Great post, KB, well worth the read. And I am happy to give you my thoughts/opinions: I wholeheartedly agree with the gist of Podheretz's remarks. The only drawback is that he displays the typical neo-conservative need to 'prove' his pro-Americanism, the result of lingering guilt over his Commie past. But as you yourself said, 'a return to the anti americanism is concievable particuarly if Bush and Rumsfeld aren't completely honest or sucessful.' And, imo, this is to be expected, perhaps deserved, if our leaders botch things up badly. Not that I personally expect them to. But the reality is that war is indeed the most serious of business, requiring not only moral justification but competence and honesty from our leaders. The critics of Vietnam prevailed, imo, because our leaders were NOT open and honest with the public. Who would have thought, in 1964, under cover of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, that a few years hence we would have half a million troops in Vietnam? The Tet offensive was a spectacular failure for the enemy, but caused mass disillusionment in the US simply because our leadership had assured us that such a thing could not happen. I admit, as a former leftist, that I fell for the message that we were in 'over our heads'. Yet, what was one to think of the effort in Vietnam when our own President refused to face the voters and announced that he would begin troop withdrawals and 'peace' negotiations? Even Nixon touted his plan, not to WIN that war, but to END the war.
I am aware, therefore, of the possibility of the public's turning against this new war, in fact I couldn't erase that notion from my mind as I listened to Bush's speech declaring war on terrorism and asking for Congressional sanction and broad powers. But I think a few key factors make this much less likely to happen compared to Vietnam:
1) We have been attacked and are in palpable danger of repeated, serious damage to our citizens, to our way of life. Though we fight also for the freedom of others, this is basically a defensive effort, not a rescue operation.
2) It was debated by Congress, albeit hurriedly, and Congress and the public knows what we are getting into. I have believed for some time now that if LBJ had done the same in regards to Vietnam, going before the public to lay out the reasons, goals and dangers beforehand, he might never have lost his nerve in prosecuting that war.
3) There is no draft, no student deferments, to divide and bewilder the fighting-age population. Even if we reach a point of mass mobilization of troops (unlikely, imo), as long as everyone is treated equally and the spirit of volunteerism prevails, the critics will lack a visceral issue around which to mobilize opposition. Their only arguments will be theoretical, and they will sound like the tired ideological blowhards they are. Why this country ever instituted a draft is beyond my understanding. A draft is a form of involuntary servitude to government, unnecessary when the cause is just, insidious and oppressive if the cause should happen to be less than noble and just. (I believe our first draft was during the War Between the States.) <p
Your point is valid but the failure of the war in Vietnam had nothing to do with LBJ not spelling out what we were doing. He and his closest advisors WERE the problem primarily because they injected themselves into management of the war militarily.
That conflict would have been ended rapidly if our military leadership would have been allowed to prosecute the war without constant interference by LBJ and his "team."
Contrast that with what George W. is doing. The military leadership IS managing our efforts in the Afghan conflict.