"We dare not tempt them with weakness."

And to carry Dys's history forward, Kennedy was shot in November, 1963. Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn in as president on Air Force One that same day at the Dallas airport, and by 1964 he was sending more troops to Vietnam by the thousands. And we were doing well and probably would have been home by early 1969 if it had not been for the Tet offensive in 1968.....pick up the story in Thomas Sowell's article.

Immediately General Westmoreland called for more troops and the war went full steam ahead amidst growing anti-war protests in the USA and the UK. In 1969, bowing to public pressure, Nixon ordered troops to begin withdrawing and some of those returning home were greeted with "baby killer" signs and were pelted with garbage and spat upon by the war protesters.

The war dragged on until 1974 when a "peace treaty" was finally signed. Facing certain impeachment over the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned his presidency on August 8, 1974 and Gerald Ford became president.

With the North regrouping and threatening again, Ford presided over the evacuation of Saigon on April 29 and 30, 1975. The remaining military and civilian forces were helicoptered out leaving Vietnamese allies unprotected and subject to certain torture and excecution by Viet Cong who were just waiting for us to get out of the way. It was perhaps the USA's most shameful hour.

The war resumed without U.S. intervention. Saigon fell in 1975; Cambodia in 1978.

We can't afford to lose in Iraq.

Craven wrote:


Where? I mean it isn't important except for the purposes of precision here, but I don't recall ever saying that Saddam and 9/11 were directly connected. I have often said or inferred that Saddam was a legitimate target in the war on terror.

Added comment: To say that 9/11 is the reason we went to war is accurate. We probably wouldn't have done so if 9/11 hadn't happened. That Saddam is part of the war on terror is also accurate. I have not said that Saddam and 9/11 are linked.

You said that 9/11 gave us no choice. Explain how it gives no choice.

I suspect some platitudes about how we must win this and do that. So give 'em and I'll reply.

Okay, in retrospect I probably misspoke when I said we had no choice. We did have a choice. We could have accepted the destruction of the WTC, 3000 deaths, and an assault on the Pentagon and done nothing. Or we could choose to do whatever we had to do to stop things like that from happening. I suppose some think the first option was the way to go. I'm not saying you think that, Craven, but we both know some do.

Another tired old saw: "my way is the only option besides doing nothing".

It seeks to capitalize on the natural desire to react to such an attack by loading the options and equating all reaction to what you think is appropriate and limiting the choices to your choice or inaction.

Well, Foxfyre, you have two choices. Agree with me or admit that you like running through the streets naked.

Missing option: rejection of a loaded question.

Trust me Craven, you do not want to see me running through the streets naked.

Sorry, I must have confused you with someone I saw in the street today. Looked a lot like your avatar...

Well, why else do you think I chose that particular avatar?

News
New Flash!!!!

America Has Lost the War On Iraq

Read the story right here on this very Board!

I believe your reasons for choosing that avatar are related to this thread in support of Bush.

LOL

This I agree with completely.


Nonsense. This is a Strawman. The article's main point is precisely what you admitted to above.


I would say it is more of a response to the idiotic notion that Bush is the enemy. That is where people are going to far. Dissent doesn't need to include labeling our President as the enemy, describing our acts as terrorism, describing our soldiers as baby killers etc etc etc. We are perfectly capable of arguing the merits of the Presidents actions without this type of deliberate denigration of our forces. I believe this was the point of the article… NOT labeling dissenters as the enemy.


I don't believe this is necessarily true. Example:

As you know I think drug prohibition is an ineffective, wasteful policy that does more harm than good. However; I'd take offense to any suggestion that the DEA officers are somehow our enemy. Spreading that type of nonsense is counterproductive and could only serve to weaken the credibility and effectiveness of law enforcement in general.


This is universally sound logic for hawks and non-hawks alike… and the reason I expressed my hope that more than a few people read the article without their hyper-partisan filters working overtime. There is a somber truth to be understood, regardless of which side of the political fence you reside on.

Yes, and we differ on what that is (i.e. I think this thesis is a load of bunk and you do not).

It is these two paragraphs that form the core thesis of the article. And it is this that I think thoughtful Americans should consider: bunk? or somber truth?

Would it make a difference if the media and message board rhetoric looked less like half the populace wanted a coup d'etat and focused more on which presidential candidate would be the most aggressive in prosecuting the war? . . .that regardless of the outcome of the election, the American people are unified in denouncing terrorists and terrorism?

Craven wrote:


Did the Vietnam generation or does the current generation have less staying power than did the WW II generation who managed to stand uniform through four costly, bloody years of war? I think ideology is our weakest link, not war weariness.

Yikes! The bantering that goes on here in Politics...

Personally, I think the war on Iraq was a mistake. However, the US is there now, like it or not, and tough, reality-based decisions must be made. Whether that comes to withdrawal or armed occupation remains to be seen.

World War II has as a difference a spectacular initiating attack (one that the war in Vietnam and Iraq lacked but the one in Afghanistan had).

The big difference between the WWII and Vietnam is not a different ideology but rather very different wars itself and very different justifications for it.

Another big difference was in the way the media was able to report the wars. Vietnam brought a war that was already far less supported than WWII to everyone's living rooms and the military learned the lesson of combat for this century.

The military learned that in a world more and more influenced by contagion on all levels war weariness is a huge factor in any democracy at war.

Economic contagion and cultural exchange heightens war weariness everywhere because unlike in the past wars these days have more far-reaching effects on nations' psyche and economy.

Moving toward swifter more precise wars is a necessity bourne more of war wearniness than an eleemosynary nature.

And we continue to see the rapid evolution of this.

This time around the military has learned from the lessons of Vietnam. They have learned media management and have, in the last two wars, shown an unprecedented ability to wage the war on the PR front as well. Depending on what side of the war you are on you either see media coverage as too positive or too negative but truth be told, it's as good as the military could hope for with a free press.

Without destroying free-press the military waged a brilliant PR campaign, buying out satellite coverage and embedding the reporters who then felt like a part of the movie more so than critics thereof.

In their efforts to disparage the dissent to the wars and label their political opposites the enemy many of the hawks are trying to label the doves as the enemy.

The comparisons to Vietnam come from both sides, the anti-war camp likes to invoke it in a flawed comparison of a negatively perceived war. They invoke the perceived defeats of Vietnam and try to paint the war in Iraq in similar colours.

The pro-war camp takes similar leave from reason by invoking the Vietnam war as well, in a very common theme. To them Vietnam represents the starting point of what's wrong with America in military action and they invoke the wave of war weariness that depleted political capital during the Vietnam war.

This too is a flawed comparison as this war is too clean, too short and too packaged to have any real chance of depletion of political capital due to war weariness.

We'd have to bungle the end game in a very spectacular way to make this possible.

So Vietnam rhetoric about this war aside we come down to the bone of contention.

Some people think Vietnam epoch represented a net American loss. Others see it as a crucial American evolution.

Vietnam marked the end of blind trust for American government. It marked the first times the American government was deeply and widely distrusted by its people.

There are obvious positives and negatives to this. The distrust's effect on nationalism and solidarity can be seen as both a negative and a positive.

Less solidarity is a bad thing in some ways, a more free-thinking populace less influenced by government propaganda (note that it also marked the end of facile propaganda from democratic governments) is also a good thing.

Many hawkish conservatives see it as everything that is bad about America. While the dovish may see it as a positive re-birth of America.

I think the truth lies in between, and am tired of irrational polarization of increasingly similar political extremes.

Ultimately, when you say ideology is our weakest link you are saying that the ideology other than yours is, which is not a novel concept everyone likes to think the opposite ideology to the one to which they subscribe is the very bane of their nation.

Craven writes:


It is true that Vietnam never attacked us. However, in WWII Japan did. Germany didn't.
We declared war on Japan and, while we were at it. decided to join Great Britain to take on Germany. If I remember my U.S./world history correctly, we declared war on Germany before Germany declared war on us.

After 9/11, it is documented by staffers that GWB ordered a plan to be put together the offensive against the Taliban. And, while we were at it, he said get a plan together for Iraq. And since Afghanistan went pretty well, it was a logical next step to take on Iraq next.

Germany, despite a strained relationship between heads of state, is now a good friend and ally of the United States. It was never the rank and file German people we were at war with. I have high hopes that a free and democratic Iraq will become a good friend and ally of the United States. It is not the rank and file people of Iraq we are at war with.

I believe that if all the American people would get behind the president and present a more united front in the war effort, a free and friendly Iraq will come to pass far sooner than it otherwise will.

Craven writes:


This is true. The press was with the troops on all the European and Pacific fronts but they didn't have the ability to flash instant pictures home and they were required to have everything they wrote and sent home approved by military command. That the U.S. media would be traveling with or operating among the axis powers to report 'from their point of view' would have been unthinkable and considered aiding and abetting the enemy. And the press in WWII considered themselves loyal Americans and part of the war effort with a responsibility to do no harm. Every loyal American at home and abroad knew and understood the slogans like "Loose lips sink ships".

That might make another interesting thread. The Constitution gives government power to provide the national defense. It also gives the people free speech. When these are in conflict, which should win out?

The comment about being attacked was a reference to the state of the national psyche as a result. Do you not think Japan's attack steeled the US citizenry for the war with the other axis states?



If this was logical you should have no problem explaining said logic.



Same here.



Almost everyone thinks that if everyone shared their positions the world would be a better place.

Most recognize that this cuts both ways and do not try to quell dissent based on the all-too-easy trap that is a call to solidarity.



IMO this is the central issue here. You seem to long for the good ole days when there was more "loyalty" in media and in the US citizenry.

Now, in my earlier post I cede the advantages thereof and here I think you need to consider the disadvantages.

Almost anything can be described with positive or negative adjectives.

"He is a miser"

"He economizes his money well"

The same is true of this issue.

"The media was loyal and understood the implications of their reporting"

vs.

"The media served as a sycophantic propaganda wing that would use racism to demonize the enemy and would coorinate the pep-rallies at home."

At it's core I reject that free press should give any consideration whatsoever to the results of the conflicts they cover.

I think they should get out the facts, and should not be there to be "loyal" or even have an opinion.

I take this so far as to say that I think they should be free to report troop locations and anything else they want, leaving it up to the militaries involved to keep this data from them if it will harm them.

Craven blurted

Yup. And the very good reason to hold this reasonable view is that the danger in one is far greater than the danger in the other.

The demand to fall into consensus with government has already reached beyond news reportage...eg, Bill Maher, or the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (Lynne Cheney and Joe Lieberman on board of directors) who held that America's professors were "the weak link in America's response to the attack (9-11)" There are many more examples available. So that is a very real danger, and it has already been realized to some extent.

On the other hand, that Hamas or Osama are truly and effectively aided in even a single instance by what we say here, or what news shows carry, or what professors say, is without evidentiary support.