Posted on 01/27/2007 3:28:56 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham
A sample of the Senator's words then: The people who directed the antiwar movement did not care whether McNamara had a workable strategy, or whether it could have been adapted to circumstances. They did not care whether Nixon's Vietnamization program might have worked. They did not care whether the South Vietnamese should have been given an adequate chance to adjust their strategy after the American withdrawal. And they did not care whether the communists signed a pledge guaranteeing free elections and a peaceful reunification of the country. Quite simply, they wanted the communists to win. Those who were adults during the Vietnam era know this truth full well. Others, however, particularly our children, have seen it glazed over and even denied as the reality of what happened after 1975 became ever more clear.
Now those same scumbags want the jihadis to win, only Webb has joined them.
Sorry about the typo.
It's about Webb, Ollie, Adm. Poindexter and McCain. How their paths cross at the USNA and into Iran Contra.
The tales of McCain in the Hanoi Hilton alone will make the hair on your neck stand up.
Great insights on them all.
Webb is an first rate example of BDD - Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Any common sense that Webb had has been overtaken by this pathology.
I'll save Webb the trouble, but not the embarassment:
pre·cip·i·tous - extremely rapid, hasty, or abrupt
short order - without delay
Excellent piece. Thank you.
It's too bad.
Fields of Fire was an awsome book.
Recognizing that Hugh Hewlett isn't the author, this piece is very thoughtful and relatively well written. Of course the paragraphs were long, I would have worked to shorten them had I been the author. But then, the actual author had interesting points, and I found it well worth reading, runon paragraphs or no.
I, too, saw the arrogance, anger, and resentment in Jim Webb's face and eyes.
I understand why Truman fired MacArthur, and agree he had the right to do so. I remember my dad saying MacArthur was right, and everything I have read about this time leads me to believe we might have avoided some of our problems had we not listened to the United Nations and Joint Chiefs of Staff and followed MacArthur's lead.
Ditto. Having been brought up in the south I noticed that too. One thing my beloved mom taught me was to kill my enemies with kindness. You behave well around someone even if you can't stand them. The demeanor comes across as a polite but venom and anger would still be there slightly veiled.
I must respectfully disagree.
In the first place, fiction works about Vietnam never came close to actual personal (nonfictrion) accounts - not even if the fiction, as in this case, was based on Vietnam experience.
In the second place, I though it was poorly written - for a number of reasons. In fact, I was not able to even finish it.
It was very popular in colleges in the 1980's as a "Vietnam book". That in itself says something.
You never came across any of the great nonfiction works being assigned - such as Company Commander.
In fact, fiction was generally the way that academia liked, and still likes, to approach Vietnam.
One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.
Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.
To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.
The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.
Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it
I read it as a young Marine on float in 1980 and 81.
Best part was Ollie kicked his butt!
good post
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.