Hitchens: 13 reasons why Bush’s Vietnam analogy is moronic
posted at 9:55 pm on August 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m going to rescue this from headlines and toss it up for general comment since it looks like people want to talk about it. Proof that Hitch remains a man of the left at heart: he’s miffed that Bush would slander the good name of his beloved Viet Cong by comparing them to the jihadist Nazis who are feasting wholesale on Iraq. Follow the link for specifics; numbers 4, 9, and 11 are especially compelling. Then the capper:
It is true that the collapse of the doomed American adventure in Indochina was followed by massive repression and reprisal, especially in Cambodia, and by the exile of huge numbers of talented Vietnamese. But even this grim total was small compared to the huge losses exacted by the war itself. In Iraq, the genocide, repression, aggression and cultural obliteration preceded the coalition’s intervention and had been condemned by a small but impressive library of UN resolutions. Thus, the argument from ‘bloodbath’, either past or future, has to be completely detached from any consideration of the Vietnamese example.
The companion piece to his column is running tonight in the Times of London. It’s by William Shawcross, like Hitch an acidic critic of U.S. intervention in Vietnam and like Hitch an avid supporter of U.S. intervention in Iraq. Where they differ is on just how small that “grim total” was in Vietnam after the last U.S. chopper flew away:
When I covered the wars in Indochina for The Sunday Times, I was opposed to the US effort. After the communists won, appalling stories of brutality began to emerge. Thousands and eventually millions of people fled the cruelty of the Vietnamese communist victors, mostly as “boat people”. In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge communist victors were far more brutal and up to 2m Cambodians were murdered or died…
Today, as in the 1970s, the press has a special responsibility. In Indochina the majority of American and European journalists (including myself) believed the war could not or should not be won. At the end one New York Times headline read: “Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life”.
Such naivety was horribly wrong, and I have always thought that those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath. Similarly today I think that too many pundits’ hatred (and it really is that) of Bush (and till recently Blair) dominates perceptions.
If you think Darfur is bad, he concludes, wait and see what an Iraq free of “occupation” looks like. Historians react here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
My comment :
2)
Golly! I knew there was something wrong about Osama bin Laden; he hasn’t read Stuff Jefferson Said, vol.II 3rd ed.
billy on August 25, 2007 at 9:55 PM
None of Hitch’s 13 points adresses Bush’S central point from this week’s speech: leaving Iraq now would be as disastrous as abandoning S. Vietnam was in 1975.
billy on August 25, 2007 at 10:01 PM
… As the American left celebrated from New York to Hollywood, in Phnom Penh former Cambodian prime minister Sirik Matak wrote to John Gunther Dean, the American ambassador, turning down his offer of evacuation:
As the American left celebrated from New York to Hollywood, in Phnom Penh former Cambodian prime minister Sirik Matak wrote to John Gunther Dean, the American ambassador, turning down his offer of evacuation:
Dear Excellency and Friend:
I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we all are born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans].
Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.
S/Sirik Matak
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/016tnyms.asp
bnelson44 on August 25, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Oh Really? Never would have guessed….
R D on August 25, 2007 at 10:02 PM
In defense of Bush… sorry, scrap that.
MT on August 25, 2007 at 10:08 PM
It just so happens I have a link to more on the topic.
Viet Nam And Clarity Of Purpose!
R D on August 25, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Maybe one of the outcomes of this current conflict against jihadism is that America will actually face the truth about the Vietnam War and our shameful conduct of it.
Not the conduct of the men who fought, with honor, but the conduct of those at home who demonized those men, and left the S. Viet. to such a horrible fate.
billy on August 25, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Good point billy………
R D on August 25, 2007 at 10:14 PM
More from Hitchens:
What?
How can any rational, thinking man read or hear Bush’s speech and conclude that Bush was comparing the S. Vietnamese with the jihadists?
You can’t.
Which is why Hitchens published this in the U.K. Gaurdian where few (if any) people have heard or read the speech.
When Hitchens is good; he’s very good.
When he’s bad; meh.
billy on August 25, 2007 at 10:22 PM
All historical analogies are imperfect. MB4’s analogy in the headline thread regarding the German “stab-in-the-back” myth proves this and Hitchens, in his excoriation of the president’s Vietnam comments, forgets this.
baldilocks on August 25, 2007 at 10:23 PM
“Here’s what they said, ‘Defeat would produce an explosion of eupho-ria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate.’ I believe these men are right.”
The two men he was referring to were Peter Rodman, a former aide to Henry Kissinger and more recently assistant secretary of defence in the Bush administration, and me.
Abandon Iraq and see a Vietnam horror show
A man who saw the hell Vietnam descended into after America left, warns against inflicting the same disaster on Iraq
bnelson44 on August 25, 2007 at 10:24 PM
This is compelling to you?
Kennedy ordered the overthrow of Pres. Diem (much like Hillary and Krauthammer want to remove Maliki) precisely because of Buddhist protests against his reign.
That’s not quite “identifying” with a confessional minority.
billy on August 25, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Let me summarize Hitchen’s article:
See a pattern here?
Niko on August 25, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Implied in this, but of course he won’t come right and say it, is the idea that the Viet Cong and the N. Vietnamese were waging a “people’s war” and the U.S. was on the wrong side.
This was axiomatic for the left of the time and has remained so for “enlightened” people ever since.
Well it wasn’t true then and it’s not true now.
The jihadists are not fighting a People’s War and the communists weren’t either.
billy on August 25, 2007 at 10:46 PM
When Hitchens is good, he’s very, very good,
but when he’s bad, he’s awful.
The question is not “is Hitchens wrong in criticizing Bush for using the example of Vietnamese and Cambodian atrocities after our withdrawal?”; yes, he quite obviously is wrong.
The question is “why is he making this ridiculous argument?” The specter of post-withdrawal horror in Iraq has been the single issue that the Democrats will concede, most of them, anyway, and has been cited by Obama and Clinton as a reason to keep some troop level in place.
I suppose he is saying Vietnam wasn’t as bad as this will be, but that’s crazy. They killed and imprisoned and tortured hundreds of thousands, and the Khmer Rouge killed millions.
Is he just trying to protect his disastrous position in that war, in retrospect?
Jaibones on August 25, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Hitchens is way off the mark here. Bush was not comparing Iraq to Viet Nam morally, yet that is the basis for Hitchen’s rant.
Iraq is very much like Viet Nam in manys. Let me count them:
1. Just as in Viet Nam, US technological might is restricted by political considerations.
2. Just as in Viet Nam, we are fighting a guerilla war.
3. Just as in Viet Nam, the enemy hides within the population.
4. Just as in Viet Nam, leaving will release a genocide.
5. Just as in Viet Nam, the Left wants us out.
6. Just as in Viet Nam, the Left speaks on behalf of our enemy.
7. Just as in Viet Nam, the Left acuses US soldiers of war crimes.
8. Just as in Viet Nam, not enough troops, not enough forces, are committed to the fight to actually win it.
9. Just as in Viet Nam, killing civilians is taboo, so WW II tactics that led to victory can not be applied.
10. Just as in Viet Nam, the US is fighting a totalitarian enemy, but gets no credit for doing so.
11. Just as in Viet Nam, the US is the bad guy.
12. Just as in Viet Nam, if the US pulls out, it will be considered a “lost war”. (rather than the failed nation-building gambit that it is)
13. Just like in Viet Nam, the administration is not willing to do what it takes to actually win.
It is in these ways, that Iraq is like Viet Nam, and it is in these ways that make the analogy apt. Hitchens argues that only Iraq is a moral conflict. He is worng on that too. Morally, Viet Nam was just. North Viet Nam attacked the South, America fought only to defend South Viet Nam as per its agreement.
jihadwatcher on August 25, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Ok, let’s get one thing straight. We did not LOSE in Vietnam. We fought it with our hands tied behind our backs for ten years, trying to negotiate. The N.V.s walked out of the Paris peace talks and so Nixon ordered Operation Linebacker 2, the unrestricted bombing of N.V. After 11 days the war was over. ELEVEN DAYS! We won. We left. Two years later, the North (after being rearmed by the Soviets) reinvaded the South (whose funding was cut off by the Dems in Congress) and the North won. The S.V.s lost two years after we left, thanks to the Dems.
Now, to compare Iraq to Vietnam, we left before the South was able to defend themselves and they were slaughtered. If we leave Iraq before they’re able to defend themselves too, then they’ll be slaughtered also.
Once again the Dems want to leave those who choose freedom hanging. And yes, they WILL hang.
Tony737 on August 25, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Yeah, I think so. Which reveals a lot about the modern left, I think.
They’ve invested so much in an unrealistic worldview that they have to defend at all costs, that they can’t now possibly concede any ground, even when confronted with the reality of the global jihadist movement.
Hitchens has written an absolutely terrible article, one well beneath his standards, in defense of his previous positions on Vietnam.
How about the lesser lights of the left?
They must be in an even bigger pickle.
billy on August 25, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Oh, I forgot to add, it was a “negotiated settlement” … yeah, Linebacker 2 destroyed N.V.’s ability to fight to the war, so they came back to the Paris peace talks to end their asswhoopin’. We “negotiated” with B-52’s and MK-84’s and we won. Eat THAT Jon Cary.
Tony737 on August 25, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Hitchens is way off the mark here. Bush was not comparing Iraq to Viet Nam morally, yet that is the basis for Hitchen’s rant.
jihadwatcher on August 25, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Bush is now going for a portion of an attempted Vietnam analogy as he is running out of other arguments to stay in Iraq. His “Nation Building” between Shiites and Sunnis appears not to be going well, backwards if anything.
“Desperate presidents resort to desperate rhetoric, which calls new attention to their desperation. President Bush joined the club this week by citing U.S. failure in Vietnam to justify staying on in Iraq.
Bush’s comparison of the two conflicts rivals Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook” utterance during Watergate and Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” in producing unintended consequences of a most damaging kind for a sitting president.
It is not just that Bush’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on Wednesday drew on a shaky grasp of history, spotlighted once again his own decision to sit out the Vietnam conflict, and played straight into his critics’ most emotive arguments against him and the Republican Party.
More important, Bush has called attention to the elephant that will be sitting in the room when his administration makes its politically vital report on Iraq to the nation next month. For Americans, the most important comparison will be this one: as Vietnam did, Iraq has become a failure even on its own terms – whatever those terms are at any given moment.
That is, the administration has constantly shifted its goals in Iraq to avoid accepting failure and blame – only to see the new goals drift beyond reach each time. Liberation of Iraqis became occupation by Americans, democracy became an unattainable centralized “national unity” government, and this year’s military surge has become a device for achieving political reconciliation among people who do not want to reconcile.”
- Jim Hoagland
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Nail. meets. Head.
If Bush had participated in the Vietnam War we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Vietnam would have been a romp.
Thanks MB4.
billy on August 25, 2007 at 11:12 PM
This is why the press isn’t in charge of Infantry divisions, except that the media is very powerful, so maybe the press is influencing strategic initiatives, that would help explain some ROE and Bush’s pentagon and it’s ‘Clintonesqe’ approach to risk aversion.
So this not only points to keeping the press out of military actions but also points to the stupidity of letting politics into the war zone as well.
Speakup on August 25, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I dislike Hitchens so much I don’t ever read his crap anymore. All he ever has is opinions and I can get similar opinions from a thousand different people that don’t grate on my nerves. What did he ever do to get so much attention in the first place? His Wikipedia page makes him look like a confused weirdo. He’s a former communist that hates Mother Theresa but loves Thomas Jefferson? Go figure.
Guardian on August 25, 2007 at 11:18 PM
Could you render this in German for us?
Like you did in the earlier post?
billy on August 25, 2007 at 11:27 PM
If Bush had participated in the Vietnam War we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Vietnam would have been a romp.
Thanks MB4.
billy on August 25, 2007 at 11:12 PM
ROFLMAO!!!
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Could you render this in German for us?
Like you did in the earlier post?
billy on August 25, 2007 at 11:27 PM
You just needed to ask:
Vergleich Bushs der zwei Konfliktrivalen Richard Nixons “ich bin nicht ausserung eines Schwindlers” wahrend Watergaten und Bill Clintons “ich hatte nicht sexuelle Relationen mit dieser Frau, Fraulein Lewinsky,” wenn ich unbeabsichtigte Konsequenzen einer zerstorendsten Art fur einen sitzenden Prasidenten produzierte.”
Would you like it in Spanish too. If Bush gets his way you will need it someday.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 11:41 PM
I dislike Hitchens so much I don’t ever read his crap anymore.
Guardian on August 25, 2007 at 11:18 PM
When we see persons of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves.
- Confucius
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 11:45 PM
George W. Bush’s unabridged MySpace entry:
Hi. My name is United States President George Walker Bush. You can call me the Commander Guy if you want. Or you can just call me The Decider if you want. You had best call me one or the other or I will have my man Chertoff pay you a visit! Know what I mean? I am now in my second triumphant term after wining it by an even bigger landslide than I won my first marvelous term by.
I graduated from Yale in June 1968 in the top 99% of my class. Then I went into the Texas Air National Guard. I was a Top Gun and almost single handedly protected America from the Viet Cong. You didn’t see any Viet Cong in America, now did you? Well did you? See.
I am sure to go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of all time in U.S. history. Probably only after that guy what’s his name George something. Hey, I just thought of it, he had the same first name as me!
After binging peace and tranquility and democracy to all the Muslim moms and dads in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, I will now bring peace and tranquility and democracy to all the brothers and sisters of Norte America, just
wait and see. One success will follow the other as everything I touch just seems to turn to gold.
I sometimes like to chill out after a long day of serving the Norte American people by watching reruns of the Three Stooges on TV. Don’t you just love those guys? I have learned so much from them and try to make all my cabinet level and department head selections based on their philosophy.
I would like to think that I am open minded, honest and polite except to those damn unamerican nativist racists who disagree with me and do not want what is right for
the Wall Street Journal, Tysons Foods and meAmerica! and of course compassionate and I appreciate the same qualities in others. I am also not too fond of that al-Maliki anymore, in fact I am thinking about what happened to that Ngo Dinh Diem guy in Vietnam. If al-Maliki doesn’t get with my program pretty damn fast! Know what I mean don’t you?Who I’d like to meet:
…other Mexico and Mexican employing loving bloggers who understand that Americans are too lazy to do the hard work that needs to be done to keep the country running. Wise men and women who know that Islam is a great religion of peace. People who like to eat tacos and burritos. Cool people who live close to Washington D.C. so that we can get together
after work, kick back, and have a whole lot of fun while learning more Spanish and drinking Tequila with my very best amigos Teddy, John, Lindsey and Vicente. We can also make plans for continuing brilliant successes in my wonderful Iraqi democracy project where success is just around the corner if all those deafest surrender monkeys don’t get in my way.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles.
Confucius
Don’t you just love Google?
Guardian on August 25, 2007 at 11:56 PM
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 11:56 PM
I think you’ve gone a bit off topic.
Oh well, ADD sufferers have a right to the internets too, I guess.
billy on August 26, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Guardian on August 25, 2007 at 11:56 PM
One must be as a lion to frighten off wolves, but as a fox to recognize traps.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on August 26, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Oh well, ADD sufferers have a right to the internets too, I guess.
billy on August 26, 2007 at 12:02 AM
ADD sufferers, SUBTRACT sufferers, MULTIPLY sufferers and DIVIDE sufferers.
Yes, Al Gore would want it that way!
MB4 on August 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Able to guzzle more energy than dozens of normal men! Producing more hot air than a locomotive! Able to pile up carbon credits higher than a tall building in a single bound!!!
Look UP in the sky! It’s ChickenLittle! It’s FlyingSnakeOilSalesman! It the Sultan of Chad! It’s the Ayatollah of Heat! No, it’sCarbonMan in a private jet painted green using the internet, which he invented for ADD sufferers, SUBTRACT sufferers, MULTIPLY sufferers and DIVIDE sufferers to fix all that heretical GISS data while holding his carbon emitting breath while doing it!!!
CarbonMan, strange visitor from an alternate reality who came to Earth with claims and scary predictions far beyond those of mortal men, disguised as Fat Albert, and now joined by other members of the Royal GreenLeague such as BioFuelHummerMan and EcoCleaningWoman, they all fight a never ending battle for science-fiction, hypocrisy and the Hollywood way!
MB4 on August 26, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Hitchens is a brilliant man. I voted for Bush 4 times. But I think he is a f**kin moron but hey I like his take on the whole fighting Islamic terrorist and lower taxes thing.
But his weak ass border stance makes me crazy. If he was able to use English like it was his first language he could be more effective. His pseudo Texas crap is thin. I don’t buy it fer a second.
It is contrived.
I know I suffer from a similar affliction, but from no education not idiocy.
TheSitRep on August 26, 2007 at 12:13 AM
A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.
Dorothy L. Sayers
The point of quotations is that one can use another’s words to be insulting.
Amanda Cross
Guardian on August 26, 2007 at 12:29 AM
.
What she said!
.
No, What she said!
TheSitRep on August 26, 2007 at 12:35 AM
A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.
Dorothy L. Sayers
Guardian on August 26, 2007 at 12:29 AM
All generalizations are false, including this one.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on August 26, 2007 at 12:41 AM
That was good too.
TheSitRep on August 26, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Viet Nam was pointless because we were fighting a limited battle against the combined powers of Russia and China, by proxy. With a South Vietnamese Army and people who didn’t really want to be such a proxy. While their more ideologically-militant Northern cousins did.
Whatever the reason was for the difference in will, it led to the South’s fall. You cannot prop up the unmotivated forever.
Pouring more troops into Nam, without confronting the Soviet and Chicoms, made it an endless, pointless folly, because we were not going to challenge them in an open war.
Why the U.S. took over the French colonialist position -against massive two communist powers, who were willing to funnel supplies to the enemy in order to screw with our military foreign policy moves- proved to be a bloody bit of naivete by the politicos at that time.
The North Vietnamese weren’t coming after us if we withdrew from the South, because they only wanted their own “united” country to lord over.
The current threat from the global Jihad is altogether different.
Their aims are planetary and tyrannical and suicidally-fatalistic.
Leaving any battlefield without their warriors dead -and their movement scattered to oblivion- only invites their reinvigorated return. And guarantees more attacks upon America and the West.
Whether the Iraqis are like the South Vietnamese, unwilling to unite and fight for their own freedom, is immaterial in this current battle.
The jihadists rising from among them, or those infiltrating from Saudi Arabia, etc., need to be killed for our global security.
Wherever and however we can destroy them is the war aim.
There is no parallel at all in this to Viet Nam.
The Jihad changed everything.
profitsbeard on August 26, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Hitchens is dead wrong on many of the counts he made, including the fact that he’s trying to obscure what Bush meant. Of course he goes after Bush’s faith first and foremost, any show of religious faith is abhorrent to him. But it has little or nothing to do with the facts at hand.
Vietnam was a just war meant to protect a democratic nation from aggression from outside and it was brought about by the last great Democrat our nation has seen. While Iraq did not start out that way it is cast in exactly the same role as Vietnam was decades ago and the outside aggressor is Iran. Unfortunately we’re seeing all too many of the same mistakes being made in Iraq as we did in Vietnam. History will probably show that both were badly fought by both our military leadership as well as our political leadership. To the likes of Hitchens there will never be a just war and he considers our enemies somehow better than us or at least more noble, even if he conveniently forgets Vietnam’s incursions into Cambodia and wholesale export of communism which resulted in millions of innocent Cambodians being murdered and strewn about the killing fields.
Hitchens is wrong about things more often than he is right but his agenda never means well for us.
Buzzy on August 26, 2007 at 1:02 AM
heh
Guardian on August 26, 2007 at 1:09 AM
I mean, Heh.
Guardian on August 26, 2007 at 1:12 AM
I’ve never understood why this administration did not draw a clear distinction between the actual war (the goal of which was to depose Saddam Hussein) and the subsequent nation-building effort. People love to point to the “Mission Accomplished” sign on the aircraft carrier as proof of Bush’s delusions. But the truth is, the original mission really had been accomplished at that point, and the war had been resoundingly won. We could have walked away at that point and there would have been no question about who won. We didn’t because we didn’t want to leave a country in chaos just begging terrorists and/or Iran to take over. The rhetorical mistake since that day has been Bush’s failure to point out that our goals in Iraq today are far different than they were originally, and that the nation-building effort is appropriate and right and in the best interest of Iraq, the U.S., and in fact the entire world–and that it could take decades, just as nation-building efforts in some countries following WWII did. The psychological power of a stable democracy in the Middle East would be simply tremendous. Bush has never effectively made that case, and I doubt he ever will. He’s just not a great communicator, and he’s definitely not a motivator. It’s a terrible shame that his refusal or inability to take the case to the people is likely going to result in disaster for everyone.
aero on August 26, 2007 at 1:33 AM
I agree, he’s an idiot. And he lost a lot of face on this one.
Highrise on August 26, 2007 at 3:11 AM
What confuses people is the idea that “we fought with our hands behind our back” in Vietnam.
For some it does not follow that 500,000 deployed, millions rotated, and 50,000 dead American soldiers is “holding back”.
However, the bombing (the most effective weapon) was held back. With the initial criticism being about the bombing, troop levels were increased – boots on the ground. Of course this then lead to soldiers being called “baby killers”.
The left has a problem with killing the enemy. Not only that, they are reluctant to use superior weapons to destroy massive inferior armies.
The pattern is reoccurant in Iraq. Complaints about the bombing first. Then more troops becomes troops are monsters.
If we end up with a democrat in the white house, I expect an initial INCREASE in troops. Should democrats win, the gloves will be off for the right, and rhetoric about anti-patriotism, dishonor, and genocide will escalate.
To prove they are tough, or to seize the opportunity to win on their watch – they will engage what they will call a “humanitarian surge”, with a specific time-line.
Meanwhile they will pull back all the big guns. No bombing, no patrols – no killing the enemy. And chaos will rage all around our troops. Losses will be high as they are assaulted in the “green zone”. Then they’ll pull out.
Agrippa2k on August 26, 2007 at 5:10 AM
Hitches employed the Straw Man argument here.
He ascribes to Bush a position that Bush never took–a position that is indefensible. How convenient for Hitchens!
He then, quite predictably, proves Bush wrong on a point Bush never made. Pretty low brow for a man I usually respect.
Bush never said Iraq = Vietnam. He said the risk of pulling out early (aka surrender, defeat, etc) was high, as evidenced and related to our pullout (defeat) from Vietnam.
Yet Hitchen;s claims bush did say the two were identical, then he lists some of the obvious ways they differ and proclaims Bush wrong. Again, very low brow method.
It’s quite possible to learn from one experience and apply it to another experience, even if the two experiences are not identical. Hitchen’s is revealing a very narrow mind here.
He is scraping the bottom of the barrel, or at least hoping us to be too stupid to see thru his logical fallacy.
I think we all know the root of Hitchen’s lack of logic here. He comes unglued when faced with a man of faith.
Montana on August 26, 2007 at 5:45 AM
Every war that the US engages in that is not being fought for our immediate survival and on our own territory will have the same characteristics as you list. Some on the left refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any war, some refuse to accept the notion of the US as a force for good, etc. To me, the comparisons to Vietnam are not only accurate but would be made no matter what/where/who we are fighting.
JiangxiDad on August 26, 2007 at 7:11 AM
I should have added that your list is well thought out. I copied it to my hard drive. Tks.
Any idea on how to proceed in the future if these are the parameters we face? Or is this actually a list of how/why the US ceased to be a great power?
JiangxiDad on August 26, 2007 at 7:15 AM
The parallel is the left’s response. Identical. Except for “lefties” like Hitchens who found the WTC a little too close for comfort.
JiangxiDad on August 26, 2007 at 7:23 AM
That plus his intellect and speech make him hard not to listen to.
JiangxiDad on August 26, 2007 at 7:26 AM
He supports staying in Iraq and fighting Islamists to the death. His reasons are diff. than yours. I don’t care.
It’s like Evangelicals supporting Israel. Are they doing so because they want to be Jewish?
Let’s attack somebody who wants to harm us.
JiangxiDad on August 26, 2007 at 7:28 AM
Little I want to hear from the president these days. After the immigration battle, Bushisms seem meaningless to me.
saved on August 26, 2007 at 7:32 AM
Mack Owens identifies the specious logic behind this latest variant of BDS;
Read the whole thing.
Terp Mole on August 26, 2007 at 8:12 AM
That’s a bit simplified. Diem wasn’t just overthrown he was shot in the head along with his brother. Hillary and Krauthammer aren’t advocating similar treatment for Maliki they just want him out of the government. The Buddhists were protesting by dousing themselves in petrol and self-immolating. That’s not “Bush Lied, People Died”, its serious unrest.
aengus on August 26, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Enough of Hitchens and all other mushy liberals and their pseudo-intellectual tripe. The left in this country caused us to quit the fight in Vietnam and left an entire nation to suffer under a brutal communist regime. If we do it again in Iraq then we are wasting the blood and sacrifices of our soldiers and leaving the fate of the Iraqi people to a band of vicious, murdering tyrants. At times, Hitchens can be marginally entertaining . . . but that ends it.
rplat on August 26, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Agrippa, when I said “we fought Vietnam with our hands tied behind our backs” I meant it from an Air Force point of view. The Zoomies and their Navy/Marine Corps buddies were not allowed to bomb the important military targets in the North and the commies knew that so they kept all their anti-aircraft missiles in the restricted zones and shot down our planes. We weren’t allowed to shoot back. When Nixon ordered Linebacker 2, we were allowed to hit those previously restricted targets. The cuffs were removed. Eleven days of unrestricted bombing and the war was over. We won.
Tony737 on August 26, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Montana on August 26, 2007 at 5:45 AM
Exactly.
Here is the link to the transcript of Bush’s speech.
As an aside, I also found it interesting that Bush noted how we worked with Imperial Japan to foster a Democracy alongside an Emperor. I have often wondered if we wouldn’t have been better off restoring a monarchy to Iraq – a constitutional, representative monarchy of course.
By the way, is anyone besides me having trouble posting stuff properly? The “preview” kept cutting out my own comments and wouldn’t let me link. I finally fixed it by taking the “emphasis” off of “Montana on …”
Buy Danish on August 26, 2007 at 10:00 AM
May want to rethink that a bit… there were a whole lot of Clinton “freinds” who died around them under mysterious circumstances during their reign… from clearly impossible suicides, to plane crashes in Africa…
Romeo13 on August 26, 2007 at 10:01 AM
For all his intellect when its all boiled, Hitchens is nothing more than a political hermaphrodite.
.
GT on August 26, 2007 at 10:04 AM
I’m only discussing what Hillary has said publicly on the matter. If Maliki dies in a plane crash or a freak accident then I’ll concede you may have been on to something.
aengus on August 26, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Actualy Bush’s analogy is more apt than most will admit…
Linebacker II brought the North to the table BECAUSE they no longer had a safe haven from which to conduect operations.
An insurgency HAS to have a safe source of supply or it whithers and dies. In Iraq, that souce is PROOVEN to be Iran… is it time for Linebacker III????
I would bet that if Iran was brought to the table through a massive bombing campaign of military AND Industrial targets, that the violence in Iraq would decrease dramaticly.
Romeo13 on August 26, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Screw Hitchens. I prefer Steyn’s take on things.
Christoph on August 26, 2007 at 10:36 AM
The anti-war fluffy people of the Nam protest were new to the scene. It was something our Gov. had not experienced before on that scale and did not know how to handle it.(apparently did not learn). The media had discovered it could control as easily as it could inform and ran with it. There was still a draft, a big deterrent. I have since read that we possibly could have won that war if the pols had not caved in to the above. I don’t know if this is true or not. But, the similarities to Iraq are, in my opinion, only partial but still there on some of these fronts.
jeanie on August 26, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Pres. Bush made an obvious – and obviously accurate – comparison between the two. We abandoned Vietnam prematurely and millions died because of it, if we abandon Iraq tens of thousands will certainly die, and possibly millions later.
I haven’t heard any leftist argue this, merely attempt to obfuscate it and avoid it.
Jason on August 26, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Note that Hitchens is being pounded by the Guardian’s liberal readers for being an apologist. That’s pretty funny. How can you be an apologist while royally insulting the person you’re supposedly apologizing for? Apparently any support for the war for any reason means you’re a Bush administration toady.
aero on August 26, 2007 at 12:42 PM
The major point about Bush’s awful attempt to use Viet Nam comparisons is that only a total fool uses losing campaigns (which ENDED as losses, not campaigns that started out as losses and ended up as wins) as arguments for positions they are advocating. This is just an idiotic way to try to convince people of something.
Further, the idea that the US needs to stay in Iraq for the sake of the Iraqis is moronic and incorrect. There are many reasons why the US must be in Iraq and why we must make sure that Iraq doesn’t turn back into the threat it was, but none of them have to do with worrying about what Iraqis may do to each other.
Someone needs to remind Bush that only US citizens are the responsibility of the US government. We saw that Bush had no inkling of this basic function of government when he tried to surrender US sovereignty to the hordes, and now we see that he has no clue about this with respect to external US security.
The US is in Iraq to serve our own security interests, not to give gifts to the Iraqis (that they spit back in our face, anyway) and not to save the Iraqis from themselves and their brothers. That is how sovereign nations work.
Bush’s idiotic use of Viet Nam to defend our continued presence in Iraq will go down in history with his “religion of peace” yapping, his attempt to surrender US sovereignty, his refusal to carry out his threats to the UN in the face of that organization’s clear attempt to hurt the US, his refusal to fight wars ruthlessly, …
The possible deaths of poor, Iraqi citizens is not a good enough reason for us to stay in Iraq, and has no part in any debate about US security. There are MANY reasons we need to stay in Iraq and make sure it is defanged, but caring about the Iraqis hacking each other up is not one of them.
progressoverpeace on August 26, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Speaking of moronic, Hitch can’t even get through the intro without making a fool of himself. Dubyah has never been opposed to “stem cell research”. Hitch, in his constant efforts to demonize anyone with religous convictions, shows that whatever atheistic “ethics” entail, telling the truth is optional.
corona on August 26, 2007 at 1:38 PM
progressoverpeace on August 26, 2007 at 1:18 PM
WOW!!
I could have written 95% of that comment myself. More or less anyway. I only strongly disagree with about 5% of it. The 5% of it that has us staying in Iraq for who knows how long.
Go figure.
MB4 on August 26, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I must say things have sure changed here from just a week or so ago. Back then the consensus on a thread seemed to be that Hitch was the smartest man alive. Now the consensus seems to be that he is the dumbest.
Did his IQ get cut by about 90%?
Me thinks that something else is going on.
MB4 on August 26, 2007 at 3:17 PM
MB4:
I think his article has changed my opinion of Hitchens. I wasn’t aware he was opposed to the Vietnam war, and I’ve lost some respect for him now that I see him giving unconvincing and illogical arguments. This just means he’s human, but I will analyze his future writings a little more closely now that I know he’s so cognitively dissonant on the Vietnam issue.
Jason
Jason on August 26, 2007 at 3:35 PM
It is a wondrous world.
I’m not for a long stay in Iraq, as things are. I am 100% against any sort of pull-out or retreat, but I would make some very strong threats to the Iraqis about the duration of our patience. I would warn them that, if they do not get themselves together, we will take the oil fields and the gulf access and leave them with nothing. I would withdraw the troops to the fields and strategic points and leave the Iraqis to battle it out with themselves over the worthless land.
I would stay with the Kurds, since they have been the only trustworthy allies there, and let them have some of the fields to administer (through us, but with the money going to them).
I think that, without real threats such as these, the Iraqis will never get their act together. Everyone, of course, is too civilized to make such threats, since it brings up howls of “war for oil” and other silliness, but this is Behaviorism 101.
That’s how I would move forward with Iraq and how I think we should deal with the Iraqis.
I am very much a believer in the “Best friend, Worst enemy” policy for situations such as Iraq.
progressoverpeace on August 26, 2007 at 3:55 PM
I now definitely think that we are about 95% in agreement. You just short version/sum up your position as staying and I just short version/sum up my position as leaving. Well more or less.
I do think however that “taking” the oil fields would be hellaciously bad PR. I can hear the left now, “See we told you it was all about the oil!!! See, see, see!!!”. Maybe take the oil and distribute the profits to the Iraqis themselves on an individual basis, although I am not sure how that would work. I also do not want more of our troops to die as I think that things are going to end up pretty much the same regardless of if we get out in months or years. Right now I think that we are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
MB4 on August 26, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Speakup on August 26, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I agree with Hitchens’ big picture statements about Bush, but clearly what he had to say about Vietnam is part of Hitchen’s own past that are hard to reconcile with Hitchen’s current beliefs. Having gone down the road that I think Hitchens is obliged to follow, I have the, perhaps narcissitic, belief that he will find the road.
thuja on August 26, 2007 at 4:30 PM
That’s what I figured. Interesting.
Well, I’m only talking about the threat (though I would follow through on it), but there’s no question about the screaming left. Of course, the answer to the “war for oil” argument is quite direct, simple, and reasonable so I welcome that debate. Oil, among other attributes it has, is the lifeblood of the modern world and is something that all serious nations must have first and foremost in their national strategy.
But then the Iraqis lose nothing, and the threat becomes a joke. They would just use the oil money to attack us and either blow up the fields or capture them. No, if one is to make a threat, it must be carried out and it must actually hurt. I would use the oil revenues to reimburse for the costs, and for real, this time – but I’m open to other ideas on that. All that’s important about the oil is that whoever takes over Iraq does not benefit from the political power or wealth of the fields AND that the fields are secure, the flow assured and steady, and the price open to true market forces.
Some try to sell a pull-out as a threat to the Iraqis, but that scares no one but the Kurds. One can argue for a US pull-out, but not as a threat, as the dems are trying to do.
Well, US troop deaths can be lowered any time by changing the ROE. But I agree with you that we are not implementing any sort of plan that would move the situation forward. Bush is sort of like a deer stuck in the headlights on this one – but so are most Americans.
I am willing to give Bush a little slack on Iraq, at this point, in that Iran is the more important problem over the next year. Because of that I don’t mind a stagnant policy in Iraq, in the meantime. But I have little faith that Bush will handle Iran correctly, seeing how he has let them wage hot war in Iraq without any punishment at all. But, I don’t know what’s in the works, so I’ll wait and see … as I guess I have to, anyway.
progressoverpeace on August 26, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Maybe take the oil and distribute the profits to the Iraqis themselves on an individual basis, although I am not sure how that would work.
What I had in mind was to “write a check” to individual Iraqi “moms and dads” to spend as they like, which would be on food, clothes, living expenses, as opposed to giving it to the “leaders” who would use it for their own purposes including possibly as you said. Of course how it could be done without the leaders getting a lot of it one way or another could be a problem I realize.
MB4 on August 26, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Yes, along the Alaska model, I assume. I don’t think it makes much of a difference, in a tribal culture, whether the distribution is to individuals or to the leaders. There are some logistical differences, but I don’t think they amount to much. In that part of the world, the money always ends up in the same basic place, performing the same basic function.
The people I am talking about threatening are the population, not the leaders. I have no problem with specific threats to tribal leaders and such, but the country will only be moved, en masse, if the people see the future pain they are toying with. Bush is trying to give them individual liberty, already – which I do not believe will work in an islamic arab country (as opposed to Lebanon, where they still have enough Christian arabs to make it possible).
I understand your reluctance to threaten the individual Iraqis, but I do not think there is any other rational way. A pull-out would be, IMO, calamitous for our interests and for the world in general, not because of the pain the Iraqis will endure but because whoever finally took control of the fields would be a powerful and dangerous addition to our enemies, just like the last one was.
So, we disagree on that, but we are both going to be treated to watching a fossilized presence in Iraq for the next while, and there’s no question that Bush would never issue the threat that I call for. But, without it, forward movement is but a remote and unlikely possibility.
progressoverpeace on August 26, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Simple Hitchens is stuck in a worm hole time warp, as his memory travels back in time he becomes a liberal again.
Speakup on August 26, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Mark Steyn answers brilliantly:
Mark Steyn: They wait for us to run again
TheBigOldDog on August 26, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Mark Steyn is great.
The price of winning is always high.
The cost of losing however, is immeasurable.
Speakup on August 26, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Those posters discussing disbersing an oil dividend to the people of Iraq might want to wait until Iraq has developed a system of taxation. It is hard to run a country if you hand off the primary source of revenue to the people.
davod on August 27, 2007 at 9:16 AM
The problem for Hitchens, is that, at heart, he is still a liberal, a socialist, even a Marxist. He makes no apology for that. The only difference between him and his ideological colleagues, is that he is smart enough to realize that islam will eat the Left first. Thus his position vis-a-vis islam since 9/11.
However, apart from that bit of common sense, Hitchens is your run-of-the-mill socialist, liberal, atheist, leftist crank, so don’t expect him to champion the virtue of any other American war. If it wasn’t for his cognizance of the incompatibility of islam to liberal orthodoxy, he would be writing for the Huffington Post.
In other words, keep an emotional and intellectual arm’s length from Hitchens.
jihadwatcher on August 27, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Well said and all true.
Brat on August 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Comment pages: