Murtha = Benedict Arnold
Sounding The Trumpet Of Retreat
By Cal Thomas
We now have a legitimate comparison between the Vietnam War and what is taking place in Iraq. That comparison was summed up nicely in a Wall Street Journal editorial last Friday about the untimely call by Rep. John Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat and decorated Vietnam veteran, for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.
The editorial cited a 1990 comment to historian Stanley Karnow by North Vietnam Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap: "We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."
Vietnam and Iraq are significantly different, but Iraq could resemble Vietnam, if Mr. Murtha's advice is taken.
We lost the war in Vietnam when we lost our will and failed to carry out a plan for victory. There were no lasting negative effects on the U.S., other than 58,000 dead Americans, but that failed effort is one of several post-World War II withdrawals by U.S. forces prior to achieving objectives that inspired Osama bin Laden and his bloody terrorist brothers to believe we are weak and can be made to precipitously quit Iraq.
If we lose the peace in Iraq, it will strengthen the resolve of the terrorists to commit new atrocities, possibly again on our own soil. It would be nice if Mr. Murtha and others who have called for a fast pullout would say what they believe will be achieved. Do they foolishly believe we can say, "never mind," wash our hands of the matter and not be attacked again?
One indication Mr. Murtha's comments can only encourage the enemy not to quit is that they flashed around the Arab world on al-Jazeera TV within moments of his making them. What must Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al Qaeda in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden think of this? Just that their prophecy is coming true: America doesn't have the stomach for war and if the terrorists can hold us off for a while, we will give up.
Those who would impose a timetable rather than seek victory have an obligation to say what they believe will follow precipitous withdrawal. If it's disaster for the Iraqis and for us, will they take full responsibility?
Quitting before a stable democracy and self-sufficient Iraqi military is in place isn't a strategy. It is surrender. Some of the same House Democrats calling for a pullout didn't have the guts to vote on a House resolution proposing exactly that. The GOP majority forced an on-the-record vote last week. Rather than vote their supposed "consciences," most Democrats ran for cover and voted against the measure, defeated 403-3.
Democrats, who have played nothing but politics since President Bush's approval numbers began sinking, accuse Republicans of playing politics. But Republicans simply gave Democrats an opportunity to put their votes where their mouths were. That they didn't exposes their political motives.
The biggest turncoat is former President Bill Clinton, who not only spoke against the war and a sitting president but did so on Arab soil. As usual, Mr. Clinton tried to have it both ways, telling students at the American University in Dubai, it's a "good thing" Saddam is gone, "but I don't agree with what was done." Does he think more diplomacy and toothless resolutions would have done the job? He didn't when he was president. On Oct. 31, 1998, Mr. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, saying, "The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else."
He sounds like President Bush's similar language. The hypocrisy of it all has escaped Bush-bashing Democrats.
Iraq isn't a political beanbag. This is a world war, which can only end in defeat for one side. There is no "coming home" from this war. We are engaged, like it or not. Religious fanatics won't participate in a U.S.S. Missouri moment, signing documents of surrender. They must be crushed and demoralized so they have no hope in this life or the next of achieving their dreams of a worldwide caliphate. Those are the stakes.
Democrats had better ask themselves whether politics or national survival means more to them and what actions and words help or harm America and our troops.
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
By Cal Thomas
We now have a legitimate comparison between the Vietnam War and what is taking place in Iraq. That comparison was summed up nicely in a Wall Street Journal editorial last Friday about the untimely call by Rep. John Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat and decorated Vietnam veteran, for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.
The editorial cited a 1990 comment to historian Stanley Karnow by North Vietnam Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap: "We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."
Vietnam and Iraq are significantly different, but Iraq could resemble Vietnam, if Mr. Murtha's advice is taken.
We lost the war in Vietnam when we lost our will and failed to carry out a plan for victory. There were no lasting negative effects on the U.S., other than 58,000 dead Americans, but that failed effort is one of several post-World War II withdrawals by U.S. forces prior to achieving objectives that inspired Osama bin Laden and his bloody terrorist brothers to believe we are weak and can be made to precipitously quit Iraq.
If we lose the peace in Iraq, it will strengthen the resolve of the terrorists to commit new atrocities, possibly again on our own soil. It would be nice if Mr. Murtha and others who have called for a fast pullout would say what they believe will be achieved. Do they foolishly believe we can say, "never mind," wash our hands of the matter and not be attacked again?
One indication Mr. Murtha's comments can only encourage the enemy not to quit is that they flashed around the Arab world on al-Jazeera TV within moments of his making them. What must Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al Qaeda in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden think of this? Just that their prophecy is coming true: America doesn't have the stomach for war and if the terrorists can hold us off for a while, we will give up.
Those who would impose a timetable rather than seek victory have an obligation to say what they believe will follow precipitous withdrawal. If it's disaster for the Iraqis and for us, will they take full responsibility?
Quitting before a stable democracy and self-sufficient Iraqi military is in place isn't a strategy. It is surrender. Some of the same House Democrats calling for a pullout didn't have the guts to vote on a House resolution proposing exactly that. The GOP majority forced an on-the-record vote last week. Rather than vote their supposed "consciences," most Democrats ran for cover and voted against the measure, defeated 403-3.
Democrats, who have played nothing but politics since President Bush's approval numbers began sinking, accuse Republicans of playing politics. But Republicans simply gave Democrats an opportunity to put their votes where their mouths were. That they didn't exposes their political motives.
The biggest turncoat is former President Bill Clinton, who not only spoke against the war and a sitting president but did so on Arab soil. As usual, Mr. Clinton tried to have it both ways, telling students at the American University in Dubai, it's a "good thing" Saddam is gone, "but I don't agree with what was done." Does he think more diplomacy and toothless resolutions would have done the job? He didn't when he was president. On Oct. 31, 1998, Mr. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, saying, "The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else."
He sounds like President Bush's similar language. The hypocrisy of it all has escaped Bush-bashing Democrats.
Iraq isn't a political beanbag. This is a world war, which can only end in defeat for one side. There is no "coming home" from this war. We are engaged, like it or not. Religious fanatics won't participate in a U.S.S. Missouri moment, signing documents of surrender. They must be crushed and demoralized so they have no hope in this life or the next of achieving their dreams of a worldwide caliphate. Those are the stakes.
Democrats had better ask themselves whether politics or national survival means more to them and what actions and words help or harm America and our troops.
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
posted by veritas at 20:21
3 Comments:
Congressman John Murtha served in the military for 37 years. During that time, he won two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star with a Combat "V," and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. It makes me sad that any American would be so obtuse as to call him a coward or a traitor to this country.
It is the job of all soldiers to follow orders, but it is the job of all citizens to question the actions of our government and the decisions of our elected officials and to exercise our freedom of speech. This is our duty as citizens. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
Cal Thomas passes over too quickly the 58,000 American casualties (dead, not counting wounded then and those still suffering from delayed stress syndrome and psychological difficulties, etc.) He also excludes mention of the estimated 3 million--3 million Vietnamese, many civilians, if not most and others still suffering terrible effects of Agent Orange, unexploded bombs, etc.
Mr. Thomas should see "Fog of War" and consider carefully the tragedies of Vietnam and Iraq.
As a veteran of the Iraq war, and having known one man that lost his life for our country, I truly believe that we must continue to show the world that we are not afraid of terrorism, and that we will not stop fighting until we win. If that takes forever, then so be it. America deseves to be safe. Soldiers like myself will away be there to ensure that we keep this nation safe. Forget politics, 9-11 did't target republicans or democrats...blacks or white....men or women...young or old...it was an attack on everyone! Get real liberals...war is sometimes a necessary thing to ensure peace. Thank God CNN and MSNBC were not around back in the 1940's or we would be speaking German and Japanese!
Post a Comment
<< Home