Decision ‘08

The Democrats’ Obsession With Vietnam

Harry Reid says Iraq is worse than Vietnam:

After months of heated rhetoric slamming President Bush’s Iraq policy, the Senate’s top Democrat moved into new terrain by declaring the Iraq war a worse blunder than Vietnam.

“This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country,” Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”

“So we should take everything seriously. We find ourselves in a very deep hole and we need to find a way to dig out of it.”

Asked whether he considers it a worse blunder than Vietnam, Reid responded, “Yes.”

By a similar token, Harry Reid is more corrupt than Joseph Stalin (hey, if he can make outrageous comparisons…).

Seriously, though, this just shows how unserious Senate Democrats are, and why Republicans and other war supporters need to remove the gloves and get ready to go to the mats. In what way is Iraq ‘worse than Vietnam’?

It hasn’t lasted as long: we were involved in Vietnam for 16 years. There haven’t been as many dead, by a huge margin. Just concentrating on U.S. fatalities alone, we’re a long, long way from Vietnam’s 58,000+, thank God. If Reid means that the domestic reaction is worse than Vietnam, he’s wrong, there, too…anti-war rallies are a far cry from the hip happenings they were in the groovy ’60’s.

If, however, he means the opposition’s politicians have become much more cowardly and partisan, then, yes, in fact, I think Iraq is worse than Vietnam…

32 Responses to “The Democrats’ Obsession With Vietnam”

1 RiverRat Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
He may be referring the financial cost, without an inflation adjustment.
2 brassband Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Have these Democrats given any thought to the consequences of what they are doing?

Or are they so confident that they will be insulated by the liberal media that they figure they will not be held accountable?

Or maybe they assume that President Bush will ignore them; if things turn worse they can claim to have tried to stop the President’s policies. If things improve, they can claim that the debates in Congress helped form the victory.
3 peter Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I’m not sure I agree with Reid, and in any event it’s like arguing whether George Bush is the worst President of all time, or whether Buchanan was worse. It’s an empty exercise which does not yield actionable information.

(As a side note: am I the only one who is reminded of Mr. Peebles on Magilla Gorilla every time Harry Reid steps up to the microphone?)

However, it’s not an outlandish comparison. While American deaths are a fraction of what they were in VietNam, it’s unclear which conflict had more civilian deaths. While American involvement in VietNam spanned sixteen years, it was a hot war with substantial American casualties for only five or six years, and it’s anyone’s guess whether the period of heavy American sacrifice will end at the six year mark, or whether the entire period our troops are there will exceed sixteen years.

However, the consequences of the Iraq invasion are likely to overshadow VietNam. After Saigon, the region stabilized (excluding Cambodia, whose troubles were not entirely attributable to the conflict in VietNam). We are trading partners and diplomatic allies with most countries in Southeast Asia, and the area is in peace. However, the likely consequences from Iraq over the next ten or twenty years are likely to be the rise of Iranian power, an Iraq which is a no-man’s land as a haven for Al Qaeda and others, the loss of American credibility and prestige, and — most ominous — a further rise in Islamic terrorism and a much greater likelihood of another attack on American soil. While it is certainly too early to tell, it is hard to see how the results of the fiasco in Iraq will not be far worse than the results of the fiasco in VietNam.
4 Mark Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Peter, you amaze me sometimes. You have the consequences of failure in Iraq exactly right…and then you argue that we withdraw our troops, ensuring that failure.

My friend, get on the team and help us win this one. It’s only too late if you throw in the towel…
5 peter Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Well, Mark, that’s where we part company. I think the consequences of failure in Iraq are inevitable regardless of what we do, as we are well past the point when things irretrievably spun out of control. We do not have the leverage, the expertise, the credibility, or the alliances to achieve any kind of victory, no matter how loosely defined. As a result of the destabilization of Iraq, we have given birth to a situation where Sunnis and Shia will massacre each other for years to come, and no amount of American troop presence can stop this. Hence I would rather see American troops being taken out of the line of fire and removed from a role which they are neither equipped nor trained to do.

If you don’t think that it is yet time to throw in the towel, then you have to ask yourself what collection of circumstances would lead you to agree that things are so irretrievably damaged that our involvement can no longer fix them. For most of the country, we have reached that point long ago. You’re not there yet. If this tragedy continues to escalate with no end in sight, I predict that you will be there as well.
6 DBrooks Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I have to agree with Mark. Peter, and others like him, seems to be able to recognize what failure in Iraq would portend, yet they seem increasingly determined to ensure that very result. They are politically and emotionally invested in the failure of the Bush Administration to the point where they appear willing to accept(or ignore) any consequences as long as it reflects poorly on this President, and those around him. It’s reckless, disdainful, misguided, and very dangerous.
7 Aaron Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
When do we throw in the towel?

“We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.”

– Sir Winston Churchill
8 peter Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Post 6: what a bunch of crap. The Bush administration has already failed. It has been in office for six years and does not have a single domestic achievement to date. As for foreign policy: of the four most troublesome countries in the world, three are far more dangerous than when Bush took office (Iran, Iraq, North Korea) and one is about the same (Afghanistan). Nobody wishes for continued failure in Iraq so George Bush looks even worse than he does. If anything is reckless, disdainful, misguided, and very dangerous, it’s sending more soldiers to die so Bush can kick the can down the road and have the next administration clean up this mess.

Post 7: there is no equivalence between the British fight against the Nazis — who did, after all, bomb London night after night — and the invasion of a country which never attacked us. Some fights are worth fighting to the death. The invasion of Iraq is most certainly not among them.
9 Mark Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Peter, as usual, any points you might score are lost in your hopelessly partisan rhetoric.

The Bush administration has already failed. It has been in office for six years and does not have a single domestic achievement to date.

Please - save that for the Huffington Post…
10 peter Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
OK: what are the domestic achievements of the Bush administration?
11 Mark Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Well, his economic policy, with a few exceptions like the disastrous steel tariffs, has been solid-

* Since The First Quarter Of 2001, Productivity Had Strong Average Annual Growth Of 3.1 Percent. This is well ahead of the average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

But the big domestic victory, on which the solid economic growth resides, is the passage of the tax cuts.

But two larger points: one, such a statement as the one you made is cartoonish. Of course, Bush has had domestic victories. To deny that for any presidency is just silly.

Second, it’s a bit unfair to judge the president who occupied the office on 9/11 on domestic affairs. Nevertheless, here’s a big one: no further terrorist attacks on American soil since September 11th. That’s an accomplishment, too…
12 peter Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Re economic policy: Bush inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a record-setting deficit. Job growth in his six years of the Presidency has been subpar (and far below the growth in the first six years of the Clinton Presidency). Median disposable income has been stagnant. The tax cuts are far from an achievement: he had to borrow to pay for them. Anybody can give tax cuts: it’s the easiest thing for a politician to do. I’m not sure what effect, if any, Bush had on productivity: it’s not the sort of thing which the government has much influence on.

Why is it unfair to judge the President on domestic matters because of 9/11? Do you think a President only has the bandwidth to work on one problem at a time?

No attack since 9/11? If there was a real and serious threat which the Bush administration prevented, I’m eager to hear about it. The one plot which we know about — the alleged plot to bomb airlines coming from London — was thwarted by British police work.

LBJ’s leadership in passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Reagan’s leadership in bringing down the Berlin Wall, and Clinton’s balancing of the budget are all significant achievements. There is nothing the Bush administration has done which is remotely in this class.
13 Josh Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 3:52 am
productivity: it’s not the sort of thing which the government has much influence on.

Are you serious?!
14 peter Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Absolutely. Productivity is the amount of goods produced per unit input. The factors which affect productivity are things like automation, computerization, labor costs, skill of work force, etc. These are variables which are determined by the private sector and not the public sector — what the government does is tangential at best to increases or decreases in productivity. For example, the invention of computers (or cellphones, or Blackberries, or whatever) has increased productivity — but the government had nothing to do with it.
15 Mark Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Peter, it’s not true that ‘anyone can give a tax cut’ - just ask Harry Reid if anyone can push through a non-binding resolution disapproving of the surge. It takes political will and a good sales job.

Regarding your assertion that if there was any big plot the government disrpupted, you’d like to hear about it - the largest building in L.A. was targeted. But on a larger note, your assertion is nonsensical. Bush pushed through the Patriot Act (another domestic achievement) and started his surveillance program (another), and that resulted in a safer environment. The plain fact of the matter is that it would much, much more difficult, if not impossible, for another 9/11-style attack - with the huge, glaring exception of a nuclear terrorist incident, which still scares the crap out of me, and about which, we’re still not doing enough…

Since you’re so dismissive of Bush’s influence on the economy, how can you be so proud of Clinton’s ‘balancing the budget’ which was a direct result of the internet bubble more than anything (though I’ll always give him credit for being pretty good on the economy)?…
16 peter Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 10:07 am
1) Everybody likes a tax cut. Not everybody likes a resolution which will cast doubt on the leader of your political party. Every parent can get their kid to eat candy, but not every parent can get their kid to eat vegetables. (I can’t.) Just because some bills take political will and salesmanship does not mean that all bills do.

2) I think the Patriot Act is a deeply flawed piece of legislation and we have gone over the surveillance program many times before. Nor do I think it is more difficult to launch a terrorist attack now than in 2001. We have porous borders, unprotected chemical plants, uninspected cargo, and many more opportunities for a small number of people with easily accessible weaponry to attack us. Homeland security funds are distributed as pork and not proportionate to vulnerability (Congress’s fault, not Bush’s). I think that Bush’s foreign policy has made us much less safe at home — common sense and the NIE estimate, among other things, indicate that the growth of terrorism as a result of our occupation of Iraq creates more people willing to attack us, not less.

3) I’m dismissive of Bush’s influence on the economy because it is shameless to turn a deficit into $300 and $400 billion deficits to pay for tax cuts which primarily benefit high income individuals. (Again, giving out candy and not broccoli.) I am supportive of Clinton’s influence on the economy because he did the opposite: he inherited large deficits from Bush I and Reagan and turned them into a surplus. Was he helped by the Internet bubble? Yes. “More than anything?” Not even close. Clinton deserves credit for his free trade policy, his fiscal responsibility, and having Robert Rubin as his Secretary of the Treasury.
17 peter Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 10:08 am
sorry, shameless to turn a surplus…
18 peter Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 11:53 am
From the front page of today’s Times (under the headline “Terror Officials See Al Qaeda Regaining Power”):

“Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterintelligence officials…. ‘The chain of command has been reestablished,’ said one American government official, who said that the Qaeda ‘leadership command and control is robust.’”

Still feel safer?
19 Mark Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Yes, absolutely…do you honestly think Al Qaeda is stronger now that it was when it basically ruled Afghanistan?

Get real…
20 peter Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Hard to say — in 2001, the Taliban and Al Qaeda ruled all of Afghanistan — now they rule part of Afghanistan and part of Pakistan — whether or not Al Qaeda is as strong now as it was six years ago is hard to say, but it is certainly ascendant — and our invasion of Iraq has given them a much larger pool to recruit from –

I read a quote that to many Muslim eyes, the symbol of America is now Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, not the Statue of Liberty. While they may or may not be more powerful than they were in 2001, they are regrouping, gaining strength, and have safe havens to operate from. It’s hard not to conclude that in a year or two they will be much stronger than they were in 2001.
21 Bob from Ohio Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
If Al Qaeda is stupid enough to establish camps again, let them. The more they congregate, the easier to kill them. Look at Somilia recently.

As for the economy, the dotcom bust and 9/11 should have put this country into a recession. It did not due in large part to the tax cuts.

The Bush Administration has successfully gotten many free trade agreements through, smaller than NAFTA of course but widely spread thru Asia and Latin America.

Clinton’s surpluses were due in part to the GOP’s efforts in Congress to hold spending down. When the GOP stopped doing that, then deficits re-emerged.

Since the end of the recession early in the 1980’s, we have had a very mild recession in 1992 and a one quarter downturn in 2001. Both President Clinton and President Bush are in part responsible for that, mostly by staying out of the way. Focusing on the surplus and tax levels is only part of the equation.

By the way, the biggest accompishment of President Bush is the emerging alliance with India.
22 Mark Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Peter, it’s not even close - Al Qaeda is unquestionably weaker now that it was prior to 9/11. They operated with impunity in Afghanistan. Now they live in deep seclusion, and their financial and communications networks are in tatters.

Seriously, this is not a partisan point, it is unquestionable. It’s troubling that they are resurgent, but they’ve got a long, long way to go (and they won’t get there)…
23 jpe Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Peter, it’s not even close - Al Qaeda is unquestionably weaker now that it was prior to 9/11.

The question, is whether al-Qaeda would be weaker but for Bush’s obvious blunders, viz. would al-Qaeda would be weaker if we had focused on Afghanistan & Pakistan militarily and refused to give them the recruiting and training ground of Iraq.
24 Mark Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Well, that’s a different question: although the Iraq War has been both a blessing and a curse for al-Qaeda. Muslims killing muslims has given the group a black eye in some quarters…
25 DBrooks Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Hmm. I return to see the response to my comment, and I see Peter proving my point left and right. He, and others, are so ardently invested in the “failure” of the Bush Administration that they are unable to think, or debate, soberly. He is one of those people who, if Bush were to walk on water, would say, “Look at that idiot. He can’t even swim.” To admit even the smallest successes for these “incompetent, evil neo-cons” is unacceptable because it undermines their adopted mindset–this President, and those around him, are inept, corrupt, manipulative, secretive, and so on. To repeat myself, this self-delusion is reckless, disdainful, misguided, and very dangerous. Peter seems like a decent person, but I have seen others like him at many sites who enjoy arguing with the other side. For myself, I no longer take him seriously, and he will probably be relieved to read that I am going to ignore him from now on. He can write the same old, same old every day, and he won’t be bothered by my rebuttal, or burdened with my attention.
26 Vietnam - Vietnam » The Democrats Obsession With Vietnam Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
[…] : After months of heated rhetoric slamming President Bush s Iraq policy, the Senate s top Democrat moved into new terrain by declaring the Iraq war a worse blunder than Vietnam. … – Read More – […]
27 peter Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Post 21:

1) I have worked for Internet companies since 1994, when Prodigy and Compuserve were the leading online services, so I know something about the industry. The Internet industry was simply too small in the late 1990’s to have much effect on the economy: it was a fraction of the size of other industries which have undergone “creative destruction” without significant damage to the economy (steel, agriculture, mainframe computers, etc.). If Bob’s point is that the revenue from capital gains from dot com stocks was so large that it erased the deficit: I find this difficult to believe. It strikes me that the dot-com bubble is a convenient way to deprive Clinton of the credit he deserves for turning deficit to surplus.

2) We did not go into a recession due to both looser fiscal and monetary policy. The Fed pushed down interest rates, which boosted the economy. Bush borrowed billions of dollars, which also goosed the economy. However, this debt must be repaid by future generations.

3) Re the GOP: regardless of how you spin it, Clinton inherited a huge deficit from Bush I and Reagan, and turned it into a surplus. Bush II inherited a surplus and turned it into record deficits. The meme that “it was only because of Congressional Republicans that we achieved a surplus” is absurd: the fact is that the Clinton Presidency is the only one in generations to have a fiscal surplus.

4) Re India: I doubt very much that Congress will ratify an agreement which provides nuclear technology to a country which will not abide by non-proliferation agreements.

Post 22: “Al Qaeda is unquestionably weaker now that it was prior to 9/11?” How do you know? We don’t know how many people and resources they had in 2001 – and we don’t know what they have now. What we do know is that they have all of the ingredients to launch an attack: a large pool of recruits, money, and a place to train and conduct operations with impunity.

My concern is that since there were no WMD and the fantasy of a democratic Iraq being a beacon in the Middle East is a pipe dream, the war is now justified because Iraq is purportedly the “central front in the war on terror.” However, the people who are planning the next attack on us are not in Iraq: they are in Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan. Because we veered off course from fighting terrorists to invade Iraq, we do not have the resources or the leverage to decimate Al Qaeda.

Post 25: I don’t think that the Bush administration is corrupt, but there is copious evidence that they are inept, secretive, and manipulative. If DBrooks feels that they are the best thing since Velveeta, then I am eager to hear why they are competent, transparent, and honest. However, this post is nothing of the kind: since this argument cannot be made with a straight face, he (she?) can’t do anything except claim that those who recognize this are delusional. The current Newsweek has a poll which shows that 58% of Americans wish the Bush Presidency were over; a recent poll has 55% of respondents calling the Bush Presidency a “failure;” this month’s CBS/NYT poll has Dick Cheney with the lowest approval rating of any President or VP since the polling started in the 1940’s. Must be a lot of delusional people running around these days.
28 Mark Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Peter, there was recently a story by James Fallows in the Atlantic Monthly that followed interviews with over 60 experts in the field, and this was the conclusion:

…[B]ecause of al-Qaeda’s own mistakes, and because of the things the United States and its allies have done right, al-Qaeda’s ability to inflict direct damage in America or on Americans has been sharply reduced. Its successor groups in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere will continue to pose dangers. But its hopes for fundamentally harming the United States now rest less on what it can do itself than on what it can trick, tempt, or goad us into doing. Its destiny is no longer in its own hands.

But it takes very little research, and only a passing knowledge of the history of al-Qaeda, to realize this is true.

To pretend that al-Qaeda has not been harmed by the Patriot Act, the ouster of itself and the Taliban from Afghanistan, the almost crippling blows on its finances by the SWIFT program, and the stepped-up surveillance (all instituted on the watch of George W. Bush) is to insist that the sky is green and the glass is blue.

Come off it…
29 peter Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I don’t subscribe to the Atlantic so I can’t open up the link — so it’s hard to comment on Fallows’s piece –

I certainly hope that you are right and I am wrong — but given the fact that Al Qaeda has launched major attacks in London, Madrid, and Bali, I find claims of their impairment difficult to believe –
30 Mark Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Peter, the difference (and I didn’t realize the Atlantic was a subscriber link, sorry) is in the scale of the attacks. No one doubts that al-Qaeda is capable of planting explosives - any three fools off the street can do that.

But to plan a 9/11 is another matter entirely…the time, money, effort, and coordination involved are beyond the capabilities of al-Qaeda now, according to the experts in Fallows’ article.

However, the big caveat is a nuclear device, which, as you know, is a big worry of mine…
31 peter Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I don’t think you need a repeat of 9/11 for a devastating terrorist attack — if you recall how two nutjobs with guns terrorized the Washington DC area a few years ago, imagine what a dozen nutjobs with guns could do — or two guys with Stinger missiles — or one guy who fills a Coke bottle with Sarin and tosses it into the Central Park reservoir –

Hannah Arendt said “give me one hundred men who are not afraid to die and I can change the course of history.” We know what 19 men did. Even if Al Qaeda does not have the resources for another showstopper event like 9/11 — an arguable proposition — they still pose an extremely dangerous threat, which we minimize at our peril.
32 Mark Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Oh, on that we agree…I never meant to be arguing that they don’t remain a huge threat…just that they have suffered some quite severe setbacks when compared with, say, August, 2001…the Atlantic article also details how Osama and crew were convinced they would defeat the Americans in Afghanistan just like they did the Soviets…