HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Apr 7, 2004 On the Leftist Scale for how to characterize a war’s progress, the two notches at the most dire end have to be “Quagmire” and “Vietnam.” (There could be rosier terms further up the scale, but nobody knows – they’ve never been used.) “Quagmire” has received lots of playing time over the last couple of years, while “Vietnam,” the ‘nuclear option’ in describing any foreign policy matter, has been relegated to the bench, patiently waiting its turn. That was, at least, until this week. Senator Ted Kennedy finally “went there” on Monday (April 5th), when he coined the war in Iraq as “George Bush’s Vietnam.” Objectively, this was probably an off-the-cuff remark, sparked by the despicable murders and desecration of four American contractors in Iraq. However, I find it difficult to stomach such a claim coming from a man whose brother could easily be credited with the real Vietnam. (So, Teddy, was the first rendition “JFK’s Vietnam?”) In his defense, perhaps we should chalk this up as just another rash Ted Kennedy statement, along the lines of “I think I’ll just have one bourbon this evening” or “Really, Mary Jo, I’m OK to drive.” Or maybe it’s a sign of just how defeatist Kennedy and people of his ilk tend to be. Flash back to late 2001. At the onset of the war in Afghanistan, the aforementioned ”quagmire” was thrown around with breezy abandon by luminaries of defense policy like columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, whose military expertise likely ends at the ability to whistle the theme song from “Hogan’s Heroes.” Before the ink had dried on the dire predictions from Dowd and company, of course, the Taliban and their al-Qaeda charges had been routed and our boys were eating lamb kabobs in Tora Bora with their new friends from the Northern Alliance. (If by “quagmire” she meant “total victory before lunch,” then Dowd was dead-on.) To be fair, Iraq is not Afghanistan. The Sunni triangle is, and will be for some time, a dangerous place thanks to its dense population of whack jobs with a soft spot for Uncle Saddam. It will be difficult to establish a lasting peace and the June 30th date for a handover looks wildly optimistic at this point. But “Vietnam?” Really, Mr. Kennedy. We’ve been in Iraq for one year, at the loss of more than 600 brave men and women. Vietnam, on the other hand, lasted 15-20 years, depending on one’s take on when our involvement in Southeast Asia truly began, with a cost of more than 58,000 dead. Even the least scientific among us would have to agree that a more robust data set would be necessary before making any comparisons between the two conflicts. And since we all hope and pray that this data set never comes to fruition, it seems to me that Kennedy should shut his whiskey hole about “George Bush’s Vietnam.” Throwing around an emotion-laden time bomb of a word like that will do the country no good, our troops in harm’s way even less so. Senator Kennedy has been in public office long enough to know better. Nobody said that Iraq was going to be easy. Many among, us, including yours truly, have doubts about whether it was a good idea in the first place. However, we are there now and turning tail is not an option. Even those who opposed the war from the get-go should have the intellectual honesty to steer clear of the “Vietnam” trap. Given his remarks, it would appear that Kennedy cashed out on his honesty long ago. Right around the same time he drove his car into a Massachussets creek, if I had to take a guess. ------------ About Matthew Bastian: Recovering socialst, part-time drummer, long-suffering Brewers fan, and all-around beach hound, Mr. Bastian lives in central New Jersey. Email Matthew Bastian: mbastian19@hotmail.com ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
