This week, in a rambling anti-Bush rant, Sen. Ted Kennedy said,"Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam."
In the spirit of Good Friday, I'm ready to forgive Teddy for theabsurd overstatement. After all, it's not his fault he can't reallyremember Vietnam. Sure he was old enough to remember it; he justwasn't sober enough.
Still, what is with this obsession by those on the left tocompare every use of military force to the only war we ever lost?It seems obvious that the Iraq war and Vietnam are two entirelyseparate ventures. But maybe I'm just not as "nuanced" as theDemocrats, so I'll let Mr. Kennedy explain it tome.
"We're facing a quagmire in Iraq," Kennedy said, "just as wefaced a quagmire in Vietnam."
There's that Q-word again. Next thing you know, the Democratswill try to pull a Donald Trump and get the word "quagmire"trademarked.
Just what is meant by comparing a war to Vietnam or calling it aquagmire? What is the implication? Read between the lines, and it'seasy enough to see:
Vietnam was a quagmire and we lost there. Iraq is a quagmire andwe will lose there, too. You might as well call Iraq Waterloo.
Kennedy, the conservative senator from Massachusetts, is anexperienced politician. He knows his words have the potential to beheard around the world. So what is to gain by uttering such adefeatist statement? Nothing whatsoever, except the emboldenment ofour enemies.
It appears those enemies are already taking notice. Muqtadaal-Sadr, an anti-U.S. Shiite cleric who has helped inspire attacksagainst our troops in Fallujah and elsewhere, has warned the UnitedStates that unless we turn over authority to "honest Iraqis" likehimself, Iraq will become another, you guessed it, Vietnam.
If those who tried to make the Iraq/Vietnam comparison had anysense of history at all, they might be more reluctant to do so.U.S. fatalities in Vietnam approached 60,000. In 1968 alone, 14,594American soldiers were lost in combat.
In the year we have been in Iraq, the United States has suffereda little more than 700 deaths. Those deaths, while each one of themtragic, do not begin to approach the horrors of Vietnam.
Furthermore, our current armed forces are entirely voluntary.There is no worry of a draft like there was in Vietnam. Nor is theenemy as daunting militarily in Iraq. The Vietcong had the supportof both China and the Soviet Union. Iraq has no such support fromanother country, and the resistance that exists is by no means oneunited front.
Vietnam was also lost because of a lack of will on the part ofPresident Johnson, and to a� slightly lesser extentPresident Nixon. There is no such lack of will on the part of ourcurrent president.
I know there are some who will say that by criticizing Kennedy,I am trying to "crush dissent" or "question his patriotism," but Iam doing neither. I am, however, questioning his intelligence.
There are only two options in Iraq right now: Stay the courseand help the Iraqis turn their country into the first Arabdemocracy, or pull out and watch the country descend into chaos,followed by the inevitable rise to power of another SaddamHussein.
Is it improper to ask which option Senator Kennedy wouldprefer?
