A Plea To Older Activists: Stop The Vietnam Comparisons

Today, Gallup has produced a report comparing public support for the Vietnam War to public support for our current war in Iraq.

Also today, Rueters has a report on the widening protests against war in Iraq. It mentions Vietnam three times, including this quote from a 56 year-old:

"This is Vietnam No. 2. As we are seeing in the polls, the American people are beginning to realize this war was created on lies, deceit and deception," Niederer said.
Last week, at the Sheehan vigil I attended, around 350 people of very diverse ages came. However, I don't think we played a single song that was recorded either before 1965 or after 1973.

These comparisons are starting to show up everywhere. Hagel has said it. Literally thousands of news organizations and editorials have begun to make the comparison. However, while I don't believe that either war was justified, I have grown exhausted by these comparisons, and do not believe that they are beneficial to the anti-Iraq war cause. My reasons for this are many.

I dislike the comparisons to Vietnam because, like all allegory and historical analogy, they lack precision and rigor. An inexact analogy can go a long way toward obscuring important details about our current situation, which itself can lead to improper action.

I dislike the comparison to Vietnam because while history looks very unfavorably upon the Vietnam War, extensive American involvement in the war lasted for eight years. If this is another Vietnam, then there will be no withdrawal for another five and a half years.

I dislike the comparison to Vietnam because while it was very unpopular at the time, outside of Lyndon Johnson, conducting of the war carried with it no repercussions for its supporters. In fact, if anything, the long, painful rise of the Republican majority began at the time of the Vietnam protests. The negative political ramifications came for those who opposed an unpopular war.

I dislike the comparisons to Vietnam because I feel that they are rife among a generation of progressive activists older than myself. I am still young, just 31, but during my twenties, when I was first becoming active in politics, I remember being harangued on numerous occasions by Baby Boomer activists who complained that people my age were politically disengaged to a shameful degree. I remember being told by the poet Ron Silliman that perhaps young people needed be be threatened by a draft, so that then they would finally take appropriate action. Yes, this is the reason why I dislike the comparisons to Vietnam most of all.

Now that I have grown older and somewhat more aware, I realize that the Baby Boomers are by far the most Republican generation still alive today. I realize that as the cloud of radical conservatism gradually darkened our horizon in the form of the Republican Noise Machine, progressive activists of an older generation did almost nothing to stop it. Whatever successes progressives managed in the past, outside of the gay rights movement, since 1980 our victories have been few and have been quickly reversed. I grew up witnessing all of these failures, and maybe I am tired of older activists telling me how I should do things.

Why would we ever want to compare our actions now to our actions during Vietnam? The ideas, institutions, and methodologies that progressives developed during that time period worked in their day, but we have clung to them for far too long. We even clung to them in early 2003 when, on February 15th, we staged the largest coordinated protest in the history of the world (at least twenty million worldwide), which was dismissed as a focus group, and did nothing to dampen our spirit for war. Now, at long last, we are developing new, better protest techniques, and we are finally breaking into the national consciousness. The Iraq War is becoming the dominant issue, and Bush's numbers are collapsing in the face of it. First Survey USA, then ARG, and now Harris--Bush's three worst polls ever have been his last three polls. This is happening not because we are replicating what we did during Vietnam, but because we are finally developing ways to go beyond what was accomplished back then.

While progressives admire and appreciate those trailblazers who came before them, unlike conservatives we are not bound to follow in their footsteps. Iraq is not Vietnam, and we should not mistake it as such. The actions that succeeded in ending the war in Vietnam will not succeed in ending the war in Iraq. Even more importantly, the progressive movement cannot suffer another twenty-five years of ossification where we offer unrequited worship to the institutions and methodologies of our forebearers.

With all due respect to my older brothers and sisters in the movement, I just can't stand the comparisons to Vietnam, and I would beg you to stop them. If this is another Vietnam, then by the time I am 65 I shudder to think at how conservative the nation will have become. I grew up during a time period when progressivism was being routed. The last thing I want to hear from those who fought the losing battles for our side is that we are going back to the beginning of that era once again, and history is repeating. .



Display:


Well said! (none / 0)

I love reading progressive history but I have no intention on carrying their baggage today.
by Kombiz Lavasany on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 04:38:10 PM EST

Re: Well said! (none / 0)

The only lesson we learn from history is that we don't learn any lessons from history.
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said! (none / 0)

I realized that the one sentence may be trite after I wrote it Gary. I have the highest amount of respect for people who protested against Vietnam, as I have the highest respect for the people that protested against Reagan's adventures into Central America. I just think, and have always thought that while the protestors were on the right side of history they weren't able to effect real long term change. As bad as Iraq is today, and as most Americans think the war is a mistake, the Vietnam anaology cuts against us more than it clarifies what's really going on in Iraq.

There are, at least in my experience a lot of people who are against the war, but would vote for the war makers again and again, because they think it's more appealing than supporting a war opponent because of the baggage of Vietnam.

by Kombiz Lavasany on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said! (none / 0)

We had the same problem with the Democratic Party then that we do now. That's why I switiched to the Republican Party and was a Bush 41 delegate when he ran against Reagan.

Both parties are hopeless for different reasons. Both parties have marginalized the rational wing of their party.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said! (3.00 / 2)

I on the other hand and much more pragmatic about the Democratic Party, and people who are rising up today.

For me it's the Birch Bayh/Evan Bayh/Barak Obama dichotomy. In my view, Birch Bayh was one of the greatest Democratic polticians of the post Kennedy Era. He was progressive, he fought like hell for equal rights in a state with the highest Clan membership, he fought and legislated for the working poor and unions and he was a fighting Democrat who worked for his party. In '80 he lost because Fallwell and Robertson targeted him, and disparaged him. In '96 after an 8 year stint as Governor his son takes his seat in the Senate and for what can best be described as an I believe in nothing legislative tenure does next to nothing so that no one is aliented. He is the product of the post Vietnam, take it easy, don't fight anything Democrat. Everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party.

In 2003 I was won over, though I don't vote in Illinois by Obama. There are a whole class of progressive Democrat I've met over the last three years that fit into the Obama stripes. They are in office or running for office and it's a matter of 4 to 6 years to churn the blood through the party.

It's just a matter of giving them the support to win.

by Kombiz Lavasany on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said! (none / 0)

Keep your fingers crossed that they aren't corrupted by the political beast and don't sell out to the corporate machine. The system chews up a lot of good people.
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Big Difference Between Iraq and Vietnam (none / 0)

I also dont like the comparison, for a different reason.  American involvement in Vietnam began in the 1950's and lasted until the 1970's.  When exactly did the war start, why was it necessary, and who started it?  There are really no perfect answers to these questions.  It was a slow gradual build-up of support to a military ally, South Vietnam, during the course of three presidential administrations.  

Iraq is very different.  I have answers to all three questions.  

When did it start?  March 19, 2003.

Why was it necessary?  It wasnt.  The neocons wanted to establish a permanent military occupation of oil-rich Iraq, so they lied to the American people by blaming Sept 11 on Iraq, and by claiming that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US.  They ignored Iraq's compliance with UN demands for restoration of weapon's inspection teams, and Hussein's agreement to dismantle a class of missles in the weeks preceding the invasion.

Who started it?  George Bush, and ultimately he and he alone must assume responsibility for every death and consequence of this "catastrophic success."

John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 04:50:47 PM EST

Re: A Big Difference Between Iraq and Vietnam (none / 0)

Are you completely ignorant of history? Our involvement in Iraq started in 1991. US military forces have been continuously involved ever since then, even after Desert Storm, with overflights patrolling the No Fly Zone, occasional bombing, etc.

Vietnam is the perfect analogy. Get used to it.

by charlie dont surf on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:59:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Big Difference Between Iraq and Vietnam (none / 0)

Ouch, harsh.  No, I am not completely ignorant of history.  I have 2 degrees (MA, BA) in history.  

Our involvement in Iraq started well before 1991.  The US decision to support Hussein in 1979 after we "lost" Iran, and our tacit approval of his use of chemical weapons against Iran helped create the monster we had to subsequently deal with.  

From 1990 to 2003 the US worked through the United Nations with broad and almost universal international support to liberate Kuwait and to contain Iraq, so that Iraq would not be a threat to other nations.  Bombings were few and far between and always directed at military targets that were in violation of UN resolutions, specifically anti-aircraft radar sites that were targeting patroling US planes.  There were never civilian targets or attempts to occupy territory.

This war began on March 19, 2003 when bush dismissed the opinions of the UN and the majority of nations, and decided to invade and occupy Iraq.  If you cant understand the difference between before and after the invasion, I would say that it is you who lack historical perspective.  Before this date, we had a lot of options as to how to procede.  After this date, there is no way out.  

As for a "perfect analogy," there is no such thing.  Get used to it?  What does that mean?

John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

of course there are differences (none / 0)

but there are obvious similarities too.  We are involved in an unwinnable civil war that is not supported by the majority of the people. The US government is engaged in daily lies and happy talk. You would have to be brain dead if you are my age and that doesnt ring a bell for you.

But that doesnt mean that the same strategies and tactics will work.  So you are right about that, but to deny that there is an element of deja vu is just another way of saying you arent old enough to remember that far back.  No crime in my book, and maybe even an advantage if it allows you not to respond to the right in a knee jerk deja vu way.

steve kyle
by steve kyle on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 04:57:42 PM EST

Re: of course there are differences (none / 0)

The problem is that you can't take the legitimate historical comparisons with out the baggage of  the illegimate strategies.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 04:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: of course there are differences (none / 0)

But that doesnt mean that the same strategies and tactics will work.

Are you saying that the anti-war movement ended the Vietnam war? I'm not sure it did. I feel like the economy, gas prices, that sort of thing ended the war. It got too expensive to exist alongside other programs that people wanted more than they wanted a war.

The most likely thing to really get us out of Iraq is the deficit. Bush is going to have his toy war taken away by his tax cuts.

by redsoxkangaroo on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 06:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But this is the problem in a nutshell, isn't it? (3.00 / 1)

We are refighting on the left and right the same battles that the baby boomers were unable to decide in their youth over and over again. It's the 1950s versus the 1960s, and changes in subsequent generations be damned. So, we can not move on as a nation until frankly they are out of power. I very much believe that many of the problems facing this nation are a direct result of the baby boom generations inability to see how to do things in ways other than how they prescribe how to do things. Although I don't want to start a fight, I do believe that you are right. You are also by the way pointing out one of the reasons why it is SO hard to get Democrats to think of themselves as the minority party, and to act to take more risks accordingly. The baby boomers who are progressives or moderate Democrats did not live in a time in which the Democrats were in the minority. They are scared. So they think that the conservative babyboomers must be right.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 04:57:50 PM EST

Only if you're over 35... (none / 0)

Only if your over 35. For those of us just entering into full adulthood the Vietnam War is dead as an issue. We can and will move on- it's just the way the world, or rather human (collective and individual) memories work. The same goes for the majority/minority party issue- it's hard for older people to get past the memories they formed in early adulthood, but that has little bearing on the memories of my/our generation.
Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only if you're over 35... (none / 0)

I am 34, so like you I've spent most of my adult and formative years watching things I believe being torn down. I'm not old enough to imagine when progressivism was in the ascendency.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:47:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only if you're over 35... (3.00 / 1)

I'm 32 and the people I find I have MOST in common with are the over 70 crowd. They know how to FIGHT.
by AnneinPhilly on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only if you're over 35... (none / 0)

I feel the same way. I feel like I connect more with the spirit of the party of FDR than the people who came out of the 60s in terms of the willing to fight.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:45:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only if you're over 35... (none / 0)

I hope you aren't including this 50+ Baby Boomer in your 60's generalization of people who are not willing to fight.
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only if you're over 35... (none / 0)

I am making generalities. I don't think my generalities are about all babyboomers- just the majority. By definition, ie, who are the majority of voters, who is shaping policy etc, baby boomers are in charge. This whole mess that we face is exactly their fault. So yes, in short I include any 50 year old who fits into the baby boom generation. This is a feeling that I've held since the 80s when I watched as they gave a big middle finger to my generation. Now, with their indifference, selfishness and sometimes down right hostility they are sticking it to even more generations.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 10:45:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only if you're over 35... (none / 0)

Those are the stories you see in the M$M. The M$M covers the trainwrecks and runaway white girls. They ignore Howard Dean and Paul Wellstone.

The M$M ignored Cindy Sheehan as long as they could. The M$M ignores or belittles and demonizes WTO protesters. Don't believe the lies.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only if you're over 35... (none / 0)

One of the myths that is evident here is that The Baby Boomers are homogeneous. If you look at the many years that are included in the boom, just for one thing, there are huge variations over time. Second, contrary to MSM hyperbole, Boomers who could be considered members of the counterculture or as protestors or activists were really very small in number compared to the general population of Boomers.

Believe me, MOST people in college or of college age in the 60s were conformists and totally nonpolitical, just as they are in almost every generation. Of course many eventually grew their hair long, cut holes in the knees of their brand new jeans or smoked a little weed, but their moderate or even conservative bent remained intact.

As this majority of the generation aged, they of course became the suited cogs in the corporate machine. Their numbers, as the numbers in the Boomers as a whole, are huge. But please don't confuse them with those who created the activst movements of the era.

Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 03:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only if you're over 35... (none / 0)

i feel the same way too.  i LOVE the old FDR era liberals.  they are an inspiration.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Only if you're over 35... (none / 0)

If we had more Dems who could kick ass like my 96 year old grandmother, Al Gore would still be president.
by redsoxkangaroo on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 04:31:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another problem (none / 0)

is that constantly evoking Vietnam means that our (younger) generation has to re-fight the 60's over and over again.  The 2004 election, in my opinion, became a referendum on the legacy of the 60's, where one side epitomized the belief that dissent was patriotic and necesssary in a Democracy (Kerry) and the other represented the status quo -- get a job, don't rock the boat, stay alive (W).  

This debate -- the Iraq debate -- belongs to us.  It should be fought on its own terms and for its own reasons.  We can learn from what came before, but we should never, ever simply parrot it.  

the lyceum
by mattgabe on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 04:58:46 PM EST

Re: Another problem (none / 0)

BINGO. Most of my friends, conservative or liberal, wanted to know why are we hearing about Vietnam? What does this have to do with Iraq? However, if you hear about something long enough just like advertising it becomes something you make decisions on. One of the many reasons I thin the Swift boat ads were so successful.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another problem (none / 0)

The Swiftboat ads were effective because Kerry didn't fight back. We tried to put a stake through the heart of the Vietnam war with the War Powers Act.

If Senate Democrats had listened to Russ Feingold it would have worked. Feingold tried to bring up the War Powers Act and the robust liberal hawks ignored him.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:52:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another problem (none / 0)

It's about Israel.

The overarching theme is that if you are dovish now with Iraq, you don't support Israel. The Swift Boat ad buy was designed to show that Kerry was someone who wanted to use military service and pomp when it served him, but after time revealed his true intentions. The ads were designed to force pro-war Jewish Democrats not to step out of line and let Kerry twist in the wind. If you support Kerry in 2004, the idea is, you were supporting a guy who says he would stay in, but in the past has "cut and run" (and you know how Bush likes that phrase). And if you cut and ran, that would hurt Israel.

It's the same strategy with those lame gay marriage referenda. They weren't aimed at the base, they were aimed at Latinos and blacks to isolate them. The Swift Boat ads were just doing the same thing but with the moderate Jewish wing of the Democratic Party.

Kerry screwed himself solely being a self-fulfilling propehcy. He was hawkish at first, and then talked more dovishly. He made it impossible for the Swift Boat ads to be discredited by his prior behavior. Nevertheless, the real hawks in the Democratic Party could have saved him by speaking to his defense...but they didn't...and so no amount of Kerry fighting back would have stopped the Swift Boat malaise.

by risenmessiah on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another problem (none / 0)

Yes, that's part of it- but they weren't effective in the begining with people around my age. Most of my Republican friends kept asking what the fuck until they got their marching over from the repeption squad in the media- "it's important because kerry's a wuss" Indeed, he was- but not for Vietnam. For his lack of ability to defend himself from such a weak attack that most didn't care about except people who lived in that era. Look I see this over and over again- recently that stuff about who was deep throat and people on both sides of the baby boom idealogical divide arguing over that- no one cared. We care about the lesson- but not the tiny squabbles related to the specifics of who was the informant.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 10:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another problem (none / 0)

Hell, I don't give a shit about that stuff. That's the tripe the M$M feeds us. There's no way around it and until Air America was started no way to even get our message to the public.

Without the combination of the blogosphere, Air America and DFA Meet Ups where would the progressive coalition be?

We had no way of keeping lines of communication open except political parties. The Democratic Party tamed every liberal instinct that came along and will continue to tame every liberal instinct that develops. The political problem has to be attacked from both inside and outside the Democratic Party.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:23:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can answer that!!! (none / 0)

After November 2006.

The great big litmus tests races are coming in 2006.  

Look to Harold Ford for guidance on the survivability of any Yellow Dog Dems.

by jcjcjc on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 12:28:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thought ford.... (none / 0)

...was a blue dog.  am i wrong?
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 12:40:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No spin allowed (none / 0)

What is a Blue Dog Dem?  Really?  It's just a Yellow Dog Dem who has either repented from racism, or at least started hiding behind crypto-racism.

I think it's perfectly OK to call Ford what he is: a Yellow Dog.

Hell, I have a yellow dog, and he's a damned good companion.  I just struggle to believe I'd want him running the nation.

by jcjcjc on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 01:23:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hey i'm just asking (none / 0)

i thought i remembered reading that he was in the blue dog caucus.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 03:10:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair enough (none / 0)

But, be aware that the term Yellow Dog versus Blue Dog is just a balancing act, with folks trying to peel away the Southern legacy of the term Yellow Dog without giving up winking to the old Yellow Dog votes.
by jcjcjc on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 09:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yea.... (none / 0)

i live in texas. i know all about yella' dogs
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 04:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another problem (none / 0)

You're right. The Swift Boat ads worked because they evoked the Anti-War frame and put Kerry in it - with the hippies, rioters, and other "layabouts". Kerry didn't find a stronger frame for George Bush and put him in it. He also totally failed to break the frame by aggressively defending his war record and making Bush into the draft-dodger.
by redsoxkangaroo on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 06:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another problem (none / 0)

This same split will continue, regardless of the era or the issue or the type of war because it is caused by a deep psychic split between those who are repressed and want to suppress others and those who are not repressed and thus have no fear or hatred when others express themselves freely.

Until this rift is healed, the same debate will recur, with the sides clearly drawn. Think about it.

Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 03:49:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Give them a break- It's only natural (none / 0)

Chris-
no offense bro, but you are seriously misguided here. The Vietnam Generation has no choice but to compare this war to Vietnam- it's "hardwired" into their brains. This subject is something that I've studied at great length and which I wrote the first part of my masters thesis on. If you want to get into the science of why it is almost inevitable check out this section of my thesis on The Reminiscence Bump and Collective Memory. Here's the intro:
"I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." Kerry proclaimed as he saluted the crowd at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where he would accept the Democrat's nomination to run for President. Kerry's biographical film had just ended, with about half of it dedicated to Kerry's Vietnam experiences. This was not the first time that Kerry used his Vietnam experiences during the campaign- many people credited his victory in Iowa to his appearances next to the Vietnam Vets that he served with.

Soon after the convention ended the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" began running ads questioning many aspects of Kerry's Vietnam service, from where he was on a certain Christmas night, to the events surrounding his combat metals, to the severity of his battle scars, to his membership in the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry wasn't the only one to get dogged by his activities during Vietnam, Bush's service in the Air National Guard, as well as his alleged AWOL status, also became an issue, though it seems to have affected Dan Rather, who was forced out as CBS News' head anchor, more than Bush. It may seem odd that the 2004 election would be so focused on a War that ended almost 30 years ago while over 100,000 US troops occupied Iraq, but after doing research on a phenomenon known as "the reminiscence bump" and media effects theories for various college courses, I came to the realization that this was not only the obvious course that the election would take, but almost inevitable.

I'll bet you any amount of money that our generation will be comparing whatever wars we face in our 40s to this Iraq War, just as our parents compare this to Vietnam, and their parents compared Vietnam to WWII. You can try and swim against the generational tide, but all you're going to do is exhaust yourself.
Future Majority / Young Philly Politics
by Alex Urevick on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:14:56 PM EST

How do you stop it? (none / 0)

We can ban comparisons to Vietnam here and at dkos, but that won't stop the RWNM or the M$M or anyone else. ANSWER doesn't care. Iraq Vets Against the War? I don't know. At one teach in I went to they were talking about the 3rd generation of war resisters.

The RWNM tried to say that Iraq was not like Vietnam. It is and it isn't.

How do you stop the bumper stickers that say "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam"?

I appreciate your sentiment Chris, but I don't think MyDD or dkos is driving the comparisons and I don't think we can stop it.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:15:32 PM EST

that sticker is waiting to go on my new car (none / 0)

and it will stay there because of the branding - the mental image that is conjured up when you compare something to vietnam - is more powerful than any other analogy we could make right now.

it sends a clear message.  that's why it's effective.  i would argue it's becoming MORE EFFECTIVE as we take morme casualties.  

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:16:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that sticker is waiting to go on my new car (3.00 / 3)

Bingo! Regardless of how anyone feels about it, we have to relearn the lessons of Vietnam, only better.

Vietnam was a useless immoral war against an enemy that didn't exist, except in the paranoid minds of the Cold War Worriers.

The GWOT is a useless immoral war against an enemy that doesn't exist, except in the paranoid minds of the Theocons.

There were Communists in the 50's, 60's and even today. There are terrorists today and there will be terrorists for the next 1,000 years.

There is no such thing as a global war against an ideology or a method. We need to learn the lesson that war is not the solution to world wide problems of poverty, famine and brutal dictators.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:12:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that sticker is waiting to go on my new car (none / 0)

I think what's really happening is that when the USSR crumbled, the world's arms merchants and financiers and corporations that made money off of it were in a panic. Voila, TERRORISM replaces the Red Scare and Domino Theory. Same thing. Different day.
Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 03:52:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

With all due respect (3.00 / 2)

With all due respect Chris (I do admire you)there are some important anologies to the Vietnam War that are important to remember,  and some lessons of mistakes made by the anti-Vietnam war movement that need to be avoided.

1.  It was John Kerry who asked in his 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake".   That's really a point that needs to be remembered.   By 1968 most thinking americans understood that the Vietnam war was lost yet it dragged on and thousands and thousands more lives were wasted.   We are at that point now in Iraq where the country needs to understand first and foremost that the Iraq invasion was a mistake that can't be corrected but can't be undone.   Continuing the occupation for another 2 - 5 years is just wasting more lives.  

I agree that it is politically useful (and important) to point out that this was primarily a neo-con republican mistake,  but we also have to be aware of the reality that most of the Democratic "leadership" signed on to that mistake.   And in my opinion I'm not sure which is worse,  the Republicans who led the invasion thinking it was a good idea, or the Democrats who supported it knowing that it was a mistake but afraid to say it.  

2.  The anti-vietnam war movement became anti-american in 68-70.   That is sad but true.   We became anti military, anti patriotic, and ultimately pro NLF.   Those positions were what made it difficult if not nearly impossible for middle america to join in the anti-war movement.
Those impulses though did not come out of no where, and understanding them may be helpful in ensuring that the current generation doesn't repeat them.

Finally -  I suggest people please look at Gary Hart's op ed column in today's washington post for a brilliant and appropriate use of our shared Vietnam War American History.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301178.html

by AlanR on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:28:07 PM EST

Re: With all due respect (3.00 / 1)

Good post, Alan.

If you look at the Busheviks' rhetoric, you see constant attempts to frame anti-war as anti-American, e.g., Bush's statement yesterday about those who want to get us out of Iraq don't want to win the war on terror.

This crap needs to be answered very patiently but consistently with "Bullshit!"...in a non-vitriolic way, of course.  

A distinction between supporting the war and supporting the troops, or supporting the fight against jihadist terrorists--they aren't going away when we get out of Iraq--must be made at every opportunity.   Fwiw, I think the Sunni population of Iraq is going to provide far more terrorists after we leave than Bush & Co. ever dreamed of Saddam Hussein encouraging.

by InigoMontoya on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: With all due respect (none / 0)

I wish the Kerry of 2004 could have been more like the Kerry of 1971.  He would have kicked Bush's ass in the election.  
When this baby hits 88 miles per hour, you're gonna see some serious shit.
by CO Democrat on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 10:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes and no (none / 0)

I agree with a lot of what you've said... the Vietnam analogies are kind of intellectually lazy, and we've got to stop the fetishization of Vietnam-era protesting as the high-water mark of lefty activism in this country (i.e. something that today's little whippersnappers will never be able to equal so why bother trying).

But "Vietnam" is still extremely useful as an evocative, one-word way of encapsulating all that we're trying to say is wrong with the war. Surely as an English major you understand the power of metaphor and know that a vivid, one-word allusion, "Vietnam," is more powerful than having to repeatedly spit out "a war that started out with what seemed like, to a majority of people, good intentions at the time, but turned into a hopeless quagmire due to poor planning and a complete misunderstanding of the country's residents, that wound up tanking our economy, harming our standing abroad, and bitterly dividing the nation and damaging its psyche for decades."

You know, it's really about branding, and from the pro-war standpoint, you just don't want the war you're trying to sell get stuck with the "Vietnam" brand, just like you wouldn't want your car to get stuck with the "Ford Pinto" brand or your blimp to get stuck with the "Hindenburg" brand. And too bad for the GOP that the "Vietnam" association is starting to stick and pollute the image they've created for their product.

As for Vietnam being the starting point of the rise of Republican power, maybe seeing our failure in Vietnam and the success of the long-hairs in pointing out that failure pissed off some people and drove them into the GOP column. But concurrent with that were two other things that I think were much bigger in creating the shift toward the GOP: Johnson's promotion of the Civil Rights Acts, which moved millions of white southerners en masse into the GOP, and then the infamous Powell memo of 1971, which essentially laid out the framework of the right-wing noise machine and turned out to be their instruction manual for seizing the nation's ideological machinery. Vietnam, I think, was more of a signpost than what actually drove the shift rightward.

by Crazy Vaclav on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:29:32 PM EST

L Plus ca change---! (none / 0)

I am not a Boomer--I am even older than that, but this sounds mighty familiar.  In the '60s, the earliest activists (known then as the "new left") were constantly advised by old lefties based on THEIR activism of the 1930s.  The battles we had to refight because of them were their battles about communism and who was right when about Stalin.  We spent much time on whether and how much to dissociate ourselves from the communists at home and in N. Vietnam to avoid being tarred with the brushes that the old left had been tarred with.  They warned us about the dangers of a resurgence of McCarthyism and indulged in a bit of it themselves from time to time.  We put up with analogies to the '30s and fought about whether Vietnam was Munich or Spain.

In the end, the activists of the '60s forged their own strategies and tactics and I urge you to do the same.  That is what we know as progress.  It is also necessary for your generation to be able to find its own voice and to define itself.  So go for it!

As for the Republicanism, the activists of the '60s were, as now, only a small part of the population.  Even if you add in the real hippies, as opposed to weekend tokers, it was still a minority.  I think that the older Boomers are still more Dem than Rep, but that the younger Boomers, who never participated in all the '60s stuff, are the ones that are more conservative.  Partly it is because they have the (somewhat justified) feeling that the first wave of Boomers (born 1945-1957)took more than their fair share of the cultural energy and the goodies.  

Furthermore, the dominant characteristic of the Boomers is idealism and a belief that they are unique and have all the answers.  You see this in the conservative Boomers as well as the liberal ones. It is just that the first wave was liberal and now we are seeing the reaction by the conservative Boomers.  All the more reason why your generation should not get caught up refighting the '60s any more than we should have had to refight the '30s and your kids should have to refight the '90s and the '00s.

by Mimikatz on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 05:33:49 PM EST

Re: L Plus ca change---! (none / 0)

Don't cut my generation any slack. Too many of the Baby Boomers sold out to corporate greed and become Wall Street Mogul wannabees. Or just got fat and lazy and stopped caring. It's not easy battling the corporate machine decade after decade with no results.

We also didn't have a progressive political party to back our play against overwhelming corporate power. We still don't have a political party that is willing to stand up to overwhelming corporate power.

Some of us have not given up, but don't kid yourself. The political battles are exactly the same. The culture warriors of the right are the same culture warriors that thought marijuana was a demon drug then and think it is a demon drug now.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:57:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iraq is Arabic for Spanish-American War (none / 0)

This probably won't become a "meme" that sweeps the nation considering that no one knows diddly about the Spanish-American War, but it's a much better metaphor than Vietnam. (Run with it, Chris.)

In the late 1890s America's power elite realized it needed to get involved in colonialist expansion in order to fuel its economy, but just about everything in the world was already taken. However Spain, with its declining military power and resource-rich holdings like Cuba and the Philippines, seemed like easy pickings.

Suddenly, a massive explosion took the lives of hundreds of innocent Americans! The sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 was blamed on Spanish saboteurs (although it was probably a boiler malfunction). The yellow journalist newspapers of the day, owned by a few right-wing media barons, beat the drums of war and worked the nation into a vengeance-seeking froth.

So how did the war turn out? The mission was accomplished in a matter of weeks, with hardly any battle deaths. The prize, unfortunately, was that we had control of the Philippines, where the resources turned out to be uneconomic to extract and the ungrateful residents engaged us in an insurgency that dragged on for many years and killed thousands of our soldiers (not to mention perhaps one million Filipino civilians). Finally, in 1913, President Wilson threw in the towel and we slunk off. Sound familiar?

by Crazy Vaclav on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:01:15 PM EST

thank you (none / 0)

"Now that I have grown older and somewhat more aware, I realize that the Baby Boomers are by far the most Republican generation still alive today. I realize that as the cloud of radical conservatism gradually darkened our horizon in the form of the Republican Noise Machine, progressive activists of an older generation did almost nothing to stop it. Whatever successes progressives managed in the past, outside of the gay rights movement, since 1980 our victories have been few and have been quickly reversed. I grew up witnessing all of these failures, and maybe I am tired of older activists telling me how I should do things."

finally, someone had the balls to say it. i <3 you chris.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:13:59 PM EST

Re: thank you (3.00 / 2)

I wouldn't say that older progressives did nothing to stop the cloud of radical conservatism.  During the Reagan years people fought US policies in Central America, fought to maintain reproductive rights, fought to maintain the separation of church and state, fought to maintain civil liberties, fought for more environmental regulation and wilderness, and gay progressives and some allies such as the ACLU fought for gay rights.  

Where I think we all fell down was during the '90s, when the Gingrichites started to take power.  We vastly underestimated them, and I think we thought we could take a breather while there was a Dem in the White House.  Both were very wrong, as they used those years to build a movement from the ground up, while progressive institutions became more and more focused on playing power games in DC and badly neglected or even disdained the grass roots, and individuals got caught up in living their lives.

by Mimikatz on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you're right (none / 0)

i'm just really bitter over the rise of modern reaganite conservatism and looking for something to lay the blame on.

believe me i do give the "hippies" a world of credit.  they did a lot of good.  but i am frustrated as someone who didn't live through that era with the lack of progress we made since.

please help me understand why that is.  why have we kept moving backwards since about 1980?

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (none / 0)

Because the babyboomers are essentially a selfish generation. This has been said before, and needs to be repeated here, nothing that has happened in this country in the last 30 years or so- the deficits, the issues w/ social security/medicare, the regurgitation of prior political battles ad nauseum, the inability to think of generational equities can be explained unless one admits that the boomer generation isn't much interested in any generation either prior or following it.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (none / 0)

And how many of your generation are Young Republicans?
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (none / 0)

According to the polls we voted as I remember (60/40?) for Kerry. That should tell you where the numbers are coming from. It ain't us.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 10:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (none / 0)

PS

As I remember despite conventional wisdom we also came out in droves in the 18-35 bracket, but it wasn't enough (and I haven't seen data on this but it makes sense) to over come the boomers.

by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 10:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (none / 0)

You sound so, er, Republican. Mustn't confuse rebelling against your parents with how you view Baby Boomers, who were born during a very long time span. There are huge differences between those born early on and later, just for one thing.

The crux of the matter is that most Americans are selfish because we live in a society that rewards and encourages greed and consumerism, an identity and status that comes from piles of money and goods. I think the problems we face stem mostly from a rise in this consumerist identity than anything else. Americans have been bought off and thus most ignore what allows their massive consumption of the planet's resources. This isn't just a trait of the Baby Boomers -- it's incredibly widespread, even among people who call themselves "progressive" or "liberal."

Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 04:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (none / 0)

Because the M$M has always loved war and conservatives. The Democratic Party has always been pathetic.

We are fighting the exact same battles today that we were then, because we still don't have control of the media or the message. Until George Soros or some left wing mogul buys a whole damn network to compete with Rupert and the whole damn conservative warmonger media moguls, we will always be the minority.

The media has never been liberal. The media always took Nixon's side and Reagan's side. Watergate was a fluke caused by two cub reporters that hadn't been housebroken yet. Reagan never did pay a price for Iran Contra. Don't blame me because Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddie are media heroes.

It's not my fault that both parties are still supporting marijuana madness. It's not my fault that Clinton was considered a great liberal, instead of the best we could do against the M$M and the Democratic power brokers. The Democratic Party hated Paul Wellstone. That's not my fault.

We carried the damn ball as far as we could and we're still looking for a damned quarterback with balls. If your generation is willing to settle for a right wing quarterback, you won't do any better either.

If we don't get a genuine progressive voice in the White House your generation is going to be as jaded as mine is. How many of you think you will still be able to keep fighting the same damn battles thirty years from now?

You give me a god damn decent progressive quarterback and I'll chop block the shit out of any mangy GOPER pig who gets in my way. Our arms don't have the strength to throw touchdown bullets anymore. If you want to do any better than we did, you better recruit a god damn quarterback who can take a few hits and keep getting back up off the turf.

Russ Feingold may not be Paul Wellstone, but he's the closest damn thing I can see on the horizon. If you all want to put in a woman quarterback, don't blame me if her arm isn't good enough to make any touchdown passes. If you want to pick a play it safe quarterback who takes a knee on tough plays, don't blame me if you don't score any touchdowns.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (3.00 / 1)

In 30 years it occured to none of you that rather than have street puppet shows you should be trying to figure out how to run a network?

I had this discussion when I first got pissed off last year, and started coming to these blogs. I even tried briefly to recruit people to start advocating for the creation of progressive media outlets in the red and purple areas of the country. Instead, people were more interested in boycotting Fox and except for here in mydd.com, other bloggers ignored the suggestion.

If progressives are going to win, they are going to have to change. Not their idealogy, but how they think about things. I can give you a long laundry list of things that need to be done and how people think about it- but most of it can be summed up by what Dean says- we don't need to adopt the Republicans idealogy, we need to adopt their organization and skill for politics. The reason why we have not already adopted effective tools can be layed at the feet of your generation. It was your duty to carry the torch. Instead, we are left with the same thing we are left with in other parts of our society- a system that's barely working.

by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (none / 0)

You can tell your kids how easy it was to change the world. Nothing to it but to do it. I'm sure Big Oil, Big Pharma and the M$M are all going to just roll over and go away now that your generation is on the scene.

Were you aware that the last "Blacks Only" and "Whites Only" signs on drinking fountains finally were taken down in Florida in 1973? I think you have strange illusions about just how far we moved the ball in the 60's and early 70's.

I think you are underestimating how difficult it was to fight the abortion wars that got us where we are. You are underestimating how far the GLBT community has come, and they didn't do it all alone. I think you are underestimating how hard it was to get the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act passed through Congress.

Do you think stopping the Vietnam War was easy? Do you think you're going to stop the Iraq War without some of your generation getting the shit kicked out of them and some getting shot dead by rogue cops?

The system is pushing back and you are blaming my generation?

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"whites only" (none / 0)

shit, you should have seen what was in alabama and georgia in the late 70s and early 80s.  i have very vague memories of "unofficially" segregated establishments during my childhood.  same with florida.  lots of dixiecrats there.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 12:46:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "whites only" (none / 0)

I can barely imagine. I was shocked the other day when Randi Rhodes said the last signs came down in Florida in 1973. I don't believe we ever had that kind of blatant discrimination in whitey mc white Iowa.

I would have bet my bottom dollar the last "whites only" signs all came down in the late 60's. It's amazing how much I am learning about the world I grew up in. Information that was literally not available from any source.

I seriously doubt I have a realistic picture of what racism in the south really looks like today.

by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 01:30:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (none / 0)

Who's in charge and where does the buck stop? it's as simple as that.
by bruh21 on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 02:14:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you're right (none / 0)

Hey, don't you get it? Organizing and networking and political nitty gritty in the trenches is being invented by those under 30!
Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 04:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

we're trying gary, we're trying (none / 0)

and we're already jaded BTW.  that was one thing the MSM got right about gen-x : we are a jaded bunch by nature.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 12:44:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we're trying gary, we're trying (none / 0)

jaded for a good reason. We have prior a generation who doesn't want to solve problems that they are leaving for us to solve.
by bruh21 on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 02:16:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we're trying gary, we're trying (none / 0)

I'm sure you will have all of the problems solved and will hand a perfect world over to the next generation.
by Gary Boatwright on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 12:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we're trying gary, we're trying (none / 0)

i am sure your hyperbolic conversation aside you don't imagine this is about perfection so much as a description of your generation that you don't like.
by bruh21 on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 01:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One small quibble before I forget (3.00 / 2)

The gay movement occured despite tepid support from progressives- not because of it. Progressives, even now, have traditionally treated gay issues as radioactive. Only recently has the issue of gay equality become something that that is actively supported even while some who claim to be progressive or moderate argue against this support.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:26:10 PM EST

Oh Get Over Yourself! (3.00 / 1)

I'm 56 and it feels like GroundHog Day. Same lame arguments. Stay the Course, Hate America, Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. You dont't understand how disheartening it is to listen to this administration, this news media, these hawks. I thought we had figured it out and wouldn't make the same mistake again. BUT NO!!!!
What is happening in Iraq and what is happening to our soldiers is what I knew in my heart was going to happen before the War started.
Sorry Pal, for those of us that lived through Vietnam, Iraq is just like Vietnam.
by phastphil on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:31:04 PM EST

Re: Oh Get Over Yourself! (none / 0)

I will make you a deal. When your generation learns to get over itself, I am sure my generation will be happy to get over itself. Let me know when that happens.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 07:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Get Over Yourself! (none / 0)

OK! My and generation and your generation have just repeated the same dumb ass mistake. Now what?
by phastphil on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 10:46:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Get Over Yourself! (none / 0)

My generation didn't create this war- yours did. That's the point.
by bruh21 on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 10:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Get Over Yourself! (none / 0)

It wasn't anybody's damn generation. It was the Military Industrial Congressional Complex, which is timeless and ageless.

Do you believe your generation is going to change the world? Do you believe your generation is going to stop political corruption? Is your generation going to change the laws of nature?

Changing the world sure must look easy. Let me know if it still looks easy in thirty years, when the next generation tells you the same thing you are telling us.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 11:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Get Over Yourself! (none / 0)

It was your generation. It's not about oil. It's not about the military industrial complex. These things to me are symptoms. It's about Bush proving to Daddy that he's the better man. It's about the Neocons proving that Vietnam was an aberration, and that America is the city on the hill that they imagined it was back in the 60s. As I remember this more than anything was the basis of their argument.
by bruh21 on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 02:19:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Get Over Yourself! (none / 0)

Both generations are complicant in this war. That the point!
by phastphil on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 09:26:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Get Over Yourself! (none / 0)

Yeah, well the activists within the massive Boom generation ensured there would be no long-term wars and no draft from way back then until now. You should thank your lucky stars we were in the streets and so much more, or so many who post here would be quaking at their computers waiting for the draft numbers to come up.
Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 03:43:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no, (none / 0)

your generation just repeated the mistakes of your parents' generation. Wars are the responsibility of the generals, not the privates.
by morinao on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 06:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

now chris, a problem (none / 0)

i'm going to keep comparing this to vietnam.  why? because of the branding.  nothing conjures up the image of an unwinnable waste of a war like the word "vietnam".  and since that's pretty much what we are in the middle of right now, i think the comparison is accurate.

i was born the year we left vietnam, so i admit that i didn't live through that era, didn't personally fight the battles, etc etc.  and i am grateful to the folks that did fight those social battles.  but i must say that i don't believe that comparing this to vietnam means we have to refight all those same battles.

we've already seen that mass protests don't work ("focus groups").  we have already seen new tactics being developed EVEN THOUGH the vietnam comparison is being made.  why discourage it?  really, why?  maybe i'm being thick headed but i'm not getting it.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:31:26 PM EST

Re: now chris, a problem (none / 0)

But what does losing this war mean, compared to Vietnam?
-- Seeing the Forest
by davej on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i will try to answer (none / 0)

there are several things which, in my opinion, lead me to believe we are losing.  i could make a laundry list but i'm sure you're aware of all the clusterfuckishness going on in iraq right now.

as to vietnam, losing there was not defeating communism, wasn't it?  i mean, the whole mindset going into vietnam was the domino theory.  it was not successful.  communism is still rampant in asia.

and in iraq, isn't creating a new generation of terrorists and installing an islamic republic losing?  the whole mindset being iraq was the PNAC crap.  and it is going to be proven wrong.  we are creating more terrorists with our campaign in iraq than we are able to destroy.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 12:51:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i will try to answer (none / 0)

"and in iraq, isn't creating a new generation of terrorists and installing an islamic republic losing?  the whole mindset being iraq was the PNAC crap.  and it is going to be proven wrong.  we are creating more terrorists with our campaign in iraq than we are able to destroy."

So now that Bush has us in this mess, losing could have drastic consequences for us here, way into the future.  So we have to find a way to END this war, and not think we can just leave.  Bush started it, yes, and it was wrong.  But here we are.  We really have to understand what it would mean if we just left - or lost.  Not just to us but to the civilians in Iraq.  We on "the left" have to think that through.  This is NOT Vietnam where we could just leave and not have to deal with the consequences of that.

-- Seeing the Forest
by davej on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 02:32:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i'm not disagreeing (none / 0)

but i am not convinced that staying will really be the right thing to do in the long run.  
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 03:12:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm not disagreeing (none / 0)

What does "staying" mean?  Doing what Bush is doing?  That's just making things worse.  

But "we" do need to think through our response beyond just crying out for it to stop.  Sure, that's how we feel - but maybe just "withdrawal" would only make things worse for everyone.  So I think we have to get past Bush on this if we are going to be able to think clearly and start coming up with REAL solutions.  Bush did the wrong thing, and got us into a war, and that war has such a potential to spin out of control.  I mean, we ned to make sure that everyone understands this, but the answer is not to hold our hands over our faces and scream "make it stop!"  The answer is to start looking for solutions that make sense for a real way out of this that protects Iraqi civilians, AND that doesn't endanger our own long-term security.

AND, if we really do see a movement rise up for "withdrawal" and it forces a withdrawal, and things get worse as a result (maybe 100,000 Iraqis die in a civil war or we lose a city to a nuke) ...

This really is not Vietnam.  Withdrawing from Vietnam did not have consequences that WE felt here.

-- Seeing the Forest
by davej on Thu Aug 25, 2005 at 03:29:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gen X and Y (none / 0)

I think an additional problem is the number of Gen X and Yers who look back on the late sixties and the young Baby Boomers as the model to emulate.

What too many people don't understand is this:

  1. Vietnam was a stupid war
  2. The Baby Boomer anti-war activists were correct in this assessment and helped draw attention to this fact
  3. The nation eventually agreed with them
  4. And the nation hated them for it

Instead of turning to liberals, the nation turned to conservatives to deal with the war.

However correct they may be, I think most anti-war protesters hurt rather than help us. This is what happened a generation ago, and it could happen again today.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:32:35 PM EST

Re: Gen X and Y (none / 0)

The M$M is covering Cindy Sheehan because they don't have any choice. They are almost universally condescending at best and don't give her story near the coverage or respect that your average runaway white girl gets.

The anti-war protesters are not responsible for the M$M and the Democratic party bailing out on us. Whose side is the M$M on today? Whose side is the Democratic Party on today?

Do you think anyone gives a shit about your youthful enthusiasm? Do you think today's progressives are going to be less demonized than George McGovern, Eugene McCarthy and Walter Mondale? The M$M has always despised liberals and sucked up to conservatives. Look at what Bob Somerby has documented about what the M$M did to Al Gore? Do you think that just started in 2000 or 2004? Do you think Paul Wellstone ever got favorable media coverage? Is Chuck Pennacchio going to ever get favorable media coverage?

Peter Jennings admires Rush Limbaugh. The medium is the message and the media is conservative.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 08:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

also chris.... (none / 0)

you wrote:

"I dislike the comparison to Vietnam because while history looks very unfavorably upon the Vietnam War, extensive American involvement in the war lasted for eight years. If this is another Vietnam, then there will be no withdrawal for another five and a half years."

i think that, unfortunately, this WILL be the case.  we will be there for another five years or more, no question about it, unless we craft an exit strategy that we are willing to follow through.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:33:50 PM EST

The Smell Of Naplam In the Morning (3.00 / 2)

There are parallels between all wars. All wars are hell. No war is heroic.

It doesn't matter what anyone here says or thinks or does. Bush and the theocons love war. They would like a neverending war that lasts at least 50-70 years.

The WOT and the War Against Communism are identical. They are both neverending wars against a mythical enemy that can never be defeated.

We are not just in a battle against the Iraq War. We are in a battle against the idea of a noble war. That's why Cindy's question is so critical.

I don't know if Cindy had help from brilliant framing experts or she just stumbled on it. I suspect the latter. The entire ideology of the theocons is based on and depends on the idea of a noble war. The freepers still think Vietnam was a noble war against the terrible Monolithic Communist Menace.

WWII was not a noble war or a noble cause. At best it was a justified war against an intractable enemy that really was bent on world domination. But then so were we.

Iraq is not unique. Or as they used to say in the bad old days, Iraq is not sui generis.

The goal of ANSWER and the anti-war coalition is to end war as an easy answer for all time. The lesson of Vietnam has not been learned. We need to strengthen the War Powers Act and make damn sure that no future President takes America into another phony war based on lies.

Nixon and Bush are peas in a pod. Nixon lied about Vietnam. Bush lies about Iraq. Nixon was a chickenhawk. Bush is a chickenhawk. Nixon loved war because it helped his image. Bush loves war because he loves being a war President.

 

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Aug 24, 2005 at 06:39:16 PM EST

Re: The Smell Of Naplam In the Morning (3.00 / 1)

Exactly.

Iraq and Vietnam both happened because we sold ourselves on a bigger, more over-ending conflict that had mythical connotations. In the 1940s we created the "Cold War" as a way to justify continuing international involvement in light of the end of colonialism. What exactly America ever had to fear from the Communists often sounds like what Protestant nativists feared from Catholic immigrants to the US in 1800s: Someone else will tell them what to think, and then they will conquer us.

But if our values and democracy are so great...how does anything thing that we have anything to fear from someone who comes here?

Vietnam is not Iraq...but the War on Terror is essentially a desire to go back to the Cold War so that that entire generation feels safe and doesn't see the real elephant: environmental collapse.
The 1990s opened the door to having us question our "economics" and we didn't like what we saw. Or at least, those in groups like the PNAC wanted to "turn back the clock".

But that desire also manifests itself in tactics. And that's the reason we are in Iraq. Because after Afghanistan and before Iraq the Bush Administration tried to solve the geopoli