A slow tide is turning
Robert Rouse
November 20, 2006
Add former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger's name to the roster of top level Republicans who are denouncing the current Iraq war policy. Kissinger is now saying the United States (read: George W. Bush and Company) needs to back off their assertion that Democracy is the way to go in Iraq.
Come to think of it, is there really anyone outside the administration who really believes we are succeeding in Iraq? How many Americans will have to die in Iraq before Bush gets a clue?
Kissinger is now saying that the United States should have installed a strong Iraqi leader in charge of the country immediately after the invasion instead of pushing for free elections. He has a point - albeit a belated one. Iraq is one of those Middle Eastern nations that require strong leadership to keep from falling into chaos. Democracy is something that needs to happen organically, it cannot and will not be forced upon them. Kissinger said, "If we had done that right away (installed a strong Iraqi leader), that might have been the best way to proceed."
Of the Bush policy of invasion and occupation followed by democracy, "a mistake to think that you can gain legitimacy primarily through the electoral process."
Other Republicans, such as John McCain, are calling for more troops in Iraq to "ensure military victory". Number one, John - where are those troops going to come from? We're having enough problems finding men and equipment to keep up our current troop levels in the area. Do we pull them out of the Korean peninsula? How about Afghanistan? Or perhaps McCain thinks we should use up the rest of our men and women currently deployed in the United States. Do we do as Charlie Rangel has suggested and start a new draft?
If McCain is really interested in running for President in '08, he better start thinking about how the country feels about the Iraq war, and more importantly, the feeling of the populace if we are still embroiled in this quagmire during the '08 elections.
George W. Bush, who just completed a visit to the nation of Vietnam might want to learn a few lessons from Kissinger and the history books. There are several parallels with Iraq and Vietnam.
Come to think of it, is there really anyone outside the administration who really believes we are succeeding in Iraq? How many Americans will have to die in Iraq before Bush gets a clue?
Kissinger is now saying that the United States should have installed a strong Iraqi leader in charge of the country immediately after the invasion instead of pushing for free elections. He has a point - albeit a belated one. Iraq is one of those Middle Eastern nations that require strong leadership to keep from falling into chaos. Democracy is something that needs to happen organically, it cannot and will not be forced upon them. Kissinger said, "If we had done that right away (installed a strong Iraqi leader), that might have been the best way to proceed."
Of the Bush policy of invasion and occupation followed by democracy, "a mistake to think that you can gain legitimacy primarily through the electoral process."
Other Republicans, such as John McCain, are calling for more troops in Iraq to "ensure military victory". Number one, John - where are those troops going to come from? We're having enough problems finding men and equipment to keep up our current troop levels in the area. Do we pull them out of the Korean peninsula? How about Afghanistan? Or perhaps McCain thinks we should use up the rest of our men and women currently deployed in the United States. Do we do as Charlie Rangel has suggested and start a new draft?
If McCain is really interested in running for President in '08, he better start thinking about how the country feels about the Iraq war, and more importantly, the feeling of the populace if we are still embroiled in this quagmire during the '08 elections.
George W. Bush, who just completed a visit to the nation of Vietnam might want to learn a few lessons from Kissinger and the history books. There are several parallels with Iraq and Vietnam.
- In both cases, the U.S. administration used false information to draw the country into war. In Vietnam, it was the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and in Iraq it was the so-called WMD alarm.
- In both cases there were dire warnings about what would happen if we left the battle arena. "If we don't fight the communists in Vietnam we'll have to fight them over here". Sound familiar?
- In Vietnam we were warned about the "Domino Theory" that said communism would spread throughout Southeast Asia if the Communists took over South Vietnam. Now we're being told that the Middle East fall like dominoes until they are all terrorist states. Today, other than Vietnam and Laos, there are no Communist states in Southeast Asia. Cambodia was a communist stronghold that apparently didn't hold that strong.
- In both cases, the administration believed we could bomb our "enemies" into submission. There were more bombs dropped in Vietnam than in all of World War I and World War II combined. It didn't work. We were dealing with guerilla warfare. These were not the massive armies we faced in previous wars. Both Vietnam and Iraq were/are wars where you couldn't/can't tell the enemy from the civilian population.
- Neither Vietnam or Iraq were real threats to the United States.
There is one major difference between Vietnam and Iraq. Those of us who are opposed to the war are holding no grudges against the troops. It was a mistake for the anti-war factions on the '60s and '70s to treat our troops as the enemy. They were doing what was asked of them by their government and like the dutiful soldiers they were, they fought. When the troops return from Iraq, there will be few, if any, incidents of animosity between the peace movement and the troops. In this respect, the nation is united. We are all supporting our troops - although most of us believe we could support them best by bringing them home safe and sound.
Print
Email
