President Bush's speech before a gathering of the Veterans of Foreign Wars drew attention with his provocative comparison to Vietnam, in which Bush reminded Americans that the U.S. pullout from Vietnam led to millions being killed in Asia. The media jumped on Bush for alleged hypocrisy in comparing the situation in Iraq with Vietnam, even though the liberal press itself has long invoked the failure of Vietnam when discussing Iraq.
New York Times Pentagon reporter Thom Shanker's Thursday "News Analysis," "Historians Question Bush's Read of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq," continued in that slanted vein, finding sources to criticize Bush's outlook in his speech at the VFW convention in Kansas City, but none to defend it, and again wondering why America hasn't seen any big tax increases as a show of "national sacrifice" for the war effort.
"The American withdrawal from Vietnam is widely remembered as an ignominious end to a misguided war -- but one with few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.
"Now, in urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, President Bush is challenging that historical memory.
"In reminding Americans that the pullout in 1975 was followed by years of bloody upheaval in Southeast Asia, Mr. Bush argued in a speech on Wednesday that Vietnam's lessons provide a reason for persevering in Iraq, rather than for leaving any time soon. Mr. Bush in essence accused his war critics of amnesia over the exodus of Vietnamese 'boat people' refugees and the mass killings in Cambodia that upended the lives of millions of people.
"President Bush is right on the factual record, according to historians. But many of them also quarreled with his drawing analogies from the causes of that turmoil to predict what might happen in Iraq should the United States withdraw."
Shanker found three sources to criticize Bush (no one was quoted in support) and concluded with a hoary argument he's made before, that somehow the American people aren't truly making sacrifices for the war effort since there's been no tax increase or reinstatement of the draft since the war began.
"Senior American military officers speaking privately also say that the essential elements that brought victory in World War II -- a total commitment by the American people and the government, and a staggering economic commitment to rebuild defeated adversaries -- do not exist for the Iraq war. The wars in Korea and Vietnam also involved considerable national sacrifice, including tax increases and conscription."
Back in July 2005 Shanker lamented:
"From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large? There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and new counterterrorism missions. There are not even concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past."
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Global Warming and the Draft
August 23, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Dr_LibertyIf we have to pay higher taxes and get a draft, how will I pay for the weatherproofing for my windows to help stop global warming?
<insert witty signature here>
Because we aren't running
August 23, 2007 - 11:03 ET by wiwfBecause we aren't running Iraq like we ran Europe and Vietnam.
I don't see how we HAVE TO make a sacrifice of taxes and drafting when there's PLENTY of sacrificing you can do through the charity groups out there, like donating money, coffee, AC units, etc. to the troops.
Sadly this NYT reporter won't because he is incredibly anti-war. He was just trying to work W into a corner.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln
Iraq
August 23, 2007 - 11:11 ET by iveseenitallIraq will ultimately be a success story---unless we elect a Democrat next time. Liberals already have the champagne on ice to celebrate both a Democratic victory and a defeat in Iraq.This guy Shanker is already licking his lips.
NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"
Actually, if we were to
August 23, 2007 - 14:13 ET by BeowulfActually, if we were to elect a Democrat, Iraq would turn into a longer, bloodier mess than it already is. Dems are experts at getting us into wars, but not so good at getting us out of them...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
" The wars in Korea and
August 23, 2007 - 11:13 ET by BD" The wars in Korea and Vietnam also involved considerable national sacrifice, including tax increases and conscription."
1.) If tax increases lead to smaller funding for operations, which has been proven - why would we wish to jeopardize our current effort by enacting them?
2.) Regarding the draft. I do not wish to have draftees standing in the ranks beside me. If Mr Shanker wishes to solve our manpower issues in the military, he should look to the messages he and his ilk have been putting out for years that discourages military service amongst our population.
Once again I am skeptical of the motives behind the lefts insistance on a draft. On the downside they are trying to get it restarted to make the GWOT more unpopular. On the plus side, they realize it is likely the only way they will ever get a pool of future candidates with approriate military credentials is to force leftees into service. Why don't they just encourage their children to serve rather than join communes.
MSM agenda
August 23, 2007 - 13:24 ET by general companyThey want the draftees in the ranks to undermine moral. They know there reporting is having little effect so the next best thing (right out of al queada handbook) is to infiltrate the ranks.
Interesting
August 23, 2007 - 14:52 ET by BDInteresting comment.
One thing I have noticed is that liberal people returning from Iraq all generally make the same commnet.
"Boy , the morale over there is sooo high" and they seem mystified by it."
Kind of makes one wonder, have these guys ever even met a soldier before?
Oh, most of them have MET
August 23, 2007 - 18:52 ET by Del DolemonteOh, most of them have MET "soldiers" before. But 99 percent of them have no military experience themselves, or have a clue as to how the military operates. One actually has to serve-or be a service spouse, military brat, or relative of someone serving-to know what the military is all about.
The imposters are always easy to spot-they will say "I support the troops, but not the mission" or some such nonsense. What their ignorance of the military prevents them from knowing is that the two are inseparable.
Likewise, they don't want to listen to you when you try to explain to them that every military ship, when they complete their deployments, raises a "Mission Accomplished" banner. It doesn't matter whether it's an aircraft carrier or a buoy tender, they all do it.
And then when you try to tell them that Bill Clinton posed for 4 separate aircraft carrier photo ops as President (or 4 times as many as the evil Boosh) they start to pout and say "I don't want to play any more".
Um, that would be a negative
August 23, 2007 - 23:26 ET by Unsane"...have these guys ever met a soldier before?"
My wager is NO. And, I suspect, they wouldn't want to. For the average Leftist (and most people outside of cities and towns like San Antonio or Killeen, TX), encountering a soldier, sailor, Airman or Marine would be the equivalent of an extraterrestrial encounter.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Concur with that. Years
August 24, 2007 - 09:58 ET by BDConcur with that. Years ago I flew out of Austin TX in my Class A uniform on my way to the east coast and was approached by a guy in his 50's who wished to know which airline I worked for.
You cant be serious? Did
August 24, 2007 - 12:19 ET by Dan The Man 2You cant be serious? Did you deck him?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
If tax increases lead to
August 23, 2007 - 18:56 ET by ArcherBIf tax increases lead to smaller funding for operations, which has been
proven - why would we wish to jeopardize our current effort by enacting
them?
That is what I want to see asked of all Democrats. Right now, the US Gov't is pulling in more from taxes than at any other time in history. For that matter, the US Gov't is pulling in more money than any gov't, anywhere, in the history of the world!
Why do we need to raise taxes? The only thing it will do is LOWER the amount of money the gov't takes in. I guess liberals either don't understand the basic economic principle of the Laffer curve or they are just pissed that some people are richer than they are. I think it's a bit of both.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
officers and enlisted
August 23, 2007 - 11:27 ET by dscottofficers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large? There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry,
Really, what officers and enlisted personnel are calling for the draft? I believe the word "quietly" tell us that this must be another fake but true assertion by the writer we have seen this tact too many times to count. Probably has been talking to Scott Beauchamp, the fake but true diaries of a scribbler looking for liberal glory.
So little sacrifice? Isn't over 3700 dead soldiers over 4 years enough sacrifice for you? I suppose the families left behind missing their loved ones isn't national sacrifice to you? What a creep, just like Rangel, the only thing this guy wants is to have draft dodgers and protests at the college campus's again. In other words, he wants the cannon fodder of impressionable young minds who don't have enough life experience to know better about the hidden agenda of libs. He is mad that he doesn't have a new generation of the naive to mislead.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
The real reason
August 23, 2007 - 11:51 ET by cvgbuckeyeThe real reason, as if no one knows, that the liberals want a draft is obvious. They are frustrated that our cities and campuses are not being set on fire in protest of the war in Iraq.
They feel that, as during the Viet Nam war, the real key to massive protests against the war would be the drafting of young people and the resulting enragement of their families.
You see, they consider the entire nation to be in lockstep with them and their absolute lack of passion for the freedom that our fathers died for. May they all rot in Hell.
God bless The United States of America and The United States Marine Corp.
You nailed it. I've
August 23, 2007 - 12:47 ET by TheConservativeChemistYou nailed it. I've talked to my dad about this (who was a teenager in the mid-to-late 1960s) and other people have documented it, but literally IN AN INSTANT, as soon as the draft was gone, the protests were, too. As my dad says "They were all just scared shitless to be drafted...as soon as the draft was over, so was the movement...but you never hear about that!"
Unlike WWII, where my grandfather ENLISTED in the Navy to go fight but was drafted by the Army before his Navy paperwork went through. He fought in Germany and was in San Fran getting ready to ship out to Japan when we dropped the bomb and won the war.
You don't see too many on the Left making sacrifices like that, if any at all. The WWIIers who saved the world were the Greatest Generation...as my dad and I have said repeatedly to each other, the 1960s generation must surely be called the Worst Generation.
Guess which one most if not all of the Lefty/Commies currently in the Democratic party come from?
"Yesterday's Communists are Today's Democrats....
Yesterday's Democrats are Today's Republicans..." - An analogy made by *ME*
Hey Cincy You're exactly
August 23, 2007 - 19:04 ET by Del DolemonteHey Cincy
You're exactly right. If you have the stomach, try watching the next "peace protest" or whatever they call them these days, when it's held in DC. C SPAN usually shows them.
All of the recent marches have been more just a leftist get-together than anything else. They've had multiple speakers whining about every leftist cause under the sun EXCEPT Iraq. What the hell does freeing Leonard Peletier have to do with getting our soldiers home?
Mr. Shanker is trying to
August 23, 2007 - 13:11 ET by BruzillaMr. Shanker is trying to make the "dogs have four legs, tables have four legs, all dogs are tables" argument. WWII and Iraq are both wars fought by the United States, but that's where the similarities end. WWII was a confrontation that involved fighting on five continents, plus the United States wasn't just supporting our own troops, but the troops of Britain, China, Australia, Canada, Russia, etc. If we had to ramp up the militaries of all these countries today, you can bet there would be lots of sacrificing needed.
Also, prior to WWII, we were sold on the idea that wars were a thing of the past, and an isolationist way of doing business set in. The military was nothing but some broken down old equipment and service members. When WWII started shaping up in the mid-1930s, we had a long, long, way to go to build up our military, and really only got up to speed in late 1943. For Iraq all we had to do was overcome the drawdown shortages of the Clinton administration's "Peace Through Reservists" program. We didn't have to build guns, planes, and bombs in mass quantities, so there was no need for sacrifies, shortages, etc.
Nice dumbocrat logical
August 23, 2007 - 13:56 ET by wiwfNice dumbocrat logical fallacy, Bruz. It make sense! It explains democrats to me now!
"peace through reservists" lol. Good points.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln
On "national sacrifice"
August 23, 2007 - 23:33 ET by UnsaneGreat points from all above.
I would much rather have volunteers in the military. One, they are much more motivated to be there than the draftee. Two, the draftees (for that reason) tend to be the greater discipline problems. There was a reason why the Good Conduct Medal existed in the Air Force - and why it ceased being awarded as of last year.
I so LOVE hearing all these Leftists constantly whine about "national sacrifice". Maybe he ought to go drive past the same national cemetery I have relatives buried at - full of those whose lives were cut short so that we and others can enjoy the freedoms and liberties we have today.
Besides, if these Leftists were so hell-bent on sacrificing for the cause, the recruiters stations are wide open, and if that's not to their liking, there are myriad other ways they can support the troops, via letter writing campaigns and "care packages". But they don't dare do that. These are the same people who whine and cry about poverty, "inequality", and other social issues, but do not DARE life a finger to help alleviate them - rather, they want the government to do it all so that they can give to "charity" via a higher tax bill.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Volunteered 1974
August 24, 2007 - 03:30 ET by CrossWiseRangerI voluntarily joined the Army in 1974 as an Infantry Officer which was during the draft. Drugs, discipline, and motivation were big issues in the military at that time. We had a battalion formation in the summer of 1976 where the commander announced: “From this day forward, we are an all volunteer Army.” The last draftee was gone.
Although I retired as an Army major, Special Forces, I volunteered for recall and am serving in Baghdad. The level of morale here is excellent. It is not just because the troops want to be in the military. They also understand what this war is about; and, if necessary, willing to sacrifice themselves for what they believe in. I am honored and blessed to be serving with such outstanding American men and women.
I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that you could double the size of the military with a draft and still not increase the effectiveness of the military. Having been in both a draftee and a volunteer Army, don’t have a draftee covering your back.
The nation has been called upon to sacrifice. They just don’t understand the form of the sacrifice. It is called waiting. The Cold War wasn’t won in a year or two either. Have to give the war more time than it takes to microwave popcorn.
One of the primary, if not prime, purposes of the Federal Government is to defend this nation. Raising taxes “for the war” implies that the war is an adder. Congressmen can show sacrifice by reducing spending, particularly non-war-related pork-laden earmarks.
Lastly, everyone is not made to be a soldier. That is not a derogatory remark, just a fact. There are many jobs I couldn’t do. I would hate to be drafted as a politician. Couldn’t be a lying, thieving, what’s-in-it-for-me politician. Send me to the battlefront where the honorable people are.
The nation has been called
August 24, 2007 - 03:34 ET by tracheostomyThe nation has been called upon to sacrifice. They just don’t understand the form of the sacrifice. It is called waiting. The Cold War wasn’t won in a year or two either. Have to give the war more time than it takes to microwave popcorn.
I nominate this for member comment of the year.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07