All Over but the Pullback: Nixon Did It in Vietnam. Bush Will Do It in Iraq. [delusional alert]

Washington Post ^ | Dec 4, 2005 | Jonathan Rauch

[Hadean]

On June 8, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon announced the withdrawal of 25,000 American troops from Vietnam. Within the next few months, he would declare that tens of thousands more were coming home. "He was reluctant to withdraw," says John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and the author of several books on war and public opinion, "but he kept being pushed by politics."

Nixon recognized that, without U.S. military support, the government of South Vietnam would fall to the communist insurgency, and he believed that such a fall would represent a humiliating and costly defeat for the United States. "But Nixon realized that his approval ratings would slip fast unless he made progress in bringing the boys home," writes Stanley Karnow in "Vietnam: A History." American officials searching for a "breaking point" in Vietnam had found one, but what had broken was not the insurgency. It was U.S. public opinion: Americans no longer believed the war was worth it.

President Bush may not know it yet -- or, then again, he may -- but in Iraq he is about to do a Nixon. Psychologically and politically, the withdrawal phase has already begun. Militarily, the pullback will start within weeks, or at most months, of the Dec. 15 Iraqi parliamentary elections.

How can I be sure? I'm not, and I have no inside information. But the evolving structure of public opinion about Iraq is making the current war effort there unsustainable.

[Names Ash Housewares]

what planet is this guy on?

[nopardons]

This author is more than just delusional, he's writing what he wants to happen and since it's in black and white, imagines that that will make it so.

[JLS]

Gee I wonder if this idiot reporter is smart enough to realize that Nixon was the THIRD president during the Viet Nam conflict. In addition, I wonder if this idiot reporter understand that Bush will never again stand for election but Nixon was facing reelection?

[TomasUSMC]

This is one of the big problems....

.... a system that would have brought Islamists to power by free elections in Algeria in 1991, or that may bring them to power in Gaza in 2005, might be democratic but it would surely not further freedom. Subjects of a benign monarchy, on the other hand, might have more day-to-day freedom than we do but be undemocratic. As a general guideline, the United States should surely promote self-determination. But it makes little sense to me to pretend that everyone’s self-determination is in America’s interests. If, for example, there were truly free elections in Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood won, do people really think that would be better for us and for the world than Mubarak with all his warts?



I also must take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow “racist” or “foolish” to observe – humbly, and without presuming to have the final answer – that a culture which has not produced democracies as a matter of course over many centuries (and particularly over the last three centuries, when democracy has spread elsewhere) might be “undemocratic.” It is conceivable, moreover, that an undemocratic culture, if free, might choose democracy. But it also might not. If, for example, the Shiites in Southern Iraq eventually split off from the Sunnis and Kurds, and either form their own country or marry up in some form with Iran, they will have determined their own fate but the resulting sharia state would not be a democracy recognizable to us. And it is noteworthy that the most successful democracy in the Muslim world has been Turkey – the nation that most rigorously walled Islamic culture out of political life.

Some of my colleagues try to compensate for this problem by advancing the increasingly familiar refrain that the goal in Iraq is not to create a western style democracy but what is described by Mr. Peters (with whom I generally agree, but not in this particular case) as a “variant of democracy that answers their needs.” For my money, this just repositions the goal line to avoid conceding that Iraq and other authoritarian states are unlikely to reach the actual goal line connoted by our conception of democracy. The Iranians, for example, have settled on a variant of democracy that answers their needs – but I doubt anyone in this discussion would regard it as a real democracy.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20392

[MJY1288]

Nixon had no choice, Congress cut the funding.

The Washington Post needs to hire some reporters who passed their 9th grade History Class.

The anti-war left, led by John Kerry, Jane Fonda and their communist allies in the Main Stream Media, were successful in turning the American public against the War, and the lilly liver-ed Congress Critters put their electability over what was good for the Nation and they voted to cut the funding for the Troops they voted to send into the War.

Difference is... John Murtha is no John Kerry, and Jeanine Gerafilo is no Jane Fonda. There isn't millions of protesters in the streets on Washington, there isn't Gerafilo sitting on an IED in Baghdad, and all this lame ass leftist Washington Post reporter is engaging in is WISHFUL THINKING, He wishes we would cut and run and he wishes his generation could match the Glory days of his predecessor's in our leftists media

[Cobra64]

This jack-ass is... a jack-ass. I'mm 55 years old and have seen thais BS since I was a kid living in CO at the age of 16. These people people really twist my shorts. This ... never-mind... I'll get banned in a heart-beat if I continue this rant. Sorry to all. *breathing easy*

I think I'l be going to the range this afternoon and imagine certain targets. LOL.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Psychologically and politically, the withdrawal phase has already begun."

Actually, I find much to agree with in the fundamental premises of this piece. Nixon pulled out because Congress, the media and the public had no taste for finishing the job even though by every military metric we were winning and he knew it. Defeatism became a self-fulfilling prophecy. I see many chilling parallels with the political scene today, but on warp speed compared to the '60s. This time the game won't play through three presidencies. Nevermind that our country was attacked and thousands of civilians died this time. In my darker days I fear we will wimp out this time too, placing the nation at great peril.

I hope events prove me wrong. But the media in particular is emboldened by its success in undermining our war against communism; despite tactical blunders and unfavorable demographic trends, its battle to undermine America continues. All indications are that the media has successfully cast the electorate against the liberation of Iraq and bound our hands for continuing what needs to be done in Syria and Iran.

The process is fascinating to watch. Idiots like Murtha plow the fields of public opinion for calculating Machiavellian pros like Hillary, as you could see unfold in the past three weeks. The political dominos may yet fall for Bush as they did for Nixon. I hope not.

[JoeSixPack1]

How can I be sure? I'm not, and I have no inside information. But the evolving structure of public opinion about Iraq is making the current war effort there unsustainable.

The evolving structure of public opinion is a house of cards built by the political leanings of the daily propaganda pundits.

When forced to vote on these forced dreams of shangri la, reality seems to wiggle through the cracks and smacks the msm right upside the head.

[MJY1288]

When the Terrorist over there, cut the heads off of those Peacenics who went to Iraq to "Find a Solution" to the conflict, the reaction by the Liberals will be contrary to when Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark climbed into bed with the enemy, this adventure will not be wise choice for those idiots when they come home headless in a bag

[Cincinna]

And will be the price of a media/leftist pressure pullout in Iraq be the same price paid when the US withdrew from Vietnam?

2-3 million slain innocent Vietnamese and Cambodians slain in the aftermath of the pullout. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of boat people who set out to sea and died.

[nathanbedford]

The author has both feet planted squarely on planet Earth and he has got it exactly right-but for the wrong reasons.

The drawdown will begin after these elections and will continue to accelerate until our own that midterm elections next November. This has long been planned. The drawdown after the December 15 elections in Iraq cannot be used to signal a change in strategy in Iraq because they had long been planned. But the overall idea of substituting Iraqi forces for American forces has long been the objective of American military planners. When that occurs, the American presence will be limited to air power, special ops and intelligence with Iraqi boots on the ground .

The Iraqis will absorb the bulk of the casualties and the Americans will exert a huge amount of control over the war as we will fund it, provide intelligence, and the air power and other equipment which is absolutely essential. So long as the governing class in Iraq needs these American assets, we will be able to stay in Iraq with ever decreasing casualty levels.

If Bush chooses not to follow this course, the author is perfectly correct when he says the politics will force him out of Iraq. Senators like Hegel on the Republican side will give the Democrats cover and the momentum will increase against the war. To the degree that Bush feels frustrated by the state of affairs, he should look in the mirror because it's his own passivity over the past few months which has undercut his ability to wage war in Iraq.

And, as I posted here often before the last election which Bush so narrowly won, the mainstream media had nearly succeeded in convincing the American people that a level of 1200 fatalities was an insupportable burden for a nation of 300 million. After the election, Bush dropped the cudgels and left the field to the media and the Democrats and now his ability to conduct foreign policy has withered.

The Democrats know this is the plan and they are trying to convert a successful "Irakization" of the war into an ignominious "bug-out" for shameless political advantage.

[Soul Seeker]

Then Pat Buchanon will love him!

George W. Bush is not Nixon.

Iraq isn't Vietnam.

And the silent Majority is no longer so damn silent.

Congress can't make the President withdraw troops. They can withdraw funding. If they try to do that, I volunteer to help in a drive to fund this war directly from our own pockets without the Government as the go between. Further, I volunteer to defeat every Republican that thinks withdrawal is their key to (re)election.

The threat is real. It's shared by millions like myself. The uproar they heard over the Warner resolution is only a taste of what will happen to them, and infact, that uproar would still be happening had not the House saved their butts with the 403-3 vote.

As well, success in Iraq is transitioning faster than anyone could have thought. Democrats/MSM/Hagel/Terrorists are running out of breath trying to bring defeat before it completely materializes. They will fail. THEY haven't enough time.

[Steely Tom]

All Over but the Pullback: Nixon Did It in Vietnam. Bush Will Do It in Iraq.

Hey Johathan, don't give Tricky Dick all the credit. After all, Jimmy Carter did it in Panama, didn't he?

[writer33]

what planet is this guy on?

He's from Anus Centauri. It's not even in this solar system.

[msnimje]

He is also an Ignoranus.

[writer33]

That is true. :) HA!

[zbigreddogz]

Does he furthermore understand, that, Nixon didn't actually withdraw.

He might have taken home some troops, but truth be told, he didn't leave fully till the mission was over. When he left office, South Vietnam was free, and was holding its own against North Vietnam, and would have been able to survive on its own if we had merely kept giving it the necessary funding.

It was the Democratically controlled Congress that then snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by overriding Jerry Ford and holding back the funding for North Vietnam.

[An.American.Expatriate]

But the evolving structure of public opinion about Iraq is making the current war effort there unsustainable.

Translation:

The continued bombardment by the MSM in collusion with the Democrats has managed to brainwash the populace into believing that the current war effort in Iraq is unsustainable. It is the same stratagy used in Vietnam and it is working again.

[Smokin' Joe]

And the silent Majority is no longer so damn silent.

You would think the MSSM (MainStream Socialist Media) have figured this out. Perhaps that is why they are shrill, and doing the full-court press.

Of course, the possibility exists that most of them have yet to trade their Etch-a-Sketch in for a real laptop...