The Iraq Syndrome (Great Read)

Those who equate Haditha with My Lai, and Iraq with Vietnam, would do well to remember the last time we gave peace a chance. For millions of innocents, it was the peace of the grave.

If there's anyone who condones the deliberate murder of civilians, it is not the U.S. government but the anti-war left and its unindicted co-conspirators in the media. Thanks largely to their efforts, we abandoned Vietnam and ushered in an era of mass carnage, boat people and reeducation camps that resulted in more death after the war than during it.

After Saigon's "liberation," summary executions of tens of thousands of South Vietnamese began. Hundreds of thousands more were forced into re-education camps as a million boat people fled on anything that would float. Countless thousands perished in the South China Sea.

And let's not forget the killing fields of Cambodia, where 3 million were slaughtered, a stark reminder of what happens in the absence of both democracy and U.S. power. Angst over My Lai helped make it happen; angst over Haditha could make it happen again.

Iraq is like Vietnam, where U.S. forces never lose a battle on the ground, but where defeat can come at the hands of a loony left, a biased media and a shortsighted Congress. Whether it's an immediate withdrawal or one with a date certain, it would be a signal to the enemy to set their alarm clocks and wait us out till we cut and run.

Sorry, but just can't resist the opportunity to add my 2 cents and have some of you (who never had the opportunity) to read an excerpt of the testimony of Sen. John "The Snake" Kerry and his prognostications as to what would happen, if we "bugged out" of Vietnam.

Kerry Testimony, 04/22/71

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1971

UNITED STATES SENATE;
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony

Senator AIKEN. I think your answer is ahead of my question. [Laughter.]

SAIGON GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE TOWARD COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL DATE I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government would be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by October lst, and be completely out of there -- air, sea, land -- leaving them on their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon government under those circumstances?

Mr. KERRY. Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face this question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country --

ATTITUDE OF SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY AND PEOPLE TOWARD WITHDRAWAL

Senator AIKEN. I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam aFter the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vietnamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?

Mr. KERRY. Well, Senator, this, obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years. The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can't go around -- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capability. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.

Thanks for posting that. The article did mention Kerry's treasonous testimony.

"If this sounds familiar, go back and reread John Kerry's infamous post-Vietnam testimony. The then-vet-turned-activist described our forces in that war as the heirs of Genghis Khan, who destroyed Vietnam in order to save it, who raped and pillaged, and who earned the left's most famous epithet — "baby killers."

As David Horowitz, who helped organize the first campus demonstrations against the war at UC Berkeley in 1962, has written: "Every testimony by North Vietnamese generals in the postwar years has affirmed that they knew they could not defeat the United States on the battlefield, and they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them."

====

Kerry should have been charged with and tried for treason.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.