"Vietnamization" of Iraq
Jed Babbin makes some good points:
The whole Democrat menagerie has embarked on a campaign to Vietnamize Iraq: to make it a demonstrable defeat and by so doing regain the White House regardless of the consequences. If they succeed, Iraq will become a far greater failure than Vietnam was because the stakes are much higher abroad and at home. The next presidential election will, like the last one, be a referendum on Iraq. And if Iraq is a failure, the Democrats will be a success.
RTWT.
5 comments:
Peter,
There is no "Plan B" for the Democrats. The asylum management course will continue under the contol of the inmates until everyone until everyone grasps its efficacy.
I find that it is helpful to remember that, currently, 38% of those who are currently registered as Republicans were formerly registered as Democrats. If you place that percentage against total turnout for the '04 election it means that 17 million Americans have tiptoed quietly out the door as Dems lumber ever leftward toward oblivion.
Peter,
The story board for the '06 election may involve the embassy photo - but it will be a Republican ad that will begin with an Iraqi holding up a purple finger and a text that says:
Don't let [insert loser's name] turn [purple finger] into [embassy photo]
Vote Republican - Stay the Course!
Americans aren't noted for loving losers - nor are they noted for voting for them.
The thing is the Viet Cong did not follow the troops home, AlQaida will.
And I am not sure the Democrats won't get a little of the blame for that.
Note the recent poll, the majority of Americans do not think the Democrats are speaking truth to power...they think the Democrats are trying to take advatnage of the situation for partisan advantage and hurting morale in the process.
Remember Schiavo? Republicans were so busy thinking they were right, they really did not realize how put out the rest of the country was.
{I include myself in that}
The Vietnam analogy has been around since the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign.
To many critics of several political stripes, that campaign was a Vietnam like "quagmire" before, during and after it was an overall success.
Remember Ramadan, the fierce Afghan winters, the terrible Afghan terrain, the historic Afghan victories over invading European armies from Britain to the USSR? Afghanistan, untamed and untameable, would make Vietnam look like a picnic.
Then came Iraq.
The critics sounded the Vietnam tocsin in Iraq as well. Before each benchmark took place, it was going to be a "quagmire" like Vietnam, but worse.
Before the three week blitzkrieg succeeded in defeating the Iraqi armed forces, indeed before the very eyes of Baghdad Bob, house to house, street to street fighting, poison gas, powerful armor thrusts and other never to happen horribles, the twin spectres of Ho Chi Minh and General Ho Chi Minh hovered over the imbedded press accounts of progress.
Then it was Sadaam and Sons on the loose and wreaking havoc and terror in the Iraqi countryside -- until they were killed or captured.
Then Fallujah -- until it was taken out as a privilged sanctuary.
Then the inept US interim government -- until it was replaced by an Iraqi chosen interim government by election with participation by a greater percentage of the populace than participates in US elections.
Then an impossible constitutional
convention is approved.
Then -- then -- then --.
I hesitate to resort to the well-worn Lloyd Benson gambit by saying I spent time learning about our war in Vietnam up close and personal and after Vietnam, I experienced how we lost the war in Vietnam. I have written and read about Vietnam for nearly forty years. I knew Vietnam and Iraq, you're no Vietnam.
And Zarqawi is no Ho Chi Minh, and there does not seem to be any General Giap running the campaign against us.
Sorry, the Vietnam analogy is lame.
If the new President of Iran truely thinks he is the Mahdi, the Dems are going to be facing something much more serious than Vietnamization.
Post a Comment