In response to Dick Cheney’s recent comparison of today’s Democrats to the McGovernites of 1972, George McGovern himself responds:
I do agree with Cheney: Today’s Democrats are taking positions on the Iraq war similar to the views I held toward the Vietnam War.
Of course, this moment of candid agreement comes in the middle of a long, screedy op-ed basically reiterating that McGovern and Cheney don’t agree on very much. But inasmuch as this is virtually the only point in the op-ed where McGovern deals with the specific charge levelled by Cheney, it’s a significant concession.
Crank, you are young, and you didn’t have a draft number of 64, so I am willing to bet my view of Viet Nam, and what it meant, is a bit different than yours.
Iraq and Viet Nam have quite a few similarities:
1. Both wars were managed too much from the top. LBJ decided he was a Field Marshal; Bush is not, but he did give the reins to Rumsfeld.
2. Both wars occurred because of a perceived future threat. Dominoes that did not fall in Southeast Asia, Saddam creating WMDs to threaten the US, by giving them to Al Qaeda, who he actually had few ties to.
3. Both wars are depleting the American military, with long lasting repercussions. Large amounts of debt to be paid, lots of restocking of equipment.
4. Both wars have not a whole lot of popular support. My meory of Viet Nam and the “silent majority” was at best 50.5% by 1966. And sinking from there. And indeed both wars never really developed a fervor that we should have after Pearl Harbor. And yes we did after 9/11. We went into Afghanistan with Nato, and despite hand wringing from the press, kicked their asses. We should have gone there with 100,000 troops, killed, not evicted the Taliban, and killed, not captured bin Laden. Giving us a murderous rep that we have dissapated with Iraq.
5. Neither war had an exit strategy. You have to decide ahead of time just what victory means. Grant knew it, so did FDR, “Complete and unconditional surrender.”
If course there are differences. But this is an administration that covets depraved fidelity above a valued different opinion; one that has no clue what history means.
I agree with all your points Daryl save “Both wars were managed too much from the top.” GWB has abdicated his duties as commander and chief. Any time he is asked about the situation on the ground, he defers to his generals in an almost cowardly way. Generals should apprise the president of the situation but should not direct the mission; I get a sense the latter is occurring in this War.
Hey how about that Pat Tillman? Any new thoughts on him now? How about that family of his? as bad as Cindy Sheehan, aren’t they? How about that war of yours and your retard chief executive. You practice law? It seems like you’re much more practiced at stupidity, you little shit.