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
Friday, April 06, 2007
Phil Harris :: Townhall.com Columnist
America Victorious in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq
by Phil Harris
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?


It might take a thousand Bookmobiles to transport all of the tomes that have been written on the subject of these military conflicts. Many, if not most, conclude in one way or another, that we entered those wars for misguided, arrogantly foolish reasons, and that we paid a heavy price in blood and treasure for no good reason. Many people believe that we are doing the same thing in Iraq.

Some claim to be "real" conservatives. They point to this current struggle, and issue broad condemnations against the Bush administration. They argue that we should not be in the business of nation building, and it is not our role to be the world's preeminent law enforcement entity, or the lone defender of good versus evil. The founders, they say, would never have approved of this arrogant, foolish, and self-destructive behavior.

Yet I say again, America was victorious in Korea and Vietnam, and we continue to be victorious in Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan. This is true, even though there has never been a grand ceremony on the deck of a battleship. I do believe; however, that in all of these military actions, a more deliberate and concerted effort could and perhaps should have been waged to bring the enemy to its knees, and begging for merciful dispensation.

So where was the victory?

I understand that events leading up to our involvement in the Korean and Vietnam wars were complex and that the conflicts were rooted in a broad historical context that had little or nothing to do with the United States. However, as the situations developed, these wars became focal points for the battle against the Godless, communist plague, which was hell bent on outward expansion.

There was no other force on the Planet, which could stand in its way. Following the end of World War II, the countries of Europe and the rest of the world were vulnerable to the Sirens Song of Marx's utopian daydream, not to mention the iron claw that was busy gathering spoils for the Soviet empire.

Our direct military involvement absorbed not only our blood and treasure, but also significant resources of the Soviets and the Communist Chinese. We were anything but insignificant; a worrisome presence gathered in their neighborhood.

It would have been nice to wrap these two wars up for our constituent hosts. The carnage that followed our departure ravaged the people of South Vietnam and Cambodia. This fact highlights in red, the most shameful entry on the American resume. Nevertheless, our involvement in both of these conflicts placed significant speed bumps on the communist expressway to the rest of the world. Had we not been there and paid the heavy toll, the United States might have become a lone island of freedom in the world today.

There would be no sense of security under that scenario, no matter how isolationist we became. Our victory in Korea and Vietnam was that we successfully maimed the communist beast, and gave it a significant limp. Today we see communist influences spreading in our hemisphere, but these infections are more akin to a few lunatics, using infected IV needles.

It does not help matters, when our own leftist celebra-kooks, such as Harry Belafonte and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, trot around and encourage them. Perhaps by standing on a stage with their arm around Venezuela's own Mister Potato Head, a.k.a. Hugo Chavez, they get a sense of having arrived. In truth, they only developed a severe case of Potato Scab disease, and they should have been quarantined by U.S. Customs agents.

Of course, that leaves us with Iraq and our continuing victory there. How can I say that we are experiencing victory, when three out of four journalists tell you that we have hopelessly lost the war? How can I declare an ongoing victory, when political opportunists call for surrender, and do so while blaming that decision on some vaporous demand by the American People?

This victory in Iraq is real, because winning the peace, and defending a schizophrenic fledgling government in that country is secondary to what we are accomplishing there. I am not saying that a stable, pseudo-democratic government is not a worthy goal, and I resist any suggestion that we should abandon those who truly are grateful for our efforts, to be slaughtered in our departing shadow. We already have that shame to haunt us, and there is no rational argument, in good conscience, which could justify a repeat performance.

Sure, there is tough resistance in Iraq. There are many ambushes, bombings, shootings, and who knows what else. Radical elements are at each other's throats, and they are tearing at ours. Radical Islamic elements have been pouring into the country, aiding and participating in the battle against the Jew loving Americans.

We are suffering casualties, as happens in warfare. In addition to the blood of our sons and daughters, we are also spending enormous sums. Nevertheless, I say to you, that we are, have been, and continue to be victorious. Islamic forces are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fact that these lunatics are spending there own blood and treasure there, means that they cannot spend that capital attacking us here. Can you imagine what they could have accomplished by now, if they were not engaged in a war with the "great Satan?"

We have not been on any egotistical military adventures in these wars, and especially not in Iraq. We are engaged in a very real defensive action, and the longer it goes on over there, the better off we are over here. It would be better for the local elements if we could simply take a deep breath and finish the job with the sterile conscience of pure military force, and perhaps at some point that should be the finishing touch.

You see, this is definitely a war of attrition. We are a great, strong nation. A super power in the world, both militarily and economically. The terrorist lunatics simply are not, and as long as they are engaging our troops in Iraq, they are unable to engage our homeland to any significant degree. So no matter how long we are there, the fact remains that we have placed a significant speed bump in the radical Islamic expressway, just as we did to the communists in Korea and Vietnam.

The homicidal lunatics may get a few licks in here and there, but the most important fact remains, that they are unable to accomplish what they otherwise would be capable of accomplishing. In addition, we engaged them in a nation that was a hotbed for trouble anyway. Two birds for the price of one stone, is not a bad deal.

We will continue to spend money, and we will continue to take gut-wrenching casualties amongst our brave loved ones. Yet, in every battle with the insurgents and terrorists, we always win, and we always will. These moronic agents of evil will continue to spend their filthy money, and for every casualty we suffer, they will lose twenty or a hundred. Thank God for our very competent proud soldiers, and grateful kudos for their ongoing victory against this virulent evil plague.

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

Phil Harris is a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil.

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

In Vietnam, we lost our idealism
The Vietnam War had a much more deleterious effect on America than on the Communist bloc. The USSR and China were gaining so much by the Vietnam spectacle that they kept feeding it by supplying arms to the Vietnamese Communists. If they felt "wounded," they would have worked with the U.S. to de-escalate the conflict. Rather, they could see just from reading the newspapers how much America was being wounded, and in fact being torn apart by it. Which nation was being torn by riots and flag-burnings sparked by Vietnam, America or the USSR?

I lived through the Vietnam era. America changed fundamentally, maybe forever. It left a bad taste in Americans' mouths about use of military force that lingers to this day, every time you hear the phrase "another Vietnam" to describe a military action. It was responsible for the enabling of the far-Left, getting them thousands of new recruits by young people sincerely and deeply troubled by the war. It led to an antimilitary pacifist bloc in the Congress that persists to this day.

America lost her idealism in Vietnam, and replaced it with cynicism about the rightness of our purpose in the world. To a significant degree, it turned one of the two political parties in America--the Democrat party--into a peacenik party.

And THOSE prices weren't worth paying for.

I Agree with Steve L
I'm also old enough to remember the Viet Nam era. The Viet Nam War gave a wide, wide opening to the most mendacious Leftism the world had ever seen. What stopped Communism was its inherent unworkability.

To SteveL
I both agree and disagree with you on your comment.

In your first paragraph you state, "If they felt "wounded" they would have worked with the US to de-esculate the conflict."

There is current research that we and the South Vietnamese were wounding the North Vietnamese. It is too bad that Sheehan, Halberstram and others had to persue their own prejudices and not report accurately the situation. They utilized a Communist operator for most of their "jounalistic source". Read 'Triumph Forsaken'.

I agree with the rest of your comment. I too lived through that era as an ROTC cadet and later picking up the pieces as an Army Officer.

As a young conservative at the time, I pegged the left for what it was. Hypocritical! They always chanted free speech unless it disagreed with their free speech.

The reason that the anti-war block is in Congress is that it is the same people. Kerry, et. all along with the media continue to forget the consequences of their "winning" (cut & run)strategy. Either that or like the infantile people they are, they blame someone else.


Does TownHall just drag drunks
Off the streets to write Commentary?? Dumba--, the question of Korea and Vietnam are not whether we won or lost, it is did they defeat Soviet Communism or Chinese Communism? Well the GOP continues to make China the largest Super Power (I have not stepped in a Wal Mart for well over 10 years) and the Pope, B2 Bomber and a land locked Country broke the Soviets hold on their occupied Countries...

One similarity between these conflicts and Iraq...Our beef was with Russia and China and we invaded Vietnam and Korea...Our beef is with OBL, AQ and their Islamic fundamentalism...So we invaded the one SECULAR Country that had no involvement with AQ or OBL...

Yes, we win
Our brave soldiers have killed more than 55,000 terrorists in Iraq, and we have lost 3,000 of ours. That's a wipe out.

Vietnam / Iraq
The only similarity: the carnage after leaving. The difference: When we left Vietnam, they were merely glad we left. When we leave Iraq, they will follow us home!

Mr. Harris:
This is a brilliant analysis of the situation. It puts into words what I myself have been thinking since this war began. Particularly in your last paragraph, you hit upon the BEST reason to support our continued involvement in keeping the peace in Iraq. Yes, our soldiers are dying, and that is unfortunate. But for every US soldier that dies, more than ten "insurgents" (read: terrorists) die. Every damned one of those terrorists who dies in Iraq is a terrorist who will NEVER drive a boat full of explosives into the side of a US Navy destroyer. A terrorist who will never drive a car bomb into a US embassy. A terrorist who will never hi-jack a plane and fly it into the US Capitol. Think how many American civilian lives are right now being saved at the cost of just 3,500 soldiers' lives. I have nothing but respect and gratitude for US soldiers, and would never belittle their sacrifice or that of their loved ones, but the fact of the matter is, they KNEW when they signed the papers that they might end up dying for their counntry. The people who went to work in the WTC on September 11 signed no such papers.

Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations are pouring everything they have (money, weapons, personnel) into this conflict in Iraq. Never before has there been such a massive collection, in one place, of so many people who would, if they could, do serious harm to America, its people, its way of life, and everything it stands for. This is the PERFECT opportunity to wipe as many of these scum-sucking dogs as possible off the face of the earth. We would be FOOLISH to not take advantage of that opportunity, especially when our enemies present it to us on a silver platter so far away from our own shores.

This is not the normal method of combat engaged in by the terrorists. They prefer "battles" where they can inflict large losses on their enemies while suffereing only moderate losses to their own forces (9/11 - 3,000 dead Americans, 11 dead terrorists; USS Cole - 15? dead Americans, 1 dead terrorist; typical car bomb - 200 or so dead enemies, 1 dead terrorist; typical suicide bomber - a dozen dead Israelis, 1 dead terrorist.) These terrorists (or at least their leaders, who have no intention of sacrificing themselves) are actually pretty smart, though obviously twisted. If they were to continue this type of war, they would eventually win. But now, for some reason, they have departed from the tried and true methods of the past, and have launched a full-scale military action against US forces. Why? Because they THINK they can inflict enough damage on us, even at only one tenth of their own losses, to destroy our will to fight them. So they are now dying at the rate of 10 terrorists for every American soldier, but that's okay in their mind, if they can get the American people to, like in Vietnam, stop supporting the mission.

I'm not just guessing at the strategy of the terrorists, based on now-published statements of the similar political strategy engaged in by the North Vietnamese and their communist supporters. Osama Bin Laden himself, as well as many other terrorist leaders, have been quoted as expressing exactly this sentiment. If we kill enough American soldiers, even at tremendous cost in the lives of our own followers, it will destroy America's political will to go on fighting. It is inconceivable to me that the Democrats, knowing full well the strategies employed by the terrorists, are so enthusiastically playing right into their hands. They did the same thing during the Vietnam War, but, to be fair, they were not so totally aware of the same strategy being used by the North Vietnamese. But now they don't have that excuse. EVERYONE KNOWS, or should know, what the terrorist leaders are trying to accomplish - breaking our will to fight them. Knowing that, and nevertheless playing right into their hands... well, I would have expected that of the French, but not America.

Instead, we should be turning their strategy against them. We should recognize this for what it is - the last, dying gasp of terrorism, a desperate gamble to preserve their evil ways. We should take advantage of their massive involvement in Iraq and wipe every last one of them out, making sure they expend all their resources as well.

Oh my God, something just occurred to me. An epiphany, if you will. If the Democrats were united behind the President and the military in pursuit of this goal, and publicly proclaimed so, then the terrorists would finally understand that they cannot accomplish what they intend. They would pack up their IEDs and go back to their mud huts and plan the next terrorist attack on US soil. And we would no longer have this opportunity to eradicate terrorism once and for all. I don't know which party came up with the plan, but it is now obvious to me that the Democrats are only PRETENDING to oppose the war (after all, even THEY can't be so stupid as to ACTUALLY oppose this war). Privately, they also want us to wipe out every last terrorist. But by publicly proclaiming their opposition to the war, they are keeping up the terrorists' hopes for a political victory. When the terrorists see this widespread dissent within our borders, they think if they can just hold on for another 2 years, til a Democrat gets elected President, the US troops will be withdrawn from Iraq, and they will have won. So they keep throwing their resources and their fighting men into the fray, trying to kill more and more American soldiers, all the time losing 10 of their own for every American killed. The beautiful part of this plan is, whether a Republican or Democrat wins in 2008, the war will continue, however, so will the opposition to the war. So the terrorists will never completely lose hope of an eventual political victory, but that hope will never actually be realized. Only when the last terrorist is dead will that hope be dashed.

Oh man, I love it. Brilliant plan. I applaud the Democrats for playing along with it. I'm glad to see you've finally come around from your peacenik ways, and even gladder to see you willing to look like fools for the benefit of the country (not that you haven't always looked like fools, but at least this time you have the country's interests at heart). An honorable sacrifice, and when it's all over, I truly hope you get the credit you deserve for playing your part in this scam. Actually, I think the Democratic party realizes that it, like the terrorist way of life, is in its death throes, and they are looking for a way to go out with dignity. One final, decent act for the security of the nation, after decades of doing everything they can to destroy it. It won't quite clean the slate - after all, we'll still be left with your "legacy" of abortion on demand, progressive income taxes, anti-morality, secularism, environmentalism, and a load of other crap. But, with you out of the way, we'll be able to get rid of all that in a generation or two. In any event, we won't emphasize all of those bad things at your eulogy. Instead, we'll put on your headstone the one great accomplishment of your party's life: the fact that you helped the Republicans to eradicate terrorism by doing what you do best: lying. Thank you, Democrats.

Regards,
Trevor

Viet Nam
Until Frank Church, Teddy (what bridge) and the rest in Congress repudiated our treaty with The Republic of Viet Nam we had won. Our forces left in 1973 and the South Vietnamese were doing just fine, thank you very much, in holding off the North Vietnamese Army, you know the vaunted NVA. I fought them around Cam Lo and Con Thien and they were good. With our logistical support the South was better. And in 1973 and 1974 the South was getting better and the Red Chineses and Communist Russians were getting a black eye. Enter the pacifist left in Congress which took advantage of the weakened Gerald Ford presidency to refuse to honor our treaty entered into with the North and the South which said we would send supplies, NOT TROOPS, in the event the North attacked. We lost credibility not because we went to Viet Nam, there was good and sufficient reason to oppose the Communist take over of an ally. We were hurt because the Democrat Party, hijacked by the pacifist McGovern wing, cut and ran from sending money. An excellent treatment of this subject can be found in "Vietnam The Necessary War" by Michael Lind. From Arafat to bin Laden and Nasrallah our terrorist opponents have seen our tendency to run when we are faced with tough opposition and they have taken heart. See President Pelosi's current excursion for proof of that.

War, Technology, Reality, Glory
Maybe there's a small lesson here. It's accepted in the study of modern poetry that war poetry's focus on glory correlates negatively with the rise of technology in war. The more war has come to use nerve gas, flame throwers, napalm, carpet bombing, and atomic weapons, the more war has been portrayed not as a showcase for valor but as, simply, horrible. Courageously following one's leader into battle with colors and sabers flashing and drums roaring was one thing---choking to death on gas, in World War I, was another, and suddenly the poetry about war began to reflect a disgust not seen in earlier work. By the same token, a child set on fire with napalm speaks horror to all. Atomic attack? Hard to find anything there that is beautiful or glorious.

So if PEOPLE have become more anti-war, maybe it's not just leftist reporting---maybe people are responding to realities in war that didn't exist a hundred years ago.

Another aspect of technology: Vietnam was the first war that we saw first-hand via TV sets in our living room, every evening. Consequently, it was the first American war to engender major public protest.

And another: Gulf I and Iraq, our last two wars, might be listed under the title of remote control wars. Gulf I was quick and easy---we could enjoy it like a video game. Iraq was sold that way---I remember a hawkish friend assuring me it wouldn't last three days, and we've all heard the "cakewalk" story. Meanwhile President Bush encouraged us all to support the war by going shopping at the mall and neatly avoided popular hardship by putting his war on our credit card and forbidding photos of returning coffins. Hundreds of dead Iraqi civilians were just "collateral damage---we don't count them". Barbara Bush said early on that she didn't intend to mess up her "beautiful mind" by thinking about body bags.

The more war can be sold to the public as glorious and fun, the more it is supported. The more people see the hideous reality of war, the more it is rejected.

Ooh! Let me make a comment.
Let me try this again.

We invaded Iraq to provide Afghanistan with a friendly, democratic ally in the Arabian neighborhood. Had we left Afghanistan on its own, Saddam would have taken it down sans an issue since he had access to all that Oil-For-Weapons money to which the U.N. allowed him.

This tactic opposes that utilized by JFK/LBJ in Southeast Asia in the '60s to fight the communist dominos that these liberals told us were tumbling there. In fact, GWB has set forth a set of democratic dominos to tumble in the area due to the layout of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.

The Iranians will look east and see Afghanistan and its people thriving under a democracy. Then they will look west and see Iraq and its people thriving under a democracy and want this for themselves.

Iraq and Afghanistan are democratic bookends to the Encyclopedia of Terrorism that is Iran. These people will want this democracy for their families and themselves.

The Iranian leadership will resist, however. Wouldn't it be odd to see these leaders looking for support from the U.S./Coalition troops in Iraq/Afghanistan to protect them from the Iranian people who are buzzing about a revolution?

Victory????
Korea was a dead necessity - the North invaded the South and we could not stand by - my brother made the Inchon Invasion with the 7th Inf Div and went all the way up to the Yalu River and of course back - we had the North beaten till the Chinese Hordes came over the border - we also had world wide support - even the French fought in Korea as did the Turks and just about every other country in the free world - no alternative we had to fight - we got half a loaf out of it - we succeeded in keeping the South free but we did not win the war thanks to the Chinese

Vietnam was a goat rope from start to finish - the Army of The Republic of Vietnam ARVN did not want to fight - the VC and NVA had popular support - the ARVN got no better in 1973-1975 probably worse - no amount of material help would have saved them - one of the comments from a person that fought there - above - was that the VC and the NVA were good - well they were motivated and the ARVN was not - 58 K down the tubes including 10 of the guys I soldiered with, ate dinner with on Sundays - skydived with on Saturday and christened their kids - it is personal and it sticks in my craw - especially when I read drivel from a right wing idiot that claims victory - well Hitler and others proved that if you tell a lie long enough folks will believe it - I fervently hope we don't have a victory like Vietnam again - it did tear this country apart and it still lingers

Iraq - comment from above - we have killed 55K terrorist with only - only 3200 of our brave soldiers killed - no way we have inflicted those kinds of casualties - most of the Iraqi's killed are done in by sectarian violence - what the outcome will be is hard to say although I hope that it will be a victory as I don't want these great soldiers - marines - sailors and airmen to have died for nothing - again - like Vietnam
Having a few drinks with the soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division down at the VFW last night they were a little put off by the news that they would be going back to Iraq early - however none of them complained about it - they are great soldiers and deserve our support - so even though I don't think Iraq is going to well I support the troops - I donated five pints of blood in 2005 and 2006 and one so far this year - having served 29 years in the army and with two tours in Nam - I support the troops and hope that we can honestly say that Iraq was a victory a few years down the road and not have to lie about it like Phil Harris

I'm trying to figure out...
...the Left's actual position on global Jihadism.

Do they really imagine it doesn't exist? Do they genuinely believe that if the US stops doing business around the world, they will cease to care about us? Do they have a plan for addressing Jihadis, to change their thinking, to defeat them, to defend us from them?

The plan, in Iraq and Afghanistan, was to create stable, prosperous, liberal republics in the middle east that would stand as models for the rest of the area, and thus change the thinking of the region. Instead of growing up angry at faceless westerners for ruining their culture, the people of the middle east might grow up angry at their own leaders that hold them back from prosperity by limiting freedom. Thus, we create pressure for change.

From where I sit, it's the only plan that's been offered, by ANYBODY, that has the slightest chance of working.

I open the floor for comment: what other plan is there? What else even EXISTS?

Two Out of Three Ain't Bad
In fact, it is the optimum.

In my field, industrial construction, a project has three desirable outcomes: low cost, speedy completion, and quality product. But together, these three outcomes are mutually exclusive, and only two can be achieved. Quality costs. Haste makes waste. Etcetera.

It helps immeasurably if the client understands at the project outset that only two of the three desirable outcomes are possible. If the client understands what his options are, and sets his priorities correctly, we can optimize the results based on what is most important to him. Otherwise we blunder into misunderstandings and arguments about cost, schedule, and quality.

So, I agree completely with Mr. Harris' take on Iraq, except his inexplicable lack of understanding of the cost of the WoT, as characterized by his statement, " ... we are also spending enormous sums ... ".

Well, no, we are not. The cost of the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other anti-terrorist activities are miniscule, far less than the annual increase in GDP, and the deficit is being reduced even as the combat continues. The cost of the war effort is many times less than the cost of 09/11. The casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are regrettable, but they too are significantly less than estimated when many of the Dimocrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

All of this is in accordance with President Bush's priorities in Iraq. Low cost and a quality product are important, speedy completion is less important. This is not like Korea and Vietnam, where the Dimocrats blundered into misunderstandings and arguments about cost, schedule, and quality.

Now the Dims are deliberately creating misunderstandings and arguments, not for the good of the country, but for their own leftist political goals. The Dims charge that the war on terror has lasted as long as WWII. So what? It took years to bring democracy and prosperity to Germany and Japan after WWII, and the human cost in Iraq and Afghanistan is much, much lower than the human costs of WWII, and less than in Saddam's Iraq. NYT to the contrary.

You know...
if this effort in Iraq WORKS, Hillary will take ALL the credit that she can for it! *laughter*

Our Founders
"American goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy" -- John Quincy Adams

"America is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own". -- John Quincy Adams

"Commerce will all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto" -- Thomas Jefferson

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent allies with any portion of the foreign world" -- George Washington

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." -- James Madison

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" -- John Adams

"I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home" -- James Madison

"Give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard about confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson

"When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If you expect a nation to be ignorant and free, you expect what never was and can never be." -- Thomas Jefferson

"What is it that men cannot be made to believe?" -- Thomas Jefferson

NO KIDDING! I wonder the same thing, daily.

Liberty,
What's your point?

What if Goldwater had beaten LBJ in 1964
If anyone is a fan of the "alternate history" type of science fiction, I recommend the short story "Fellow Americans" by Eileen Gunn. It depicts what American history would have been like if Barry Goldwater had beaten Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election and become President for two terms. (In her scenario, LBJ is unhorsed by a major Texas scandal.)

Goldwater would have handled Vietnam very differently. And without the Great Society social programs, America would have turned out differently too.

It's in the anthology "Alternate Presidents."

terrorist magnet
Since the get go, I've considered the sucking in and spitting out of countless terrorists an important part of this whole thing. What havoc would Zarqawi be wreaking had he not perished in Iraq?

Trevor: lengthy post, but interesting angle. I hadn't considered the crucial role the Dems are playing for this military strategy to succeed.

Playing devil's advocate though, I wonder if we could have played pied piper in Afghanistan, without engaging Iraq. I guess that's where the other reasons for going into Iraq, like the 24 listed on the war resolution, come to play.
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.