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
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Dead Speak
by Paul Greenberg
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?


There are some names in the obituary columns that say more than the voices of the living.

Such is the name of Dith Pran, who died in New Brunswick, N.J., last Sunday at the age of 65. He was the Cambodian photographer who somehow survived the collection of killing fields that his country became after the Americans abandoned it. And who somehow made his way to the United States to tell the world about it.

Millions of his countrymen would lose their lives after the Khmer Rouge swept into Phnom Penh and began rounding up unreliable types - i.e., just about anybody who could read and write. Literacy is dangerous. It gives people ideas, and the only ideas allowed in the Khmer Rouge's new Cambodia were the Party's. Holding any others could prove a capital offense.

The toll of the Khmer Rouge's brief but fatal reign of terror in Cambodia (1975-78) is uncertain - a million, two? Maybe a quarter, maybe a third of the country's pre-Communist population. The numbers can only be estimated, but the pictures of pyramids of skulls are well known. They've become emblematic of that bloody time.

Cambodia not only got a new name (Democratic Kampuchea) but a new calendar, beginning with the Year Zero. Not just hundreds of thousands of people were to be wiped out but the past itself. The Marxist dream of creating the New Man never got so close to awful reality.

It wasn't supposed to happen that way, not according to the sophisticates who were advocating an American withdrawal from Indochina in the 1970s. They blithely dismissed all the warnings that a bloodbath would follow once the United States abandoned its allies in Southeast Asia:

"Some will find the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is happening in Cambodia now?" -Anthony Lewis in the New York Times, March 17, 1975.

"The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is not guns but peace. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." -U.S. Rep. (now Sen.) Chris Dodd of Connecticut, March 12, 1975.

"The evidence is that in Cambodia the much heralded bloodbath that was supposed to follow the fall of Phnom Penh has not taken place." -The Nation, June 14, 1975, even as the bloodbath was taking place.

"Indochina Without Americans/For Most, A Better Life," -headline in the New York Times, April 13, 1975.

The Times' correspondent in Phnom Penh, Sydney H. Schanberg, may have been the most blithe of all about Cambodia's better future once the Americans left. In a report four days before Phnom Penh fell, he wrote that for "ordinary people of Indochina Š it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone."

Mr. Schanberg's limited imagination would soon enough be demonstrated by the unspeakable realities to follow.

If he was not the most optimistic of the learned naifs writing about a post-American Cambodia, surely he was the most influential, writing as he did for the widely read New York Times.

He was still sending optimistic dispatches even as the holocaust was proceeding. He was so monstrously wrong about what would happen in Cambodia after the Communist victory there that he won a Pulitzer Prize for it. The name of his Cambodian photographer, translator, guide and friend? Dith Pran.

The fast-talking Cambodian managed to save Mr. Schanberg and other Western journalists from the Khmer Rouge, but was unable to make it out of the country with them. In the swirling chaos of the Communist takeover, all was terror and confusion. The Khmer Rouge were emptying schools and hospitals and whole cities in their hunt for class enemies. (Anybody who wore glasses - the surest sign of a bourgeois intellectual - was in danger.)

At first Dith Pran pretended he had no education and passed himself off as a taxi driver. Then he threw away his money and posed as a peasant. Nothing was heard of him for more than four years, though there was a rumor that he'd been fed to the alligators, like his brother. He would lose some 50 members of his family altogether.

Dith Pran somehow managed to survive the ceaseless labor, the brutal beatings and the starvation diet (a tablespoon of rice a day), and eventually snuck across the Thai border. Reunited with Mr. Schanberg, he would go on to become a renowned photographer for the Times.

Now, once again, the sophisticates are urging Americans to abandon an ally, this time beleaguered Iraq. The leading Democratic presidential candidates speak glibly of pulling out of that country as if there would be no ill effects. As in Cambodia?

This week the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is testifying once again before Congress, and once again he'll be met by a chorus of cynicism, no matter how much real progress his strategy, aka The Surge, has made.

Last time he testified, Hillary Clinton told the general it would take "a willing suspension of disbelief" to credit what he said. The critics of the war have their script and are sticking to it. Just as Sydney Schanberg knew all would be better once the Americans had left Cambodia.

It was Edmund Burke who said that a society is not only a contract between the living but between the living, the dead and those yet to be born. It is through the present generation that the past transmits the fruits of its experience to the future. (The process is known as History.) Yes, the dead still speak, and few of their experiences are as relevant today as events in Cambodia decades ago.

What would an American withdrawal now mean for the Iraqis? It is now too late to ask Dith Pran. But his life and trials speak eloquently enough.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Well, hell. In Cook County...
--
...the dead are even voting the straight Democrat Party ticket.

The question we've got to ask today is what would the future dead of Iraq vote if it were possible to get each one of them - *privatim et seriatim*, without fear of retaliation from anybody - to say whether or not he/she wanted U.S. troops to remain in Mesopotamia one single, solitary day longer.

Wanna wager on the result of such a plebiscite?


"Infidels out of Iraq!"




---------
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

-- H.L. Mencken

Piece too true.

Denial is a hallmark of the liberal mind.

Ban guns, murders will stop.

Withdraw from a war, the killing will end.

Give poor money and the will always use it wisely.

Sound familiar?

As the article states......
....."Literacy is dangerous. It gives people ideas, and the only ideas allowed in the Khmer Rouge's new Cambodia were the Party's."

Insert "Democrat's new America" for "Khmer Rouge's....".

Now you know why Democrats always reject the "English First" amendments that pass through congress. To our liberal pols, an educated population is too uncontrollable. Just ask Carl Levin, a man who never met a government-dependent person he didn't like.

Another Edmund Burke quote.
Greenberg quotes Edmund Burke, the great conservative philosopher.

I have a quotation from Edmund Burke that may have relevance to Iraq, and our involvement there:

"The effect of liberty on individuals is they may do what they please; we ought to see what it pleases them to do, before we risk congratulations".

As we ponder the thousands of sectarian, tribal, religious killings in Iraq since our "liberation" of its people, I hope it not rude or lacking in good manners to include this quote.

I understand the musings of a relic such as Burke can't hold a candle to the brilliant neocon advice Bush has been getting on Iraq these last years, but I have always had a fondness for relics.

In the Words of Colin Powell
If we break it we are required to fix it! That pretty well describes our responsibility in Iraq. As cruel as Sadam was, he did provide a degree of stability that served as a form of government prior to our invasion; it’s too late now to argue if our action was justified, the die is cast and there is no turning back. To abandon the Iraqis at this late date would be unconscionable, we are duty bound at this point to see this action through to its end. This doesn’t mean the end result will ever mirror our own democracy, Iraq was a violent country before our incursion and it will likely be so after we’re gone; changing a people’s government is less problematic than changing a people’s culture.

Well, hell. In Cook County...
“Infidels out of Iraq!” –?

That kind of plebiscite would theoretically suppose there is no vacuum of power in Iraq.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken”

Whoever believes Mencken's theory should get what comes to them. It will not come only to others.

The real democracy is Self Government. When people believe Democracy is a theory, it is only a theory, and what comes as the result is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Dead Speak
I served in Cambodia and Vietnam and speak both languages. I even knew Syd Schanberg in Cambodia. Vietnam should have taught us a lesson about the impossibility of building a nation when the local leadere are incapable or unwilling to do this. As for Cambodia, we never had a military presence there (except during the brief incursion from Vietnam in 1970, five years before the Lon Nol government fell to the Khmer Rouge) and our sole stratgic goal was the quite cynical one of keeping the Lon Nol government afloat until we could extract our troops from Vietnam. The simple fact is that there is no way that we could have prevented what happented in Cambodia other than not becoming involved in Indochina in the first place or by occupying the country and staying there essentially forever since the current government, more than thirty years later, is just a corrupt and incompetent (some believe it is even worse) as the Lon Nol regime amd could not survive any serious oppostion. I am afraid that conditions in Iraq are much the same. We are deluding ourselves to beleive that we can save other people from themselves and should have thought about this before getting involved in the first place. But we did not and now there is no good way out. However, we can take some solice in the fact that despite our disastrous involvement there Vietnam is now a thriving economic success, albeit on the undemocratic Chinese model. Maybe this time we will learn the lesson that we should have in Vietnam but did not.

Donald Jameson
Agreed.

We helped to bring Lon Nol to power through a coup.

Our bombing of Cambodia(to go after NVA or VietCong who were using it as a sanctuary)only helped in recruiting Cambodians to the Khmer Rouge.

And eventually, as you know, the Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia was displaced by the North Vietnamese, who installed their own puppet government.

And years later, our government, along with China, actually aided the remnants of the Khmer Rouge who were battling against the North Vietnamese puppet government.

A big mess.

I agree with you on our failure to learn the lessons from Vietnam.

The Dead Speak
That we should not get into Iraq so as to need to occupy it is a respectable opinion, and was so from the beginning of our duly elected Government needing to assess what was really going on in the Middle East immediately after 9/11.

However, given the de-emphasis upon having on-the-ground Intelligence for all those years prior to 9/11 (at least in the U.S. since the 1960s due to naive pacifists new age/popular drug culture ideologies) where Saddam was actually at with his previous WMD program after 9/11 was not too well assessed. Yet other Western Intelligence Services proved to be wrong as well. So none of us should perhaps blame ourselves too much.

It may be the Lesson to take from all of this, which has now been going on since the 1960s, is that in today's world doing what it takes to have good Intelligence is essential if we are to not be getting involved with having to honestly but mistakenly fight virtually unwinnable or unnecessary wars.

Fine conclusion, Mr. Greenberg
Fine conclusion... excellent column.

Gunner
"As cruel as Sadam was, he did provide a degree of stability that served as a form of government prior to our invasion"

1)Nearly 500,000 Iraqis died in the Iraq/Iran War (1980-1989)

2)Public Torture and beheadings from the smallest village to the largest city were a weekly occurance.

3)Saddam even had a Child's Prison, which gaoled hundreds of children for event the smallest infraction

4)In 1991, Saddam murdered over 50,000 Shias for taking part in uprisings.

5)Saddam had the Kurds gassed.

Some stability. Sounds more like outright oppression.

When Liberals Care About the Innocent
Liberals only seem to care about innocent civilians getting killed when it is convenient for them. That is how it was then and that is how it is now about the Iraqis. It is there way to blame America.
Once we have abandoned our allies, they could care less about the blood bath that follows.

Gunner
What Saddam didn't provide was freedom. Freedom is pretty powerful and can change culture. At the very least it nurtures the better aspects of culture.

When Saddam won his last election, he got 100% of the votes. Doesn't sound like the people felt free to vote otherwise.

CubeCommander.
Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Why, when Bush coerced the Israelis to permit "free elections" in Gaza where the will of the man on the street was reflected, the terror group Hamas won.

In Lebanon, "free elections" resulted in rise in power of the terror group, Hezbollah...you know, the same group that the "freely elected" Iraqi parliament openly sided with in 2006's battle in Lebanon with Israeli forces?

In Egypt, "free elections" resulted in more power to that prankster group that's always out for a good time, the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is a quote from a famous conservative that I hope you reflect upon:

"The effect of liberty upon individuals is they may do what they please; we ought to see what it pleases them to do, before we risk congratulations." Edmund Burke.

Yes, freedom, liberty, are wonderful concepts.

But absent some cultural notion of tolerance and respect for dissent, the concepts can bring about nothing more than tyranny, even if resulting in "free elections".

For JPK
By Gunner's logic, the regimes of Stalin and Mao were the stablest of the 20th century. Stalin's victims estimated 2-3 crores (20-30 million), Mao's at 4-8 crores (40-80 million).

Oh yeah, wasn't Hitler's regime also an excellent example of such "stability"?

Jerabaub
You make excellent points. However, without any attempt at freedom/liberty the chance for affecting change for the better is pretty much lost.

For Donald Jameson
I once heard the comment that the foundational mistake of the US in Vietnam was the failure to look at Ho Chi Minh as "Vietnamese FIRST, Communist second"; evidence in favour of this argument is that the Chinese (who had supplied training/arms to NVA) invaded Vietnam in 1979--and got their arses kicked by their former proteges.

Horrific Then and Now ...
I remember other Senators at the time who insisted everything would be better if we pulled out. Vietnam fell. Cambodia fell. Millions were killed. And yet Hubert Humphery tried to run for President on the strength of him "saving" the American army by having them pull out. I've even seen a high school history book that claimed the same thing. Talk about changing history to suit the politicians!

We can expect the same thing in Iraq if we pull out. Millions will die either in the initial fighting or after one side wins and tried to destroy the other. I just hope that those politicians then regret every word they spoke - and hope these now will remember and regret themselves.

The Goals 2000 Education Program
....."Literacy is dangerous. It gives people ideas, and the only ideas allowed in the Khmer Rouge's new Cambodia were the Party's."

I saw Bill Clinton's Goals 2000 Program when it was sent to the schools. One of the goals was to not teach reading and writing until after the sixth grade. At the end of the sixth grade all students would be tested and 90% would be diverted to apprenticeship programs such as welding, auto mechanics, waiter, etc., jobs chosen for them due to their test scores by a Washington computer. According to Clinton, they didn't need to know how to read and write; they could get all the information they needed from television and radio. It would also prevent them from being able to form a rebellion, of course.


Here we are, five years in.
What is interesting, in light of the statistics, is that even with the knowledge of Saddam's horrific brutalities, Americans now by a 2:1 margin think the war was a mistake.

Now, friends, what does that tell us?

Either that Americans have come to understand that our fighting men and women should not "liberate" a nation of whom a sizable minority of inhabitants still think it is entirely justifiable to kill their liberators, OR, that this endeavor was so mismanaged, so incompetently waged, as to make Americans neo-isolationists.

I think it is the former, not the latter...altho the incompetent manner in which the war was waged certainly is valid.

I don't believe This administration had any comprehension of the nature of Islam, or the consequences that would ensue once Saddam was removed.

Now we are in Iraq, and I agree with those who counsel we can't just pull out in an irresponsible manner. It can get worse.

But I will not excuse this administration for its sheer ignorance.

Just can't do it.

No Guts for the Long-Haul
I agree, removing Sadam and his evil Regime from power was a worthy cause regardless of any involvement on his part with 9-11.

However, if we’re going to loose our will and abandon our commitment to finish the job we’ve started, as has become typical in our country today, then I say we should just stay home! If American politicians don’t have what it takes to finish a job they have no business taking action to begin with!

It seems we’ve become a lot like our European Allies, only worse, since we are inclined to make knee-jerk decisions without willingness to support them when things don’t just go our way!

Our enemy’s recognize this shortcoming in America, that’s why they’ve continued to exploit it since we left Viet Nam.

Military history supports the fact that the side most likely to win in war is the side most willing to accept losses and keep on fighting.

It is stable


the dead are stable,
it's called rigor mortis.

The Dead Speak
The key question is the one posed by Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton to General Petraeus in the Senate hearings yesterday: when will it be safe for us to withdraw the bulk of our troops from Iraq? The answer essentially was "we will evaluate that in September". In other words he has no answer and no idea. This is an open ended commitment, which we cannot fulfill without breaking our armed forces and our economy (which is already in a serious state partly as a result of the resources expended in Iraq). Sooner or later we will have to make the decision to leave and it will never be a good time to do so. This was the case in Vietnam and it will be the same in Iraq. Then those who wanted to fight an unwinnable war forever will no doubt again try to blame those who had the wisdom and political courage to withdraw for "losing Iraq". This sort of political assasination has been going on since 1949 with the debate over "who lost China". The answer, of course, is the Chinese (as with the Vietnamese in Vietnam) but some people find this simple truth impossible to accept. So we will no doubt have another round of "stab in the back" accusaions, similar to those used by Hitler to overthrow the democratic Weimar Republic in Germany during the 1930s. Some people will never learn it appears.

Oh Well Hillary has done this
Hillary talked her husband into not going into Kosovo/Bosnia, to stop the blood bath sooner than it was done, because, she didn't want any attention taken from her Health Care project. (this was a quote from a Vanity Fair writer who had personally asked Bill Clinton why he hadn't gone any sooner to save lives.)

So there was, how many deaths that might have been prevented, was it 5 million men, women, and children in mass graves?

Hillary is not anyone who should be deciding anything about our country or any other person, she is only thinking of herself and always will.



Dustyo
What does this have to do with Iraq? Does it mean that her question (and that of many other senators and congressmen) about when it will be safe to withdraw from Iraq is not relevant? I don't think so. Relating this to what Bill Clinton did or did not do in Bosnia is a diversion from the real issue now, which is Iraq and what should be done there.

Stop the madness...
This "war" is not a war at all, but some sort of police activity with no goal, no victory, no end. Whether we leave today or 10 years from today, there will be immediate civil war, refugees, dead children, and chaos until the most brutal guy in town whips the others. This is a barbarian culture that even the mighty US of A can`t reform.

In Iraq as in Vietnam, the gross blunder was going in, not getting out. Once the error is made, we are left with this insane argument as to when and how to get out. It doesn`t really matter...just get the hell out and more importantly, stop this madness of running around the world butting into other people`s business.

It is simply wrong to have troops in over 100 countries. It is expensive beyond our means. It is weakening and dividing this country and it accomplishes less than zero.


Sally
"It doesn`t really matter...just get the hell out and more importantly, stop this madness of running around the world butting into other people`s business."

Really?

Then you better accept giving up your way of life materially. Certainly accept drilling for oil everywhere possible in the United States. I would also suggest sending the U.N. headquarters somewhere else because Saddam bribed its leaders with Oil for Food and we cannot be supporting it running around the world sticking its nose into everyone’s business. Sounds like if we took your position as regards foreign affairs, we would soon have the U.N. run by thugs running the U.S.

Oh yes, I know you would say, 'the U.S. is run by thugs anyway, so what difference does it make?'

Time bomb...
Material way of life-How is spending a trillion dollars in Iraq making us wealthy?

Drilling for oil in the US-Sounds good to me.

Moving the UN- Sounds even better. Can we resign as well?

US run by thugs- Crooks and idiots, yes.

And the name is Salty, not Sally. Thank you.

Everything is going.....
....according to plan. NO ONE could be as incompentent as the Bush administration pretends to be. The purpose of invading Iraq was to limit the amount of oil they export in order to drive the price through the roof. If this is not the case then why did the Bush administration insist that Iraq (who has the second largest proven and easily accessable oil reserves in the world)include permanent membership in OPEC to be written into their constitution? So their output can be limited which will keep the price high, that's why. I bet if anyone bothered to check the Bush family has increased their wealth exponentially in the last 3 years.

Was it that liberals
were mistaken about what would happen after the Vietnam pullout or that didn't really give a damn about what happened to our Vietnamese allies? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in Vietnam. However, in the case of Iraq, they have no excuse.

Salty
Sorry, "Salty," I guess I need glasses. People who don't want to spend money in Iraq generally don't want to do what it would take to keep lots of 9/11s rome 'happening' in the U.S., or elsewhere, because that would restrict everyone's convenience or freedom. You aren't one of those? Environmentalists in States like California don't want oil drilling off their coasts or in their backyards. You aren't one of those? So far as Crooks running the U.S. goes, the public has a lot to do with that because the public produces them -- where else do they come from? Oh, yes! -- Why should we waste money on the U.N. when for the most part it is an international forum for foreign Crooks and thugs.

Sydney Schanberg, Vietnam
(1) Sydney Schanberg is a preposterous liar. He said that the reason the Khmer Rouge slaughtered so many Cambodians was that they had been bombed, "Have you ever seen people after they have been bombed?" Of course, I have, in person or by accounts - Britain, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Japan. In none of these countries did the government slaughter their citizens after they came to power! Schanberg wants to blame the U.S. instead of the Communists.
(2) North Vietnam defeated the elected government of South Vietnam after the U.S. Congress violated the Peace Accords Agreement by not giving them military aid. There were no U.S. troops in South Vietnam after 1973, The blood of millions of people is on the hands of Senator Dodd and the others who voted not to support the South Vietnamese.
That Vietnm is now prosperous over thirty years later, does not justify the U,S. violating its agreement; the millions who died as a consequence will not come back to life. Germany and Japan are also prosperous now, over sixty years after the end of World War II - that does not show that the U.S. should not have fought them.
(3) The people of Iraq support the U.S. and its allies, as their bravely voting for their government several times shows. Those they are fighting are former supporters of Saddam Hussein, Al Quaeda, and other foreigners - e.g. Saudi Arabians, Iranians, etc. It would be a catastrophe for the U.S. and the people of Iraq for the U.S. to withdraw and leave them to the tender mercies of their enemies.

Former_Rep_Never_a_Dem
Why drive up the price of oil when everyone was already buying it cheaply from Saddam Hussein?

Salty
Oh, yes -- I forgot to mention that having lots of 9/11s a-happening in the U.S., and/or around the world, gets very expensive for everyone. That includes us who live in the U.S. because the economy of the U.S. is very dependent upon the World's economy, or haven't you ever noticed?

TB
You need more than glasses.

Cheers.

Salty
It seems to me that you need to open your eyes to the world around you!

Sophistry
Greenberg engages in the most naive sophistry when he characterizes Iraq as our ally. The US INVADED the soveriegn nation of Iraq. The invasion was unprovoked, uncalled for and importantly UNCONSTITUIIONAL. It is amazing tbe way conservatives trash the constituion when it stands in the way of their imperialistic dreams. They ignore it with the same zeal that the LIBs do.

It is also amazing the way conservatives are eager to sacrifice the lives of American kids for the sake of some other troubled country. The LIBs like to be generous with other peoples money. The cons & neo-cons like to be generous with the lives of other people's kids.

Brutus
Sophistry: Your piece is a case of psychological projection if I ever read one. Don't try to pull that, I am in the middle of it all as an objective observer' kind of stuff here! Your views are Liberal so don't try to hide it. You're not fooling anyone.

Time Bomb
You're indulging in name calling. My arguments stand.

Brutus
"Liberal" is the political 'name' that accurately identifies your expressed views.
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.