Respected Democrat Encourages 'Naive' Obama to Emulate Bush; Honored Vet Says 'Stan Not 'Nam

Sunday, October 11, 2009 | Kristinn

[kristinn]

As the debate on Afghanistan comes to the fore, a well respected Democrat has urged Barack Obama to emulate the wartime courage and leadership of former President George W. Bush by implementing the 'surge' strategy recommended by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Medal of Honor recipient of the Vietnam war, wrote an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal Friday night that congratulated Obama on his Nobel Peace Prize but then went on to criticize Obama for being "naive" and apologizing for America too much. The news media has ignored this article by the former 9/11 Commission member and candidate Obama supporter. It has been noted by a handful of bloggers.

Kerrey admits he is tempering his criticism, but his words still sting:

On vision, President Obama is very inspiring. He has given moderates in Muslim countries room to move by speaking to them directly and respectfully, while at the same time continuing to wage an aggressive and necessary battle against radical Islamists who have declared war on the U.S. However, he has made too many apologies. And at this point, his strategy is too naïve and has too little coherence to be called a strategy. If the issue of foreign policy had been more important in his presidential campaign—and therefore important to the electorate—I might be more critical. And if I weren't a supporter, my judgment would be harsher. But in this realm, I'm still hoping for improvement.

Kerrey implies Bush is a "great American leader" for his decision to 'surge' to victory in Iraq after the 2006 elections:

In December 2006, President George W. Bush was faced with a similarly difficult foreign policy decision. The Republicans had suffered tremendous losses in the November election, in part because of the conduct of the war in Iraq. At the time, the unpopular Republican president was being pressured by ascendant congressional Democrats and some members of his own party into withdrawing from Iraq. Failure in Iraq loomed, as public opinion for the effort to help the democratically elected government survive had faded thanks to a series of tactical blunders and inaccurate assessments of what would be needed to accomplish the mission.

Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.

From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision....

...There is surely a strong temptation to conform his better judgment to popular opinion. If he chooses this politically safe route and does not give his military commander on the ground the resources needed to win, history will judge him harshly. Great American leaders of our past have ignored popular sentiment and pressed on during the darkest hours, even when setbacks give rhetorical ammunition to the skeptics.

Kerrey concludes with an impassioned plea for victory:

...our leaders must remain focused on the fact that success in Afghanistan bolsters our national security and yes, our moral reputation. This war is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not popular and have very little support other than what they secure through terror.

Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.

When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.

It's a sad state of affairs when Saturday Night Live gets more attention from the media when it comes to criticizing Obama on the war than someone with Bob Kerrey's qualifications.

[Poe White Trash]

>>> European governors were far better than the native rulers. <<<

Don’t mention the Belgian Congo! I’ve read that Dutch colonialism in the Netherlands East Indies wasn’t exactly a bowl of cherries, either.

I think that the appropriate response to AndyJackson’s point about colonialism is that 1.) Ho Chi Minh’s effort to unify South with North Vietnam had a lot more to do with doctrinaire Communism than anti-colonialism; 2.) by the time the US began to deploy ground forces — early 1965, I think — I don’t think anyone was seriously considering either making Vietnam a US colony or re-instating French colonialism there.

[Poe White Trash]

>>> the media was not overly sympathetic to the Yippies and Hippies <<<

I was quite young at the time, but I don’t remember the media being very sympathetic to the US effort in support of South Vietnam — in the early 70s or later. Hollywood certainly wasn’t!

[wardaddy]

The media actually did support Vietnam till Tet...Howard K Smith lost a son there I think...or it may have been Severied(?)

even after Tet, all the anchors did not follow Walter

the media was not nearly as overtly in the lefty tank like today and they openly scorned the counter culture..

Hollywood had lefties yes but it still had patriots then too and the patriots were big box office

[wardaddy]

The media actually did support Vietnam till Tet...Howard K Smith lost a son there I think...or it may have been Severied(?)

even after Tet, all the anchors did not follow Walter

the media was not nearly as overtly in the lefty tank like today and they openly scorned the counter culture..

Hollywood had lefties yes but it still had patriots then too and the patriots were big box office

[armymarinemom]

Obama fought and hard in order to call the war in Afghanistan his own. I bet he never thought it would bite him as hard as it has. I bet there is true trouble within the party of this. Senate and House critters who have large Military bases in their districts don’t like to have to deal with so many grieving families who have valid reasons to be angry. The ole Pigeons Coming Home to Roost phrase comes to mind.

[Poe White Trash]

>>> I don’t like him, but he did a good thing writing this opposition to zer0’s naive plan. <<<

I agree, he did a good thing. I was just pointing out the fact that he couldn’t help “nuancing” his position contra Obama’s dilly-dallying over Afghanistan.

>>> Zer0 tries to preach to us like an anthropology professor on how the “indigenous society” is best for the residents even if they live in the 11th century. <<<

I have a MA in anthropology. If the only thing that I knew about Obama was that his mother had a PhD in anthropology and was interested in peasant studies/gender studies/colonialism/weaving(!), I feel that I would know enough to realize that he is a man who should not be trusted with any US elected office.

[Poe White Trash]

What you say makes sense, since my earliest memories of TV and other mass media — Quisp vs. Quake, the Apollo moon landings, etc. — begin soon after 1968.

Don’t remember enough/haven’t read enough to disentangle which news anchors/editorial pages were on what side. I have a clearer recollection of the post-1975 war protestor gloating over the fall of South Vietnam.

[AndyJackson]

As soon as independence broke out, large numbers of illegals from the colonies suddenly showed up in Europe. Why? Because the fools’ paradise that was European rule was at an end. The natives would now have to deal with the arbitrary brutality and corruption of local despots - the same people who had treated them like slaves for thousands of years.

Actually the reason that a lot of colonial natives were allowed to return to the "home" country after anti-colonial wars booted out the European colonizer is because many of them were "collaborators" with the colonialists, there lives were in genuine danger, and the colonialists, not being the totally heartless brutes they were accused of being, allowed them in. Not always. I doubt the Belgians accepted many from the Congo, nor did the Germans take many from Tanganyika.

[AndyJackson]

You keep wandering off the main point, which was that communism was very effective at exploiting the abuses of colonialist powers. Your view of the moral or economic or organizational superiority of colonialism is entirely irrelevant as is your assessment of whether the colonized would have been better off if they accepted their colonial fact with docility (somehow this prescription is very much at odds with the American experience, but I digress). The only thing that mattered and matters still is the propaganda war on the ground and how it affects the truth as those whose hearts and minds are battled for see it.

Your viewpoint is entirely irrelevant in that. So is mine or anyone else's on this thread.

[Zhang Fei]

I think that the appropriate response to AndyJackson’s point about colonialism is that 1.) Ho Chi Minh’s effort to unify South with North Vietnam had a lot more to do with doctrinaire Communism than anti-colonialism

I think it had a lot more to do with Emperor Ho's quest for uncontested power than either doctrinaire Communism or anti-colonialism. Communism was merely cover for one man's quest for absolute power, and the recreation of Vietnam's Indochinese empire (including Cambodia and Laos). It took a Chinese punitive invasion in 1979 to put an end to Vietnamese ambitions.

[Zhang Fei]

You keep wandering off the main point, which was that communism was very effective at exploiting the abuses of colonialist powers.

You are arguing from a native standpoint. I am arguing from an objective standpoint that compares the treatment of natives by other natives, with that by European colonizers. It's not politically correct to put up the facts side by side and compare them, but the truth is that Europeans rulers treated the natives far better than native rulers. The one respect in which native rulers were superior was in agitating against the central power. In all other respects, they were inferior.

[Zhang Fei]

Actually the reason that a lot of colonial natives were allowed to return to the "home" country after anti-colonial wars booted out the European colonizer is because many of them were "collaborators" with the colonialists, there lives were in genuine danger, and the colonialists, not being the totally heartless brutes they were accused of being, allowed them in. Not always. I doubt the Belgians accepted many from the Congo, nor did the Germans take many from Tanganyika.

Actually, a lot of colonial administrators were absorbed into new native governments because of a lack of native expertise. The real problem was that many of them came from minority ethnic groups that had either previously ruled the majority in pre-colonial days, or had traditionally been oppressed by majority ruling ethnic groups. Either way, they weren't traitors - they were shoehorned into European empires through no particular desire of their own. If anything, they were the greatest victims of decolonization. But here's the thing - the bulk of the illegal immigrants you see in Europe do not come from these groups - they come from the anti-European natives who fought against their European "oppressors", and have brought their racist and revanchist ideologies with them to Europe. This is why they are almost impossible to assimilate into European society - they are determined to carve native colonies onto European soil.

[Poe White Trash]

>>> I think it had a lot more to do with Emperor Ho’s quest for uncontested power than either doctrinaire Communism or anti-colonialism. <<<

After the examples of Lenin and Stalin and Mao, it wouldn’t surprise me if Ho either confused his personal quest for power with a tradition of national Communism or saw no essential difference between the two.

[AndyJackson]

Actually, a lot of colonial administrators were absorbed into new native governments because of a lack of native expertise.

You argue like Clinton. Don't like a point, you change the subject. No one debated that isssue.

[AndyJackson]

You are arguing from a native standpoint. I am arguing from an objective standpoint that compares the treatment of natives by other natives, with that by European colonizer

Again, you have a very hard time keeping track of the point being argued. The original point had to do with US bungling the war in Vietnam by failing to instill an effective counterinsurgency strategy. Counterinsurgency has to be waged from the perspective of the population you are trying to win to your side of the war. Your or my viewpoint on what is best for them is entirely irrelevant. It is what they think is best for them that counts.

[Zhang Fei]

Counterinsurgency has to be waged from the perspective of the population you are trying to win to your side of the war. Your or my viewpoint on what is best for them is entirely irrelevant. It is what they think is best for them that counts.

Let me quote your words back to you:One of the problems with Vietnam was that socially, economically and politically we were not on the right side of the war.

I read "right" to mean morally superior. You appear to be parsing "right" to mean whatever floats the natives' boats at any given point in time, much as Clinton defines the word sex pretty flexibly. My mistake.

My main point wasn't even morality. It was that insurgencies, like non-insurgencies, are won by some combination of superior generalship, manpower resources and/or material, not by the support of the people. In the Orient, "the people" generally "support" whomever they think is going to be on the winning side, and it's a piecemeal kind of thing that has to do with avoiding getting killed in the here and now while the guerrillas are in control of your hometown rather than any abstract principles. For people in non-guerrilla controlled areas, it's a matter of avoiding reprisals when the guerrillas win. (Where the guerrillas appear to be losing, this scenario happens in reverse - non-guerrilla-controlled areas support the government to avoid future reprisals and guerrilla-controlled areas are filled with government spies and turncoats to forestall future government reprisals).

The North Vietnamese only managed to win when Uncle Sam cut off supplies to South Vietnam, even as the Soviets provided billions of dollars in new equipment to North Vietnam on credit. I think it's silly to say that we were on the wrong side of the war. We were on the right side of the war. The real problem is that the non-communists had poor military leadership. Nonetheless, we plugged the gap. By the time we left in the 72/73 time frame, communist guerrillas were a spent force. It was the regular NVA that crossed the border with tanks, Migs and artillery.

The biggest mistake we made - and the reason massive American intervention became necessary - was in our killing the single unifying figure in South Vietnam - the man who could hold his country together, Ngo Dinh Diem. We wanted a George Washington-like figure and Ngo Dinh Diem was all the South Vietnamese had. I think it's poetic justice that the moron who engineered his death, Kennedy, had his brains blown out a couple of weeks later. It's the least that could have happened to Kennedy, given the almost 60,000 GI's that went to their deaths after South Vietnam started unraveling, post-Ngo.

[AndyJackson]

I said: "One of the problems with Vietnam was that socially, economically and politically we were not on the right side of the war."

Then you replied "I read 'right' to mean morally superior."

Well, first, we somehow failed to convince the peasantry in South Vietnam that we were morally superior, even if you thought we were. Second, I don't know how morally superior we are when we kill how many millions and then give up.

If we were morally superior, we would have been promoting and delivering something positive for the South Vietnamese. Anti-communism is not a positive program - I know hard core cold-warriors don't exactly see that - and a million dead "gooks" is not exactly a positive moral program either.

A positive morally superior program would have lead the folks we were fighting for to feel that they were better off year by year with us there than without us being there. Somehow we failed to close the deal.

In fact, our measure of progress was the infamous body count reported daily to the White House.

[Zhang Fei]

A positive morally superior program would have lead the folks we were fighting for to feel that they were better off year by year with us there than without us being there. Somehow we failed to close the deal.

Moral superiority and superior propaganda are different things. The lesson of the Western colonial experience is that we can be right on everything and still lose in the court of native public opinion. The bottom line is that locals are more likely to believe someone of the same skin color, no matter how outrageous the lies and libels. My contention is that hearts and minds is chimerical. The reason the North Vietnamese won is superior firepower. They held on to South Vietnam after victory without having having to deal with an insurgency because they executed and starved to death hundreds of thousands of former government officials, while driving over a million refugees into the shark-infested waters of the South China Sea.

[AndyJackson]

Take your cultural Darwinist slop somewhere else. This kind of white man's burden crap is beyond the pale.

You are the first person I have ever heard from who suggested that we lost to the VC because they had superior firepower. Quite the contrary. We had overwhelmingly dominant firepower, kill ratios that almost exterminated the VC and we still managed to lose because we fought the wrong war for the wrong purpose. The only folks who didn't know that were LBJ, Gen Westmoreland and, now, struggling in across the finish line, you.

[Zhang Fei]

Take your cultural Darwinist slop somewhere else. This kind of white man's burden crap is beyond the pale.

"Cultural Darwinism" and "white man's burden" aren't European inventions - the words are different, but the concepts have been a propaganda staple of state- and empire-building since the first tribal leader annexed his neighbor tribe (i.e. killed the menfolk and took their hunting grounds and women). Heck, people in Mesopotamia and Mohenjo Daro were doing it when European were running around in animal skins and living in caves. They're just new labels. Do you really think the Chinese and Javanese empire-builders said outright that we're here to steal your land and take your women? Spare me the nonsense that Europeans invented empire-building, and that what they did was uniquely bad. It wasn't.

You are the first person I have ever heard from who suggested that we lost to the VC because they had superior firepower.

I don't know what you're talking about. We exterminated the VC during the Tet offensive. After that, it was NVA participation all the way. The VC did not take Saigon in 1975. It was the NVA that crossed the border with tanks, Migs and heavy artillery.