Quagmire Redux?
DAVID GELERNTER has missed the point of the Vietnam lesson (“Another Vietnam?” Oct. 11). It’s obvious the American press wrote many defeatist articles about the war. However, such coverage flowed inevitably from the poor leadership provided by Presidents Johnson and Nixon.
The overwhelming lesson of Vietnam is that when Washington politicians devise war strategies and choose bombing targets, we will lose. When politicians decree there will be a DMZ beyond which our troops may not go, we will lose. When we rotate troops in and out of the war in a year, and when we don’t call out the Guard and Army reserves, we will lose.
The media certainly played a role in our Vietnam defeat. But Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, and Richard Nixon played an even greater role. And Bush is playing the same role in Iraq. The failure to invade and pulverize Falluja is clear evidence the Iraq war is being fought along political terms, not military ones.
It is a sad day in America, because this war was winnable. Now it is not. Even worse, it is clear that a large number of Americans are so cowardly that they are ready to elect John Kerry and run out of Iraq at the first chance.
Dudley Crawford
Missouri City, TX
I TAKE DAVID GELERNTER’S article to heart. He makes some very valid points. There are some striking similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. For example, many on the right who support the Iraq war are unwilling to send their sons and grandsons to fight in Iraq. This is just like Vietnam.
As young men, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, and many others supported the Vietnam war, but did not volunteer to serve. Many who did serve–including John McCain, Max Cleland, Chuck Robb, and John Kerry–have had their patriotism and military service called into question by some of the aforementioned individuals.
Before we, as a country, decide to take many of the Iraqi cities currently held by insurgents, militants, or terrorists, let’s see the sons and grandsons of prominent conservatives join the battle.
Jeff Clark
Germantown, MD
DAVID GELERNTER’S editorial makes what is by now a classic mistake in reasoning. The fact that the Communist Vietnamese government has been a disaster has some bearing on whether the war should have been fought, but little relevance to whether it was winnable. People closely associated with that war, including Robert McNamara, believe it could not be won. In Vietnam, America lost the hearts-and-minds campaign, and soon thereafter lost the war.
The fallacy here is thinking we are popular simply because a local government is unpopular. We have seen this in spades in Iraq. The truth is people can, and do, despise both Saddam Hussein and the United States. Since Saddam is no longer a factor, we will now have a much tougher hearts-and-minds battle in Iraq. The key question is whether we are winning that fight. It seems to me that we are well on our way to losing it.
Samuel L. Earp
McLean, VA
Debating Kerry
IN “DEBATE HANGOVER” (Oct. 11), Fred Barnes makes repeated reference to John Kerry’s “contradictions” on Iraq. But that’s only a fair critique if one assumes an honest politician must have been consistently pro- (or anti-) war from the very beginning to the present.
That assumption doesn’t hold up. It’s possible for a person to have opposed the invasion of Iraq, but then–after the invasion–supported the U.S. and allied reconstruction effort. There is no “contradiction” there, only a reevaluation in view of the situation on the ground as it has evolved.
To be sure, John Kerry won’t get my vote. But that’s because he’s a liberal Democrat, not because he has revised his opinion on Iraq based on unfolding events, events over which he has no control.
George G. Peery III
New Bern, NC
FRED BARNES is right when he argues that what John Kerry says in a debate is more important than how he says it. Indeed, what Kerry says may come back to haunt him later, such as his remark about our foreign policy needing to pass a “global test.”
Perhaps we should ask Kerry if it is also an interstellar test. In attempting to explain his debate remark later on CNN, Kerry said, “I can do a better job of protecting America’s security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.”
Not just in the globe? Does he mean in addition to the United Nations we also need the approval of the United Federation of Planets before defending America? And Dubya is supposed to be the inarticulate one?
Daniel John Sobieski
Chicago, IL
