Thursday, October 19, 2006
Tet, Did Somebody Mention Tet?
George Stephanopoulos, channeling Thomas Friedman from the NYT, asked President Bush yesterday if the current onslaught in Iraq (we'll get to a hundred American battle deaths this month easily) was like the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam in 1968. The President said it could be. I agree that there are parallels, but it is a comparison that the left should not welcome. Here's the history.
After years of fighting a guerilla war that was frustrating to us and our allies, the Viet Cong tried to take over the country and spark a general uprising with conventional tactics. They came out and fought like men. We slaughtered the VC. Indeed, we took the VC out of the war we killed so many of them. It was a huge, overwhelming victory for us, and, for the Communist leaders in the north, such a crushing blow that they seriously considered giving up. We had won the war.
However, our esteemed press spun that truth so that the populace back home thought it was a defeat (I still marvel at that accomplishment, what? nearly 40 years later). We lost heart, began to withdraw our troops and in 1975, when the north was fighting a conventional, blitzkrieg type war in the south, the Democrats in Congress knifed the south in the back (by refusing to give them military aid) and Viet Nam was reunified under harsh Communist rule. You have to call that our first lost war. Won on the battlefield, lost at home.
We know that the Jihadists are media savvy. If they are now increasing the bloodshed, playing to the cameras, in the hope that they can repeat the 'black is white' reporting from Tet and so influence the outcome of the upcoming elections, that means that they would rather have Democrats than Republicans in our government. Do the Democrats really want American citizens who remember recent history to think that they are the party supported and preferred by our enemies? I believe the preference is true, but I know I wouldn't want to make the comparison if I were a Democrat.
After years of fighting a guerilla war that was frustrating to us and our allies, the Viet Cong tried to take over the country and spark a general uprising with conventional tactics. They came out and fought like men. We slaughtered the VC. Indeed, we took the VC out of the war we killed so many of them. It was a huge, overwhelming victory for us, and, for the Communist leaders in the north, such a crushing blow that they seriously considered giving up. We had won the war.
However, our esteemed press spun that truth so that the populace back home thought it was a defeat (I still marvel at that accomplishment, what? nearly 40 years later). We lost heart, began to withdraw our troops and in 1975, when the north was fighting a conventional, blitzkrieg type war in the south, the Democrats in Congress knifed the south in the back (by refusing to give them military aid) and Viet Nam was reunified under harsh Communist rule. You have to call that our first lost war. Won on the battlefield, lost at home.
We know that the Jihadists are media savvy. If they are now increasing the bloodshed, playing to the cameras, in the hope that they can repeat the 'black is white' reporting from Tet and so influence the outcome of the upcoming elections, that means that they would rather have Democrats than Republicans in our government. Do the Democrats really want American citizens who remember recent history to think that they are the party supported and preferred by our enemies? I believe the preference is true, but I know I wouldn't want to make the comparison if I were a Democrat.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 6:42 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Democrat, Republican, it matters little.
The American populace has little patience. 5 years is the absolute outside time frame for Americans to stick it out in Iraq before calls for withdrawl reach a fever pitch.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it is a fact, one that could have easily been seen going into the war.
I guess that is why Rummy said "I doubt six months." To appease the American people and assuage their fears of a long drawn out conflict....... like Viet Nam.
The American populace has little patience. 5 years is the absolute outside time frame for Americans to stick it out in Iraq before calls for withdrawl reach a fever pitch.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it is a fact, one that could have easily been seen going into the war.
I guess that is why Rummy said "I doubt six months." To appease the American people and assuage their fears of a long drawn out conflict....... like Viet Nam.
What our leaders should be saying is that the whole struggle against Jihadists is the new 100 years war (unless we use nukes early and often which is unlikely). No reason to lie to us. I agree generally with your analysis of ADD America. By the way, are you voting absentee?
Well they did lie because few in America want to get involved in a 100 year war. We agree on the magnitude of the problem, just not on how to address it.
I'm sure Diomedes would go for the nuclear option.
You know, I applied for my absentee ballot but it hasn't arrived. So my answer is, "I don't know."
BTW, Cole (your buddy) made an interesting observation that only the die-hard loyalists (like yourself) would get the connection that Bush was trying to make with Tet. He said the world at large would interpret his statements as an early admission of defeat.
Judging by the press reaction this morning, it looks like he was right.
Post a Comment
I'm sure Diomedes would go for the nuclear option.
You know, I applied for my absentee ballot but it hasn't arrived. So my answer is, "I don't know."
BTW, Cole (your buddy) made an interesting observation that only the die-hard loyalists (like yourself) would get the connection that Bush was trying to make with Tet. He said the world at large would interpret his statements as an early admission of defeat.
Judging by the press reaction this morning, it looks like he was right.
<< Home
