collapses, as it did following the Tet offensive, which began on the eve of the Chinese New Year, Jan. 31, 1968. The surprise attack was designed to overwhelm some 70 cities and towns, and 30 other strategic objectives simultaneously. By breaking a previously agreed truce for Tet festivities, master strategist Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap in Hanoi calculated that South Vietnamese troops would be caught with defenses down.

After the first few hours of panic, the South Vietnamese troops reacted fiercely. They did the bulk of the fighting and took some 6,000 casualties. Vietcong units not only did not reach a single one of their objectives -- except when they arrived by taxi at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, blew their way through the wall into the compound and guns blazing made it into the lobby before they were wiped out by U.S. Marines -- but they lost some 50,000 killed and at least that many wounded. Giap had thrown some 70,000 troops into a strategic gamble that was also designed to overwhelm 13 of the 16 provincial capitals and trigger a popular uprising. But Tet was an unmitigated military disaster for Hanoi and its Vietcong troops in South Vietnam. Yet that was not the way it was reported in U.S. and other media around the world. It was television's first war. And some 50 million Americans at home saw the carnage of dead bodies in the rubble, and dazed Americans running around.

As the late veteran war reporter Peter Braestrup documented in "Big Story" -- a massive, two-volume study of how Tet was covered by American reporters -- the Vietcong offensive was depicted as a military disaster for the United States. By the time the facts emerged a week or two later from RAND Corp. interrogations of prisoners and defectors, the damage had been done. Conventional media wisdom had been set in concrete. Public opinion perceptions in the United States changed accordingly.

RAND made copies of these POW interrogations available. But few reporters seemed interested. In fact, the room where they were on display was almost always empty. Many Vietnamese civilians who were fence sitters or leaning toward the Vietcong, especially in the region around Hue City, joined government ranks after they witnessed Vietcong atrocities. Several mass graves were found with some 4,000 unarmed civil servants and other civilians, stabbed or with skulls smashed by clubs. The number of communist defectors, known as "chieu hoi," increased fourfold. And the "popular uprising" anticipated by Giap, failed to materialize. The Tet offensive also neutralized much of the clandestine communist infrastructure.

As South Vietnamese troops fought Vietcong remnants in Cholon, the predominantly Chinese twin city of Saigon, reporters, sipping drinks in the rooftop bar of the Caravelle Hotel, watched the fireworks 2 miles away. America's most trusted newsman, CBS' Walter Cronkite, appeared for a standup piece with distant fires as a backdrop. Donning helmet, Cronkite declared the war lost. It was this now famous television news piece that persuaded President Johnson six weeks later, on March 31, not to run. His ratings had plummeted from 80 percent when he assumed the presidency upon Kennedy's death to 30 percent after Tet. His handling of the war dropped to 20 percent, his credibility shot to pieces.

Until Tet, a majority of Americans agreed with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that failure was not an option. It was Kennedy who changed the status of U.S. military personnel from advisers to South Vietnamese troops to full-fledged fighting men. By the time of Kennedy's assassination in Nov. 22, 1963, 16,500 U.S. troops had been committed to the war. Johnson escalated all the way to 542,000. But defeat became an option when Johnson decided the war was unwinnable and that he would lose his bid for the presidency in November 1968. Hanoi thus turned military defeat into a priceless geopolitical victory.

With the Vietcong wiped out in the Tet offensive, North Vietnamese regulars moved south down the Ho Chi Minh trails through Laos and Cambodia to continue the war. Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.

Hanoi's Easter offensive in March 1972 was another disaster for the communists. Some 70,000 North Vietnamese troops were wiped out -- by the South Vietnamese who did all the fighting. The last American soldier left Vietnam in March 1973. And the chances of the South Vietnamese army being able to hack it on its own were reasonably good. With one proviso: Continued U.S. military assistance with weapons and hardware, including helicopters. But Congress balked, first by cutting off military assistance to Cambodia, which enabled Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge communists to take over, which, in turn, was followed by a similar Congressional rug pulling from under the South Vietnamese, that led to rapid collapse of morale in Saigon.

The unraveling, with Congress pulling the string, was so rapid that even Giap was caught by surprise. As he recounts in his memoirs, Hanoi had to improvise a general offensive -- and then rolled into Saigon two years before they had reckoned it might become possible.

That is the real lesson for the U.S. commitment to Iraq. Whatever one thought about the advisability of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States is there with 100,000 troops and a solid commitment to endow Iraq with a democratic system of government. While failure is not an option for Bush, it clearly is for Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who called Iraq the president's Vietnam. It is, of course, no such animal. But it could become so if Congressional resolve dissolves.

Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."

Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Kennedy should remember that Vietnam was the war of his brother who saw the conflict in the larger framework of the Cold War and Nikita Khrushchev's threats against West Berlin. It would behoove Kennedy to see Iraq in the larger context of the struggle to bring democracy, not only to Iraq, but the entire Middle East.

(Arnaud de Borchgrave covered Tet as Newsweek's chief foreign correspondent and had seven tours in Vietnam between 1951 under the French and 1972.)

*************

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   19:05:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 30.

        There are no replies to Comment # 30.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 30.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]