Posted on 10/11/2009 11:34:51 AM PDT by 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.
The South Vietnamese lost because we cut off their supplies even as the Soviets handed billions of dollars of new tanks, heavy artillery and Migs to the North Vietnamese. The South Vietnamese were defeated by superior firepower just as much as the South Koreans were initially hurled back by the invading North Koreans in 1950. The difference is that unlike South Korea, South Vietnam did not have the US 8th Army waiting in the south of the country to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Just prior to the invasion in 1975, guerrilla activity in South Vietnam was non-existent. This is why uniformed NVA took Saigon using brand new Soviet tanks, not black pajama clad VC using AK-47's.
South Vietnam was lost the day we decided we would withdraw.
Who said all of that??? Not me.
This would be news to the North Vietnamese, who had to wait two long years to take Saigon. Without Watergate, South Vietnam would still be around today as an independent country. Heck, if we had withdrawn in 1953, South Korea would be part of unified communist Korea. Here's a table of US KIA by year:
| Country | Year of Death | Number Killed |
|---|---|---|
| USA[6] | ||
|
|
1956-1964 | 401 |
|
|
1965 | 1,863 |
|
|
1966 | 6,143 |
|
|
1967 | 11,153 |
|
|
1968 | 16,592 |
|
|
1969 | 11,616 |
|
|
1970 | 6,081 |
|
|
1971 | 2,357 |
|
|
1972 | 641 |
During the Tet offensive in 1968, the US lost over 3,000 men KIA, in a year that saw over 16,000 GI's KIA. During the Easter offensive in 1972, a major NVA conventional push, the US lost 641 KIA in the entire year. The war was winding down, and the North Vietnamese were beaten. But the Democrats couldn't stand to see their communist allies beaten, and made sure to hand victory to them on a plate by cutting aid to the South Vietnamese, at a time when the North Vietnamese were getting billions of dollars in shiny new equipment.
What? You're finally saying that the native rulers were no better than their European governors? But what about what you see as the unique* evils perpetrated by Europeans in the form of the twin ideologies of "Social Darwinism" and "white man's burden"?
* "Unique" ideologies that native civilizations had practiced for thousands of years.
I simply don't care. My only point is that we did a lousy job of counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Period. That is it. Nada mas. Whatever your psychological or ideological baggage, I don't care. It is irrelevant to that one simple point that I made. Comparative catastrophies in colonial exploitation, moral relativism in imperialistic overreach, or whatever point you are trying to make. I don't care. We ran a lousy strategy in Vietnam and we lost.
So what? We lost.
Actually, you're arguing native man's superiority, moral relativism and all kinds of BS to support decolonization.
My only point is that we did a lousy job of counterinsurgency in Vietnam. Period. That is it.
And my point was that we did a good job, but ultimately failed because North Vietnam's allies were more steadfast than we were.
Whatever your psychological or ideological baggage, I don't care.
Your ideological baggage is very relevant, because it clouds the basic issue, which is that America defeat had nothing to do with not backing the "right" side. It had to do with winning the war and then having the rug pulled out by the Democratic party, at a time when US casualties were shrinking to nothing.
You said South Vietnam was lost the day we decided to withdraw. I pointed out if it were true, the North Vietnamese would have been in Saigon the next day. North Vietnamese victory was not a foregone conclusion. The triggering event was not our withdrawal. It was the Democratic party's withdrawal of military aid to South Vietnam carried out in sync with billions in Soviet supplies to North Vietnam.
I am not arguing for decolonization. I don't need to. The argument would be pointless. There is nowhere to decolonize, decolonialization having run its course, in case you had not noticed, unless you are sympathetic to the fate of St. Pierre and Miquelon Islands. That is a poor target, however.
And my point was that we did a good job [of counterinsurgency], but ultimately failed because North Vietnam's allies were more steadfast than we were.
Which is just another way of saying we did a lousy job.
Your ideological baggage
What is my ideological baggage? My point here is that if you are going to fight a war you should try to win it and that starts with having a winning strategy which starts with not defending the indefensible.
then having the rug pulled out by the Democratic party, at a time when US casualties were shrinking to nothing.
Us casualties shrank to nothing because it was Presidential policy to avoid American combat casualties by avoiding having American troops engage the enemy. Instead we resorted to mass bombing by B-52. Our total lack of commitment to a winning strategy could not have been clearer. I.e. we did a lousy job at counterinsurgency.
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.Expect Obama's att'y general to indict Kerrey for war crimes committed in Vietnam.
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.