Democratomyopia

[Richpo64]

Democratomyopia
The Vietnam Syndrome lives.

By Mona Charen


I am convinced, based on everything I have read, it won?t be a hell of a lot worse than it is now. ? Rep. John P. Murtha


Jack (redeploy to Okinawa) Murtha was speaking of Iraq after an American pullout. He?s not worried. Nor are most Democrats now urging America to flee Iraq. There really ought to be a name for the ?it can?t get worse? fallacy. For the moment, let?s just call it Democratomyopia. It has a long pedigree.

One thinks of March 1975. Liberal New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis scoffed at warnings of a coming bloodbath in southeast Asia. ?Some will find the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is happening to Cambodia now?? Most Democrats agreed with Lewis.

Six weeks later, the last Americans lifted off in helicopters from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon, leaving hundreds of panicked South Vietnamese immediately behind and an entire region to the mercy of the communists. The scene was similar in Phnom Penh. The torture and murder spree that followed left millions of corpses. The psychological effect on America ? despite dozens of declarations that the Vietnam Syndrome is dead ? has not yet been transcended.

Democrats like Murtha and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (?I believe, if we leave, the region will pull together?) represent the myopia school. But to be fair to the Democrats, there is another perspective; call it the TDB school, best represented by Rep. David Obey. Asked by the Los Angeles Times whether he didn?t think Iraq might experience violence akin to that in Bosnia during the 1990s, Obey responded, ?I wouldn?t be surprised if it?s horrendous. The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there?s slim hope for that.?

And then, a perennial: The diplomacy first, last and always school. Sen. Carl Levin, co-sponsor of a withdrawal resolution, calls for the United Nations to appoint an Iraq mediator. (Of course! Why didn?t we think of that before?) Sen. Harry Reid believes we should withdraw our forces in Iraq immediately to be replaced by ?tough and strong diplomacy.? Threaten me one more time with that IED, and I might just have to convene a roundtable discussion!

The Democrats have convinced themselves, once again, that the enemy is us ? or at least our fault. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded the country, they argue. If it exists now, it?s entirely our own doing. It is our presence that causes the violence in Iraq. In fact, our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool the terrorists have!

Why don?t the Democrats argue that our presence in Afghanistan is equally provocative to the terrorists? One would think it would be more so. Nor is it the case that before the allied (remember the others?) invasion, Iraq was irrelevant to the terrorist threat worldwide. Saddam was a faithful and generous supporter of numerous terror groups ? a fact cited by the many Democrats who voted for the war.

But even assuming (and it?s a dubious assumption) that America would be better off if Saddam were still in power, there is the problem of reality. We are faced with either perseverance and determination to support Gen. David Petraeus and his so far pretty successful strategy to stabilize the country, or we can unilaterally decide to declare defeat.

Now, if you want to see a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, you cannot possibly do better than this story line: ?We chased them out of Iraq just as we chased the Soviets out of Afghanistan. They cannot defeat us! All of their smart bombs and guided missiles and up-armored Humvees cannot defeat a few soldiers of Allah!?

If the Democrats? withdrawal script is followed in Iraq, as it was in Vietnam, there is no question that the resulting violence will make today?s chaos seem like an idyll. John Burns, the respected reporter for the New York Times, recently offered the view that ?the United States armed forces here ? and I find this to be very widely agreed amongst Iraqis that I know, of all ethnic and sectarian backgrounds . . . are a very important inhibitor against violence. . . . I think it?s a much larger truth that where American forces are present, they are inhibiting sectarian violence, and they are going after the people, particularly al Qaeda and the Shiite death squads, who are provoking that violence.?

Never say ?it can?t get worse.? It reveals a terrible poverty of imagination.

[Michael Tee]

A truly laughable and ridiculous article blaming the American withdrawal from Viet Nam for the slaughter in Cambodia. 

The real reason for the Cambodian bloodbath began with the U.S. sponsorship of a coup d'etat against Prince Sihanouk's officially neutralist government by Lon Nol while Sihanouk was visiting Communist China.  Lon Nol's government aligned itself with the U.S., and forced the Communist forces, now driven underground, to organize a campaign to drive Lon Nol from power and seize power themselves. 

Had the U.S.A. not sponsored regime change in Phnom Penh in the first place, Cambodia would have finished the Viet Nam war as it started, with a neutralist government under a constitutional monarch, more or less at peace.

This fucking ignoramus attempts to use the unhappy events of 1975, all of which can be traced back to, firstly, the U.S. invasion of Viet Nam, and secondly, the U.S. regime change in Phnom Penh, as an argument IN FAVOUR OF the U.S. intervention in Iraq and a continuation of their effort to install a Western-friendly government over the Iraqis. 

Absolutely hilarious.

[Universe Prince]

Now, if you want to see a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, you cannot possibly do better than this story line: ?We chased them out of Iraq just as we chased the Soviets out of Afghanistan. They cannot defeat us! All of their smart bombs and guided missiles and up-armored Humvees cannot defeat a few soldiers of Allah!?

Only a fool would think this is not going to happen even if we somehow manage to create a secure and stable Iraq. What this shows me is that the author of the article has no idea about the reality of the situation. Which is ironic given the topic of the article, but it is not unexpected.

[_JS]

Tee is spot on.

The Domino Effect was a self-fulfilling prophesy in Cambodia because we tossed out a popular leader and installed a weak puppet in Lon Nol. Then we began bombing Cambodian villages along the Vietnamese border. The Khmer Rouge went from being fringe thugs to a popular movement amongst the people.

In 1978 Pol Pot ordered what he considered a "pre-emptive" invasion of Vietnam, to which the Vietnamese responded by predictably kicking the Kampuchean Army's asses. Who was funding Pol Pot's regime and war at that time? The United States and China. Then we funded the Khmer Rouge's government-in-exile and special forces operations (from Thailand and with the Thai military) until 1993.

So do we have some responsibility for the bloodbath in Southeast Asia? You are damn straight we do and it has little to do with our leaving Vietnam, a war we lost on the first day we stepped in.

You want more bloodbaths we are responsible for? We can discuss Suharto, the Shah of Iran, a host of brutal dictators in Latin America, South Africa, Somalia and Ethiopia, Argentina is a favorite of mine...

What happened to taking responsibility when you f*** up?

[gipper]

The analogy, if there is one, is what happened internally in Vietnam after the US withdrawal, and what external effect did those internal events precipitate, in their own right, more or less?

[Michael Tee]

Why even bother to speculate?  You'd also have to speculate on the effect of the U.S. staying on in Viet Nam and the effect THAT would have had (a) on the Khmer Rouge's ability to take over Cambodia AND (b) after the takeover to conduct the bloodbath.  That in turn would involve further speculation on whether the U.S. presence in Vietnam was a continuation of its former maximum troop levels, a partial draw-down followed by a reinforcement or a long, slow, gradual withdrawal.  Or even an increased troop strength beyond peak levels.

At some point in this exercise, even the Hamlet of East Orange has got to realize the fantastical and useless nature of such speculation - - what would have happened in Cambodia had the U.S. "stayed on" in Viet Nam.?  Months and years could be spent in plotting various scenarios trying to determine if the Cambodian bloodbath could have been prevented and if so at what cost.

The only CLEAR lesson that comes to us from Cambodia is that the U.S. intervention in the form of the Lon Nol coup d'etat was the catalyst for the ultimate military victory of the Khmer Rouge.  The rest of it is just smoke and mirrors.  There are no answers.  In terms of all the "what-ifs" required, we might not even have all the right questions.

I propose that the debate on Iraq focus on IRAQ, rather than Cambodia, Poland, Neville Chamberlain, the American Revolution and other far-fetched and ludicrous examples usually dredged up by hacks to impress ignoramuses, a perfect example of which can be found at the head of this thread.

I also propose that in discussing the consequences of an American withdrawal, one must consider the sincerity of the "post-withdrawal bloodbath" argument.  Personally, I would consider a Rwanda-scale bloodbath to be a humanitarian disaster ideally suited for United Nations preventative action.  If in fact this is a major concern of the U.S. government, it is an ongoing mystery to me why absolutely ZERO effort has been made to get the U.N. to take over the administration of the entire nation to prevent this terrible bloodbath from happening.  Surely the time has long passed for the U.S. alone to be selflessly shouldering such a noble burden.  Why doesn't the U.S. approach the UN with a request that the UN take over the onerous task of shepherding Iraq through its present difficulties towards a glorious democratic future and the avoidance of a terrible bloodbath?  Wouldn't this be an ideal time for the UN to redeem itself after dropping the ball on Rwanda?

[gipper]

Michael, your sarcasm aside, we seem to have substantial points of agreement. Where we differ, speaking only for myself, is in the sincerity of concern as to the effects of a post-withdrawal Iraqi meltdown, whether that can be prevented, and what the US responsibility is. We also differ as to whether the "speculative" exercise -- all forward-looking assessments are by nature speculative to one degree or another -- is necessary and essential. I maintain that it is. As to UN involvement, however, averting a Rwanda-type genocide or a run-of-the-mill Kosovo-type massacree, we agree wholeheartedly. The point to make clear, it seems, to gain the Left's backing, if at all, is to renounce any intent to shield Bush from the political tar-and-feathering that he deserves. While I won't participate in this spectacle, neither will I object to it as it is quite aside from the point approached logically.

[Michael Tee]

<<-- all forward-looking assessments are by nature speculative to one degree or another -- >>

domer, some of them are more speculative than others.  My original complaint with the article was that the speculation was being done on particularly fanciful grounds.  I agree that there has to be some forward assessment here, but when the speculation is inconclusive, as I believe it is here, there's a limit to how many times the issue can be returned to inconclusively without any action being taken. 

I would submit, the basic thought process ought to go something like this:
 - is a bloodbath (worse than the present ongoing bloodbath) likelier than not, on clear and logical grounds, to result if we leave?
 - if the answer is no, then withdrawal plans should be drawn up with contingency plans defining what levels of bloodbath might  require intervention and what form of rapid intervention might be required.  If the administration subsequently felt that internal violence was reaching intolerable levels, Congress could be asked for authorization to reinvade and the issue properly debated.

- if the answer is yes, then Congress should be allowed to decide if the nation will or will not commit the force necessary to stabilze the situation and if a committment is to be made, whether this committment would endure with or without UN support and participation.

There have to be definite time limits attached to the process.  Measured in days.  This thing has been debated endlessly and there are still no firm conclusions.  So, last debate; best efforts with best available material; decision made, right or wrong, and acted on.

What we have instead is a dumb committment to the status quo, war with no end in sight, moveable benchmarks whose only real function seems to be to keep the war moving towards them until they have to be re-set again, and a never-ending invocation of victory and righteousness.

[gipper]

What comes through most clearly and robustly is your disgust with the United States, and your desire to see it confounded and embarrassed. My thesis, always subject to amendment by a better idea, is that at least with the status quo we don't have a cascading genocide or a regional war ravaging the heart of one of the most important and volatile areas of the world. The question we cannot avoid is would those horrors, according to our best predictive methods -- our best shot -- eventuate with an unwise method of withdrawal, and, for that matter, what are the various methods of withdrawal and the consequences of each. Mere fatigue or tedium does not excuse any responsible party from running through this exercise, and then doing it again and again until you get it right, as best you can.

[Michael Tee]

<<What comes through most clearly and robustly is your disgust with the United States, and your desire to see it confounded and embarrassed.>>

What a surprise!  How irrational!  Disgust with the United States is a practically universal reaction.  It's well-earned.  It did not happen by accident.  You might be surprised (or not) to learn that I was once a big fan.  At this point, yeah, I would like to see it "confounded and embarrassed.  Well put.  That's still a long way from my wishes for Nazi Germany, which I would have liked to see incinerated in a mile-high wall of flame from one end to the other.  A little confounding and embarrassment would do wonders for the American soul.  Flush all the fascists down the drain and bring in better Americans to the forefront.

 <<My thesis, always subject to amendment by a better idea, is that at least with the status quo we don't have a cascading genocide or a regional war ravaging the heart of one of the most important and volatile areas of the world.>>

I guess your thesis in a burning house would be that at least with the status quo you don't have a bunch of nuclear warheads in the basement about to blow.  If by any chance you did find yourself in the midst of a "cascading genocide and a regional war" your thesis would probably be that at least with the status quo you don't have a full-blown Holocaust and a World War.  The only thing I can't figure out is what your thesis would be in the midst of a full-blown Holocaust and a World War.  Probably something involving giant asteroids and the explosion of the sun.  domer, domer, domer, what am I gonna do with you?

Paralyzed by fear of the unknown.  The Hamlet of East Orange, indeed.

<<The question we cannot avoid is would those horrors, according to our best predictive methods -- our best shot -- eventuate with an unwise method of withdrawal, and, for that matter, what are the various methods of withdrawal and the consequences of each.>>

For the sake of argument, let us agree that that is the question.

<< Mere fatigue or tedium does not excuse any responsible party from running through this exercise, and then doing it again and again until you get it right, as best you can.>>

What about the simple and humble recognition that we are NOT EVER going to be able to predict the results because there are just too many variables and too many unknown human factors?  Does that excuse any reasonable party from running through the exercise again and again and again while $12 billion a week is slipping through your fingers?  (I don't even mention the lives of innocent Iraqis, because I know they don't count for shit.)

[gipper]

Michael, you said in the immediately previous post of yours: "This thing has been debated endlessly and there are still no firm conclusions.  So, last debate; best efforts with best available material; decision made, right or wrong, and acted on."

Shades of GW Bush.

[Michael Tee]

So what?  I decided to become The Decider.  Bush won me over by his example.

[gipper]

LOL.