Post by deovindice on Mar 26, 2007 7:56:06 GMT -5
With popular support for the war in Iraq waning, with little progress to show for the 3241 soldiers who have given their lives in the campaign, and considering the policy blunders and failed strategies that now seem to characterize our efforts, the parallels with the war in Vietnam become more and more obvious.
Ironically, both the left and the right have criticized the performance of Congress during the war in Vietnam. Liberals accuse the Congress of allowing Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon to push deeper into the jungles of Southeast Asia without opposition. Conservatives place responsibility for "losing" on the Democratic Congress.
Similar charges have been cast about today. Many in Congress are attacking the troop "surge", and others will place responsibility for losing on Congress should we withdraw.
On May 27, 1964, President Johnson called Senator Richard Russell to ask him for advice on the "Vietnam thing." Russell called the situation the "damn worse mess I ever saw" and warned it would lead to a difficult war against the North Vietnamese and Chinese in the jungles. Russell said the U.S. position was "deteriorating" and that it looked like "the more we try to do for them [the South Vietnamese government], the less they are willing to do for themselves."
Our current involvement in the Middle East stands to gain us further conflict, obviously with Iran. Afghanistan remains on the agenda. A constant criticism of our Iraq strategy is the remaining lack of engagement by the Iraqis on their own behalf.
Considering the volatility of the region, rampant anti-American sentiment, and a miserable half-century old track record of efforts to gain peace in the Middle East that only proves the futility of such, the area could well turn out to be our latest Saigon.
Because it took Nixon four full years to withdraw U.S. ground forces from Vietnam -- Democrats continued to challenge the administration. Nixon's aggressive claims about executive power goaded the opposition. On June 25, 1969, the Senate, by a resounding vote of 70 to 16, passed a "national commitments" resolution that stated that the Senate needed to repair the balance between the branches of government when dealing with foreign policy.
Bush's "aggressive claims" of executive power have resulted in scandal after scandal, and in the interest of "repairing the balance" there are now de facto calls from some in Congress, indeed some from the President's own party, for impeachment.
New York Representative Charles Goodell proposed a bill that would establish a deadline of December 1970 to pull troops out of Vietnam.
On December 16, 1969, Congress finally used the power of the purse. In a closed floor session, Sens. Frank Church and John Sherman Cooper offered an amendment to a defense spending bill to prevent the further use of money in Laos or Thailand.
In June 1973 Congress passed legislation that included an amendment sponsored by Sens. Frank Church and Clifford Case to prohibit the use of more funds in Southeast Asia after August 15. Sixty-four senators voted in favor. When the House assented, its vote marked the first time that chamber had agreed to cut off funds, too.
Establishing deadlines and cutting funding seem to be the Congressional battle cries of the day.
Today, members from both parties would benefit by looking back at the history of Congress in the Vietnam era. As Congress struggles over how to correct a failed military policy and how to deal with an administration that is refusing to change course, legislators need to draw on their resources -- in the tradition of Fulbright, Church, McGovern, Cooper, Hatfield, and others -- despite the political risks. The real risk would be for Congress to capitulate and fail to act on its disagreement with the administration. The costs of the war in Iraq have been enormous, as financial and military resources, and human lives, are drained away. If voters go the polls in 2008 with the same fire in their bellies they had in 2006, the electoral costs will also be high for incumbents who failed to act on their beliefs.
The war in Iraq is tearing our country apart for the prospect of zero gain. The conflict is touted as a necessary component of the "war on terror". The war in Vietnam was touted as a necessary component of the Cold War. That war tore at the fabric of our nation and it's repercussions are still felt to this day, and all for the prospect of no gain. When President Johnson asked him what was at stake, Sen. Richard Russell responded that "the territory was not important a "damn bit" to the United States".
Neither is Iraq.
The author of the highlighted commentary, Professor of History Julian E. Zelizer of Boston University, has it right.
Look back at history.
History says: "It is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more."
George Washington--1796 Farewell Address
Simply, we are cursed for staying in Iraq and we will be cursed for leaving Iraq after having given so much and for not having given enough.
Ironically, both the left and the right have criticized the performance of Congress during the war in Vietnam. Liberals accuse the Congress of allowing Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon to push deeper into the jungles of Southeast Asia without opposition. Conservatives place responsibility for "losing" on the Democratic Congress.
Similar charges have been cast about today. Many in Congress are attacking the troop "surge", and others will place responsibility for losing on Congress should we withdraw.
On May 27, 1964, President Johnson called Senator Richard Russell to ask him for advice on the "Vietnam thing." Russell called the situation the "damn worse mess I ever saw" and warned it would lead to a difficult war against the North Vietnamese and Chinese in the jungles. Russell said the U.S. position was "deteriorating" and that it looked like "the more we try to do for them [the South Vietnamese government], the less they are willing to do for themselves."
Our current involvement in the Middle East stands to gain us further conflict, obviously with Iran. Afghanistan remains on the agenda. A constant criticism of our Iraq strategy is the remaining lack of engagement by the Iraqis on their own behalf.
Considering the volatility of the region, rampant anti-American sentiment, and a miserable half-century old track record of efforts to gain peace in the Middle East that only proves the futility of such, the area could well turn out to be our latest Saigon.
Because it took Nixon four full years to withdraw U.S. ground forces from Vietnam -- Democrats continued to challenge the administration. Nixon's aggressive claims about executive power goaded the opposition. On June 25, 1969, the Senate, by a resounding vote of 70 to 16, passed a "national commitments" resolution that stated that the Senate needed to repair the balance between the branches of government when dealing with foreign policy.
Bush's "aggressive claims" of executive power have resulted in scandal after scandal, and in the interest of "repairing the balance" there are now de facto calls from some in Congress, indeed some from the President's own party, for impeachment.
New York Representative Charles Goodell proposed a bill that would establish a deadline of December 1970 to pull troops out of Vietnam.
On December 16, 1969, Congress finally used the power of the purse. In a closed floor session, Sens. Frank Church and John Sherman Cooper offered an amendment to a defense spending bill to prevent the further use of money in Laos or Thailand.
In June 1973 Congress passed legislation that included an amendment sponsored by Sens. Frank Church and Clifford Case to prohibit the use of more funds in Southeast Asia after August 15. Sixty-four senators voted in favor. When the House assented, its vote marked the first time that chamber had agreed to cut off funds, too.
Establishing deadlines and cutting funding seem to be the Congressional battle cries of the day.
Today, members from both parties would benefit by looking back at the history of Congress in the Vietnam era. As Congress struggles over how to correct a failed military policy and how to deal with an administration that is refusing to change course, legislators need to draw on their resources -- in the tradition of Fulbright, Church, McGovern, Cooper, Hatfield, and others -- despite the political risks. The real risk would be for Congress to capitulate and fail to act on its disagreement with the administration. The costs of the war in Iraq have been enormous, as financial and military resources, and human lives, are drained away. If voters go the polls in 2008 with the same fire in their bellies they had in 2006, the electoral costs will also be high for incumbents who failed to act on their beliefs.
The war in Iraq is tearing our country apart for the prospect of zero gain. The conflict is touted as a necessary component of the "war on terror". The war in Vietnam was touted as a necessary component of the Cold War. That war tore at the fabric of our nation and it's repercussions are still felt to this day, and all for the prospect of no gain. When President Johnson asked him what was at stake, Sen. Richard Russell responded that "the territory was not important a "damn bit" to the United States".
Neither is Iraq.
The author of the highlighted commentary, Professor of History Julian E. Zelizer of Boston University, has it right.
Look back at history.
History says: "It is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more."
George Washington--1796 Farewell Address
Simply, we are cursed for staying in Iraq and we will be cursed for leaving Iraq after having given so much and for not having given enough.