Re-Debating (if not Re-Fighting) Vietnam
Here is an example of thinking outside the box. Peter Robinson on The Corner gives credit to a reader who e-mails (basically): if Kerry is nominated, there will be a debate about Vietnam, and Bush will win that debate, too.
Robinson agrees.
There is a tendency to say that Americans still just want to put Vietnam behind them. One necessary step is to give both veterans of the war, and former draft dodgers and such, leading roles in the country. All is forgiven, on all sides. But it is part of the logic of Bush's position today that the U.S. war in Vietnam should be re-considered.
As Robinson states the "Republican" position (although this is not how the partisan debate played out in the 60s):
- "our undertaking in Vietnam was born of a noble impulse, not some sort of twisted imperialist dream
- "we lost only because of a failure of national will that John Kerry, among others, helped to precipitate
- "despite its ultimate failure the war repesented a holding action that helped to make possible the rise of the 'Asian tigers,' including Thailand and Taiwan, whose example even Vietnam itself is now attempting to follow."
This is all typically shrill, us vs. them (Kerry is to be treated simply as a defeatist, a destroyer of the national will, even though he actually served in combat unlike other people we could mention?), but it raises some interesting points. Even if we grant that McNamara's approach to the war was completely wrong, and led to disaster, it doesn't follow that the war itself was necessarily a mistake. It may hold up as an example of the Truman Doctrine in action--containing communism everywhere.
If the Vietcong had won a lot earlier, would they have taken Cambodia and Laos? Would Thailand have been attacked, at least? What are the implications? Bush wants to argue (in a way): we might be wise--erring on the side of caution--if we invade countries with little in the way of a tangible reason to do so, but some hope of gaining ground in a wider ideological war, with the potential of preventing direct harm to Americans.
If the Democrats want to avoid the Vietnam part of this debate, they might nominate: Edwards/Lieberman. (Edwards was too young for Vietnam; Lieberman got a student exemption followed by a married exemption; but then he's practically a rabbi).
|
