Democrats and liberal interest groups critical of the war in Iraq have made Vietnam comparisons almost since the first bombs fell on Baghdad in 2003. But now, even skeptics in the president's own party -- people with far more credibility than any Neocon on the administration's war team -- are beginning to question the strategy of "stay the course." Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a decorated Vietnam veteran and a potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, said Sunday that the situation in Iraq was beginning to look similar to Vietnam. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have," he said.
Another guest on the same Sunday morning talk show, ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," said after the show that the Iraq situation is actually comparable to the Normandy invasion near the end of World War II. Sen. George Allen of Virginia, himself eyeing the Republican nomination, made the remarks while speaking to media outside the studio. Meanwhile, other Senators on other programs, and the White House spokespeople, tried to shore up support for the president and his policy in Iraq.
Sen. Allen takes the cake for worst analogy, though. To say that somehow this war is as necessary as the Normandy invasion, a battle where thousands died and led to the ultimate fall of the Nazis along the western front, is horribly off. The Neocons will try to compare their war to whatever is necessary, rubbing the lustre of a just war onto this war of convenience. It smacks of Lee Atwater.
The Republicans have another few months or so to figure out what the strategy is in Iraq before the mid-term Congressional elections and the start of the 2008 presidential campaign. There has to be a clear position to either support or contradict, and if they don't want to see their fellow Republicans break their 11th Commandment -- Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican -- they had better get it straightened out. Otherwise, it will be like what happened to the Democrats in 1968 -- complete and utter chaos and infighting that led to Richard Nixon in the White House. But even he would be better today than who we have now. The American people never trusted him, so the betrayal hurt a bit less.
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Both wars have suffered from political control. If the military is given what it asks for and needs, then it will remain successful; however, this has not occurred (again). While there are similarities between the two, this war is definitely worse in one aspect: we get to watch this one practically live. Granted, Vietnam was the "television war," but there is no comparison about how quickly information disseminates now.
On a side note, an interesting CNN story showed the alarming number of amputees surviving the war. These soldiers would've died in previous wars, but modern medical knowledge is saving more lives. Also, the U.S. has now lost over 1,800 soldiers and it seemed as though people were vocal when the total topped 1,000. What will happen when the total reaches 2,000? When is the sacrifice too great?
P.S. The Iraqis have lost well over 100,000 according to that same CNN report a couple weeks ago.
Post a Comment