by
Cinnamon Stillwell
Comparisons to the
Vietnam War have been hovering over the
conflict in Iraq since day one. The anti-war movement apparently decided
that the war in Iraq would be a “quagmire” before it even began and
naturally, they hearkened back to the glory days of Vietnam for
inspiration.
The truth
is, the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam was a great victory for the anti-war
movement. They were able to undermine a war in which America never lost a
major battle simply by sapping the nation’s will to fight.
In 1968,
when former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite surveyed the carnage after the
Tet Offensive
and
declared on television that the U.S. was
“mired in a stalemate,” he literally made it so. Despite the fact that the
Viet Cong suffered the greatest casualties and that U.S. and South
Vietnamese forces triumphed, Cronkite’s words won the day. Thus was born a
generation of journalists who believed that it was their moral duty to
hold themselves in opposition to the U.S. government and, by extension,
the U.S. military, no matter what.
ABC White
House correspondent Terry Moran admitted as much in a
radio
interview last year when he said that many
of today’s journalists are victims of what’s been labeled the “Vietnam
Syndrome.” He described “a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that
begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American
projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a
hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous.”
When the
U.S. pulled out of Vietnam in 1973, it was a vindication for the anti-war
movement. Isolated incidents such as the My Lai Massacre were expanded to
paint all American soldiers with the “atrocities” brush. Hence, returning
soldiers and veterans were treated more as criminals than heroes. In the
wake of Watergate, the presidency was exposed as corrupt and morally
lacking. In short, it was a confirmation of everything the Left believed
about America.
The after
effects of U.S. troop withdrawal on Southeast Asia were none too pretty
either. Millions were slaughtered in the Cambodian genocide and hundreds
of thousands of Vietnamese fell prey to summary executions and
re-education camps. Thousands of South Vietnamese, desperate to flee a
hostile and totalitarian regime, became “boat people” in order to reach
freedom in the United States. When Congress
cut funding to the South Vietnamese in
1975, they were left at the mercy of their enemies.
Contrary
to those who dismiss the “Domino Theory,” the Soviet Union, who backed the
North Vietnamese, was emboldened to pursue an expansive foreign policy
agenda in the years following U.S. withdrawal. The long-term effects of
communism in Vietnam produced a country mired in poverty. To the extent
that progress has occurred, it’s where capitalism has been able to take
hold more recently.
Yet to
this day, the anti-war movement refuses to take responsibility for the
consequences of their actions. During
an
appearance on the O’Reilly Factor last year
to promote his “exit strategy” from Iraq, 1960s anti-war activist Tom
Hayden wouldn’t address the subject of Vietnam at all. When host Bill
O’Reilly asked him what he thought about the millions of Cambodians and
thousands of Vietnamese that were killed in the wake of the U.S.
withdrawal, Hayden simply said, “I’m not here to talk about that.” Perhaps
Hayden didn’t want to reveal the true legacy of the anti-war movement of
the 1960s. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
A
favorite pastime of anti-war celebrities, including Tom Hayden, was to
rally North Vietnamese troops by visiting prisons where American POW’s
were being held. There they fraternized with prison guards while
subjecting American POWs to their unwanted company. Although they were
tortured regularly, American POWs were forced to tell these visitors that
they were being treated kindly. Dupes such as actress Jane Fonda then
dutifully reported such falsehoods to American audiences as fact. North
Vietnamese footage of folksinger Joan Baez playing guitar and singing
alongside Viet Cong prison guards as emaciated American POWs were forced
to stand and listen appears in the documentary
Stolen Honor.
Much
maligned by today’s anti-war movement, this important film was seen by few
of its critics. Instead they turned to a time-honored tradition of
smearing Vietnam veterans. Those who took the time to engage with the
facts presented in the film came away understanding just how much damage
John Kerry and his cohorts did to the morale (and the mortality) of
American POWs. Not to mention a generation of veterans who were forever
stained by the patently false picture Kerry presented to the American
public when he
declared
them all war criminals before the U. S.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
Vietnamese communists certainly have not been stingy about expressing
their gratitude. A
photo of John Kerry meeting with Comrade
Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, hangs in the
“American war protesters” section of the War Remnants Museum in a Ho Chi
Minh City. Over at the Women’s Museum, a
photo of Jane Fonda meeting with Nguyen
Thi Dinh, deputy commander of the Viet Cong, is still on display.
In 2004,
during the 29th anniversary celebration of the fall of Saigon, North
Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap
thanked the anti-war movement for helping
to force out the U.S. In
an interview with the Wall Street
Journal, North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin credited the anti-war
movement with being “essential to our strategy.” The visits of Kerry,
Fonda, and others to Hanoi, “gave us confidence that we should hold on in
the face of battlefield reverses,” he added. Col. Tin summed up the North
Vietnamese victory thusly, “Through dissent and protest [America] lost the
ability to mobilize a will to win.”
Now the
anti-war movement is trying to duplicate its success with the Vietnam War
in Iraq. But the situation couldn’t be more different. If anything, the
war has
more in
common with WWII. Then too, isolationists
were opposed to fighting fascism. Yet the post-war occupation of Japan and
Germany (the latter of which included the Werewolves, a Nazi guerilla
insurgency) ended with the transformation of two former enemies into
peaceful, democratic allies.
Although
global in nature, the battle against Islamic fascism is being waged
fiercely in Iraq because the terrorists know that their fate hangs in the
balance. Were the U.S. to withdraw troops prematurely and leave the Iraqis
alone to defend themselves, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Baathist allies
would be triumphant. Terrorist supporting regimes such as Syria and Iran
would also reap the benefit of the chaos that would likely ensue in our
wake.
Although
it’s been popular among the anti-war crowd to claim that we’re losing this
war or that it’s simply not winnable, nothing could be further from the
truth. The U.S. military is still the most powerful and advanced fighting
force in the world. With a volunteer force of citizen soldiers, the U.S.
military also provides a skilled army of nation builders. Against such a
foe a group of terrorists, no matter how fanatical, cannot triumph. That’s
why they’ve taken to targeting Iraqi civilians, a strategy that has
backfired greatly as Iraqis come face to face with the brutal alternative
presented by the “insurgency.”
The Iraqi
people have shown themselves capable of great bravery and accomplishment.
The
December 15th election in which over 70%
of the people voted, including the previously uninvolved Sunnis, was the
culmination of a series of democratic advances made by the Iraqis during
the U.S. occupation. With our military, civic, structural, and monetary
help, the Iraqis have continued to make headway, even as a ruthless enemy
attempts to slaughter them into submission.
Contrary
to what critics of the war like to claim, it is not the U.S. military that
is the primary killer of Iraqi people, but rather the terrorists that prey
unmercifully upon them. They are the murderers of innocents; the butchers
that attack groups of children waiting for candy and toys from American
soldiers; crowds of people worshipping at mosques; funerals for the
fallen; markets, schools, and anywhere else that regular people try to
live their lives. It is against such an enemy that the Iraqis have shown
themselves willing to stand up, over and over again.
Why is it
then that the anti-war movement cannot acknowledge this reality? While
crying crocodile tears over the victims of war, they insist on trying to
perpetuate the very policies that would leave the Iraqis most vulnerable.
The repeated calls to withdraw from Iraq with no regard for the situation
on the ground is not only evidence of great cowardice, but also of a
pernicious desire to see the U.S. lose. To them, the Vietnam template must
be resurrected at all costs. Even if it means snatching defeat from the
jaws of victory.
The only
way the U.S. can lose this war is if the anti-war movement succeeds in
sapping the will of the American people to fight. And it doesn’t look like
that’s going to happen anytime soon. Progress is being made, and despite
all the cleverly worded polls in the world, the majority of both Americans
and Iraqis stand firmly behind our success in Iraq.
Maybe
someday the anti-war movement will join them.
Cinnamon Stillwell is also a
Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance Inc., a non-profit (501c3)
national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
www.cinnamonstillwell.com
The opinions expressed in
this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org
