Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Michael McBride :: Townhall.com Columnist
Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq
by Michael McBride
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Much has been made about President Bush's recent comments comparing the known fallout in SE Asia after our precipitous withdrawal from the Vietnam War – genocide in Cambodia, re-education camps and mass exodus from South Vietnam. And yet defeatists continue to use the Vietnam War as their case for comparison and the foundation for their call for immediate withdrawal.

Because they are defeatists, they ignore the better comparison, Korea, and choose Vietnam and its unspoken message of defeat.

First let's get the definition of defeatist put into context.

Webster's concise, straightforward and simple definition - Defeatist: an attitude of expecting, accepting, or being resigned to defeat.

It should also include a second variation – Defeatist: one who has more invested in defeat than they do in victory. The Democrats, and some doddering Republicans are beginning to define themselves as defeatists by possessing traits of each of the definitions listed above.

Virtually every Democrat has voted to withdraw troops from Iraq on a timetable not tied to victory, and every Democrat Presidential candidate is running on a withdrawal promise, so they both convey the attitude of defeat and they have more to gain by ensuring defeat than they do victory. So easily, they are defeatists.

Even some Republicans (Warner, G. Smith and the like) seem to believe that they have more to gain (re-election) from defeat, than they do by seeing our mission in Iraq come to some kind of conclusion in the field. They too are hoping for defeat, they, as with the Dems, have already wagered on it.

Which brings us back to Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.

Short synopsis.

Korea. Overwhelming approval for intervention, initial success in turning the North Koreans back north, Home-by-Christmas attitude, failure to anticipate and defend against Chinese intervention, major setbacks, change in leadership, eradication of defeatist attitude, victories that put us on the precipice of total victory, political intervention, stability. Clay Blair’s book Forgotten War provides, in great detail, the dramatic struggles in Korea that we were eventually able to overcome and put us on the route to victory. (for quick reference, no snickering, but the Wikipedia entries for Forgotten War, General Walker and General Ridgeway, do a credible job in capturing the essence of the Korean War).

Vietnam. Intervention in trying to prop up a colonial power, failing to learn the lessons of the French defeat, obfuscated deployment of troops, no Congressional approval, more obfuscation of troop levels, American support for overthrow of established government, questionable cause for "entry" (Gulf of Tonkin), appalling Congressional approval for support with very questionable evidence, political micro-management of warfighting efforts, political capitulation to the anti-war sentiment, Congressional abandonment of South Vietnam, withdrawal, South Vietnamese defeat, Cambodian genocide, re-education, Boat People, and 10 years of American malaise and self-loathing. (The Best and the Brightest, Dereliction of Duty, Bright and Shining Lie, Vietnam, all good references)

Iraq. Congressional approval based on Iraq's failure to meet the hollow demands of dozens of UN resolutions, overwhelming Congressional approval, overwhelming victory, failure to grasp the paradigm shift from conventional to insurgent warfare, setbacks, change in leadership, large gains in a relatively short period of time, last chapter(s) still to be written.

And who will write it? Those making comparisons to Vietnam and committed to defeat, or those committed to preventing genocide, re-education, and another decade of self-loathing, fissure, and malaise. Those who believe that we brought 9/11 on ourselves simply for being Americans and living freely, or those who recognize that we were the victims of an unprovoked attack by an enemy who will seek to murder us, unless we engage him in the field and destroy him there.

I often wonder if defeatists are sports fans. They must not be. For they would surely leave a game the moment their team got behind. They would certainly have pulled the 1980 Olympic hockey team from the ice prior to the game against the Russians. They would have left at half time during the USC comebacks against the Notre Dame Irish in 1964 and 1974. They would have handed the World Series over the St. Louis after they went up 3-1 over the Tigers in 1968. They would have missed two amazing comebacks by Boise State in last year's Fiesta Bowl.

And they most certainly would have pulled Denver from the field prior to Elway taking the first snap on his own two yard line before beginning what is now simply known as "the Drive."

The only true comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam are those actions taken by defeatists (destabilizing legitimate governments, setting of timetables, the ignoring of the dire consequences of their precipitous actions) to further their own agendas.

The real lessons lie in Korea – perseverance, change in leadership and focus when required, and determination in the pursuit of victory.

Only defeatists leave with time on the clock and their team on the field. It is no accident that you don’t see their faces as they make for the exits.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael E. McBride retired as a Major from the Marine Corps and blogs at http://www.mysandmen.blogspot.com.

Be the first to read Michael McBride's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Fantasy thread...
...The first two posters have really hit the bottle on Friday night.They really need some sleep!

Update on Eddred's list:

1) Eddred (execution pending)
2) Eddred's spouse(execution pending)
3) Eddred's children (execution pending)

4) Eddred's parents (execution pending)

5) Eddreds dog (Execution pending)

6) John Warner (Execution pending)
7) Eddreds shrink (Execution pending for mal practice)

There.That should do it for now.

DarkMessiah, you wrote....
"Winning in Iraq? What would we win?"

A better question would be: "Losing in Iraq? What would we lose?"

When you say we have already lost, you lose your credibility with me.

At what point would you have thrown in the towel in WWII, Pearl Harbor? Dunkirk? Iwo?

The Objective
The objective of the on-going military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanastan is to free these people from the tyranny of terrorism which is perpetuated by Muslim extremist organizations and their supporters. In both countries favorable forms of government have been assembled to do the peoples business, but the terrorism which would destablize the new freedoms of the people remains a threat to them and us.

Oil has been the natural resource most responsible for the growth and wealth in western societies for most of the 20th century and is on-going, and is not likely to be replaced in this century. Our national interest is to preserve the free flow of oil and to keep it from being the weapon of a extremist society that is in the terrorists control.

Part one, we freed the people. Part two, now we are trying to stabilize the region.

9-11 was just the most recent catastrophic aggression of terrorism perpetrated by the Muslin extremists through terrorism. The most obvious beginning happened in 1983 when they attacked our U.S. Embassy in Beruit, Lebanon...and then the list goes on. 9-11 is a marker in the change of our strategy to engage the enemy wherever they are in the world...including here at home.

For those who are anti-war...duh, no one is for war. This a war of self-defense against those, like Pearl Harbor in 1941, attacked us, repeatedly. We didn't seek this battle, or battlefield. This is not Korea. This not Vietnam. If it is anything it is WW II and elements of the Cold War combined.

The aggresiveness of totalitarian governments in the 20th century placed America, and other allies in a defense of freedom, and the return to a peaceful world order.

Muslim extremism challenging us by use of terrorism threatens global, peaceful world order

THAT IS WHY WE FIGHT
Douglas Clements

When you win, you don't run.
We, the USA, still have troops in Korea after 50 years. We still have troops in Japan and Germany after 60 years. We still have troops in Cuba and the Philipines after 100 years. We still have troops in Virginia and Alabama after 150 years. We even still have troops in Pennsylvania and New York after 230 years. We won those wars.

We have no troops in Viet Nam. We cut and run. We lost the will to win and left the land to destruction and death. We lost that war. No thanks to Hanoi Jane, John Kerry and their treasonous ilk.

The anti-American traitors have been demanding a "witdrawl" schedule and timetable ever since the Iraq began. They demand to lose the war in Iraq and run, instead of winning and staying.

When you lose, you get out and go home. When you won, you hang around. Korea and Viet Nam are two glaring examples. Victory or defeat. You can tell the patriots from the traitors by which they advocate.


According to Bob
Treason is dictated by where and how long US troops remain in foreign countries. Patriotism is based on advocating having our military based nin foreign countries.

Bob's thought process is warped by a desire for unbridled militarism. Eisenhower, one of the true American military heroes, warned us about Bob in 1961.

Michael, Bob et. al.
First, Korea and Vietnam were just battles in the Cold War, bloody though they were.


"When you win, you don't run."

No one in any position of power is talking running

"We, the USA, still have troops in Korea after 50 years. We still have troops in Japan and Germany after 60 years. We still have troops in Cuba and the Philipines after 100 years. We still have troops in Virginia and Alabama after 150 years. We even still have troops in Pennsylvania and New York after 230 years. We won those wars."

This is your crucial mistake. With the exception of Cuba those nations are allies. We are there at our and their request.

"We have no troops in Viet Nam. We cut and run. We lost the will to win and left the land to destruction and death. We lost that war. No thanks to Hanoi Jane, John Kerry and their treasonous ilk."

You are so wrong and I guess completely unable to read history. We left Vietnam because the American people lost their faith and confidence in a failed administration. You want blind obedience? I suggest you find a totalitarian government - they lose like Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union but hey, you should feel more at home there while it lasts.

"the anti-American traitors have been demanding a "witdrawl" schedule and timetable ever since the Iraq began. They demand to lose the war in Iraq and run, instead of winning and staying."

Remember the lessons of Vietnam and elsewhere? Go in with sufficient numbers to accomplish a set goal with a clear exit plan? Bush didn't.....

"when you lose, you get out and go home. When you won, you hang around. Korea and Viet Nam are two glaring examples. Victory or defeat. You can tell the patriots from the traitors by which they advocate. "

Don't you think our troops and their families deserve more respect than the cheap buzzwords you extremists are down to?

Who Lost China?
A brief history of the Vietnam-Korean Wars and China.

Americans need to know both sides of issues to be informed in making decisions.

The truth is out there.

Who lost China? Who's to blame? Who made the decison to abandon China, our ally during WW II under the Nationalist government led by Chiang Kai-shek. Whomever, the aftermath of that decison resulted in China soon falling under the control of Communist forces led by Mao Zedong.

It is important to understand these events, because the roots of the Korean and Vietnam wars can be traced to our abandoning and losing China to the Communists.

Without a Communist China, an American fifth column preaching defeat, aiding and comforting our enemies, there is no way America would have been defeated in Vietnam----nor would there have been the Vietnam and Korean wars.

Will we soon be asking "Who abandoned and lost Iraq?" Whom shall we blame for another American defeat, and what will be the aftermath?


Korea, Vietnan & Iraq
Those who draw an analogy between WWII and Iraq do not understand either WWII or Iraq.

Douglas Clements
Again, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We ran from further pursuit of those who did attack us when we rushed of to invade Iraq and gave up on getting Bin Laden.

Dark Messiah
Good post. I hope you are right. On that topic you should read Andrew Bacevich's THE NEW AMERICAN MILITARISM.

Satirev
A McCartyite huh? Now why doesn't that surprise me LOL. No one lost China. Mao and the Chinese people won China when we backed the wrong party.

in chess, you resign
"Only defeatists leave with time on the clock and their team on the field."

No, in chess it's considered bad form to just delay the inevitable. If you're in a bad strategic position, you resign the game. You don't drag it out till your king is finally captured.

for eddred
eddred writes: "I REGRET TO INFORM EVERYONE THAT SEN JOHN WARNER HAS MADE IT ONTO OUR TOP 5 MOST TREASONOUS TRAITORS LIST. I WANT TO CRY WHEN I SEE HOW MUCH HE HATED OUR TROOPS."

Tell me something: Who knows more about foreign policy, Warner or Bush?

Who knows more about defense policy, Warner or Bush?

Who knows more about the state of our troops, Warner or Bush?

What has Bush done to earn such blind trust on your part? What has Bush done to earn such respect from you?

for michigander
michigander writes: "A better question would be: "Losing in Iraq? What would we lose?""

NO. That is definitely NOT the question.

You NEVER fight a war just because you're afraid of losing.

You fight a war because you believe that winning it is beneficial to your national interest.

And given that al-Qaeda hasn't been defeated one iota by all the mayhem in Iraq, and that it still exists in dozens of countries and sanctuaries worldwide, I say we will have won NOTHING even if we win in Iraq.

If the ONLY argument you have for fighting in Iraq is that you can't bear losing, then you DESERVE to lose.

OVER
When the administration and its cronies are reduced to creating commercial advertising campaigns and instant "veterans organizations" to support foreign policy and the Iraq War -- it is over. Now it is time to repair the damage, rebuild our military and hunt down the terrorist organizations,

Parlor Chess, SteveL,......
....is not human combat. War, as much as you "intellectuals" would like to make make it an "intellectual pursuit", is irrational to reason. Resignation on the battle field can only result in rout and capture. That is the lesson on the obverse side of the Vietnam coin.

Resignation in chess means that you get to get up and go to the can. The metaphor of chess tradition is applicable only among those who have agreed to honor all the rules. In real war, there are no real rules, only winners and the wounded (such as they are), losers and the dead.

If we used your chess metaphor in Iraq, we would find the resigned noble player dead in the men's with his throat cut.

Stevel, you and your
confederates on here just don't get it.

You wrote: "You NEVER fight a war just because you're afraid of losing." Those are your words, not mine.

You continue fighting a war not because you're afraid of losing. You continue because you fear the aftermath of losing.

You also wrote: "And given that al-Qaeda hasn't been defeated one iota by all the mayhem in Iraq, and that it still exists in dozens of countries and sanctuaries worldwide, I say we will have won NOTHING even if we win in Iraq."

Fact is, al-Qaeda is on the run in Iraq. You apparently have so much invested in our loss there that you refuse to recognize our successes. Iraq is only one battleground in the war on terrorism. We must fight them where we find them, and hopefully we will keep those battlegrounds on foreign soil rather than at home. Bush chose Iraq as the first major battleground. Maybe you would have chosen a better place, but the idea that we can just stop fighting and go home without consequence is delusional. This war will go on for decades, and like I said, hopefully we can keep it on foreign soil.

a war lost at home, by losers
"You NEVER fight a war just because you're afraid of losing.

You fight a war because you believe that winning it is beneficial to your national interest."
_

you're just dodging his question.

if losing a war has serious negative consequences to national interest, winning it is beneficial, no?

while you're at it, list dozens of countries where al qaeda is a threat due to the war in Iraq.

and remember, whether you think you can or you cannot - you're right. ;)

Kreplock says
"You fight a war because you believe that winning it is beneficial to your national interest."

In the case of Iraq tell me 1) what that means and 2) how we get there.

Through military action we may be able to increase security in Iraq although I doubt even that. But how do we create a stable government and society after we leave? Only the Iraqis can do that. Even then it is likely to be Shiite and therefore anti Sunni no matter what we do.

All I hear from the "win in Iraq" people is that we must continue there because we cannot lose. However, I have not heard a credible plan that defines what a win would look like and how we would accomplish that.

Even if such a plan were to be advanced, the American voters probably won't buy it because the war proponents have been wrong about just about everything since this war began.

michigander
While Osama Bin Laden says Iraq is the central front in their fight against the US why do we let him define the struggle in his terms. He and a resurgent Al Qaida are in Pakistan. Bin Laden says that Iraq is a central front because it is so advantageous to him. The fight is not focused on him and his organization, we are bogged down and it is a tremendous recruiting tool for Al Qaida. He must be sitting in his cave laughing his head off.

The purpose - 1
... for invading Iraq was to remove a tyrant who both pursued WMD and supported Islamic terrorism (not that he had a hand in 9/11, but that he supported Islamic terrorists, including but not limited to Al Qaeda); and to prevent Iraq from being any longer a training ground or safe haven for Islamic terrorists, by reconstituting it as a representative, terror-rejecting polity.

The tyrant is removed. Since his pursuit of WMD and ties to Islamic terrorists are no longer material, it is pointless to continue railing about the politicized depiction of intelligence on those matters. Every Democrat from Ted Kennedy to the editorial board of the New York Times could be convinced today that Saddam really was hip-deep in WMD and payola to terrorists, and our present situation in Iraq would not differ from what it is one iota.

The question is whether we will continue to pursue the remainder of the purpose for invading Iraq: establishing there a secure, self-determining, terror-rejecting polity. If we don't, then the invasion truly will have been for naught. Even if those who pooh-pooh the idea of mass bloodshed following a US pullout were right, why would we want to leave Iraq to, inevitably, resume its status as prime territory for hosting and abetting international terrorism in its planning against the rest of us?

The purpose - 2
OF COURSE transnational terrorists are fighting us, hard, to prevent our achieving the second objective in Iraq. Iran has its purpose of regional hegemony for fighting us, through terrorism in Iraq; transnational groups recognize the significance of what they will be denied if a successful, self-determining Iraq is closed to them.

What McBride doesn't mention in his summaries of Korea and Vietnam is that the Korea outcome has ultimately been a 54 years and counting armistice, maintained at a cost of 30-40K American soldiers perpetually stationed there. The reason for that is the US political decision to restrain our own battlefield momentum and accept a draw, at the preexisting boundary between north and south. Our concern was fear of a war with China -- a premise there is no political point in revisiting, but one that, nevertheless, carried with it the cost of a situation unresolved for more than half a century, with a stasis maintained at great expense.

Basically, we've been paying an annual premium to keep the Korea situation unresolved. We stabilized it, still unresolved, by embedding ourselves in it. Worth recognizing, as we consider Iraq. Resolving the situation there is likely to take time. But one way or another, odds are we will either resolve it or embed ourselves in it. My vote would be for the former.

dyerje
You continue to assert the discredited notion that there was a connection between Saddam and the 9-11 attackers. There is no credible evidence of that.

The WMD clain was also an assertion that has since has been proven to be bogus. That Bush did not care about that is evident from his refusal to allow the inspections to run their course.

But apart from the duplicity that got us there we must be face the current conflict as it is. The current war there is only a small part with Al Qaida in Iraq. Mostly it is a dispute between Sunni and Shiite that is centuries old. And you claim that we are going to solve that?

By comparing Korea and Iraq you demonstrate that you do not understand the very different nature of those conflicts. That is the kind of thinking that got us into this mess and it is indeed a mess.

JPH
Just to be clear, which part of

"...not that he [Saddam] had a hand in 9/11, but that he supported Islamic terrorists, including but not limited to Al Qaeda)" (my post)

is an assertion that "there was a connection between Saddam and the 9-11 attackers" (your post)?

Biggest joke of wars
was WWII were there were more American lives lost defending communist Stalin from nazi Hitler than in the three wars listed as the subject of this column. Were FDR not a communist himself, he'd have waited till the fascists weakened themselves, then gone in for the clean-up, costing far fewer American lives.

The fascist party (Democrats) made sure that we lost the Korean & Vietnam wars to defend their communist friends; and they are attempting to ensure that we loose the Iraq war so as to ensure that nieve Americans vote them into full control of the government so as to ensure the full implementation of communism (by 2025).


Korea?
Comparing the Korean war with Iraq is wrong for a couple of reasons. So. Korean was a homogenous country which by and large resisted the North's invasion. After 1953 you didn't see S. Koreans killing each other or our troops.
Vietnam is the better analogy.

Vietnam analogy
Vietnam is indeed a better analogy. In both we tried to fight guerilla war or an insurgency with conventional methods, in both we went in not understanding the local situation, in both we got bogged down, and in both the war defenders continued to deny reality until the end.

Bush should also be careful about the Vietnam-Cambodia analogy. It was the U.S. that destabalized the Cambodian government because we wanted someone in the government there who would not object to our launching operations from Cambodian soil.

McBride and Bob
I and really tired of being called names for being against this "war that isn't one." I am not a defeatist and I'm d--- sure not a traitor. I am a conservative. I am for conserving our precious men in arms for fights that really count. Fights that matter to us, fights that change things, fights that are grounded in reality and not poleanish B.S. Want to really fight terrorists? Invade Saudi Arabia. Half of the Al-Quida terrorists in Iraq are from there. So step up to the plate mister McBride (to use a sports analogy) and suggest a real war outside of the phhony one that Bush and his minions cooked up.

But you won't Mcbride nor will Bob and you know why? Its because you can't think for yourself and I'm kinda of getting tired of the useless comparisons to other wars that have nothing to do with this one.

The one that is really hillarious and absurd is Vietnam for those that use that as a parrelel can't see that there fearless leader Bush is in this case L.B.J. He was neither really in or out and that in the end was S. Vietnams downfall.

All of you fighting for this war will in the end lose not because so many of us didn't have the will to fight but because so many of us saw that this war wasn't in the end about national security but the pipe dreams of a group of pointy headed fools in black suits and red ties.

And by the way McBride any time your in Texas look me up, I'll kick your butt in a game of one on one.


Dave Stone
I just read your sat. 3:01 post and I don't mean to insult you but WHAT KIND OF HAPPY WEED YOU BEEN SMOKING????

JPH
JPH: "You fight a war because you believe that winning it is beneficial to your national interest."

In the case of Iraq tell me 1) what that means and 2) how we get there.
_

1) you quoted part of what i quoted from SteveL, so he's the authority on what he meant by that.

2) if you're asking me the magic strategy to turn iraq into a model western nation, there isn't one.

there are no good choices. just like before the invasion. just like now with iran.

i merely maintain the choice of abandoning iraq is worse than the choice of stabilising iraq via long term commitment of force.

Exactly right!
Kreplock writes: Sunday, August, 26, 2007 11:15 AM
"there are no good choices. just like before the invasion. just like now with iran."

And the practice of the left of criticizing for political gain is nothing but a bad choice.

The call "End the war in Iraq" is literally a lie. The truth would be "End our involvement in the world wide war on terroism", or "Isolation now", or "Five prayers a day to Allah for peace".




Ridiculous
This article is pathetic. We did NOT create constitutional orders in Korea.

Korea was formally a part of Japan, which had a long history of constitutional orders, in 1910. It was greatly influence by Japan as early as 1876.

Japan was briefly taken over by a totalitarian regime in the 1930s. We liberated Japan, and therefore Korea, in much the same way we liberated France and RESTORED constitutional orders to those two countries. We returned those countries to a period in their history they had created for themselves.

They are NOT models for Iraq.

Val34
I beg to disagree with you. LBJ wasn't the only downfall of R.V.N. The american msm and the libbers were the biggest part of the down fall and any one with a half a brain can see it, if they want the TRUTH.

FrankC
That can't be true as a poster(and I'm not going back to find him/her to name them)said wars for liberation are bound to fail. so how can what you said be true? Guess that belies that notion doesn't it.

eastlake joe
If I read your post right, you are claiming that not all wars are debacles like this one.

I don't have any problem with that observation.

Frank
It was a little try at humor that I guess ai failed at or you didn't get. The poster who I was talking about was saying how wars of liberation were bound to fail and then you bring up3or 4 that didn't fail.

Dave Stone
Sorry guy but with some of these posters lately it's hard to tell satirical from firm belief. Some of them are way, way out there.

JPH
If you tighten the northern border and seal off the southern border of the U.S. and tripple check ANY immigrants BEFORE entry, maybe more would be for bringing the troops home at a later date as long as it (the date) wasn't on the 5 oclock news. I don't mind people against the war but I'm totally dead set against them if they don't support the troops or don't have a tangible IDEA on what to do instead. Just to say bring them home is one idea but what then? What is the after effect? You have to consider cause and effect when making these kind of decisions, a lot of lives are in your hand ours and theirs.

eastlake joe
I thought it was good humor.

I just thinks it's hilarious that the Townhall neocons keep brining up wars with countries that had long histories of private property rights, independent judiciaries, and about 20 to 30 other things that Iraq does not have, and try to compare those wars to the Iraq war.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.