Greenfield: "In one view, such setbacks encouraged America’s adversaries to be more bold in their assaults. But over time, another picture emerges. Less than 20 years after the fall of Vietnam, the Soviet Union literally ceased to exist. More than half a century after China became communist, the U.S. is economically, at least, a partner. And America's biggest companies see China not as a threat, as but a huge market. And Vietnam? It embraces an American president and American investments. As for Iraq, the turmoil there almost surely means that the ambitious goals of the invasion, a stable, functioning democracy are beyond reach. But if the United States chooses to engage and chooses, as well, to talk with nations in the region like Iran and Syria, that course will likely trigger a profound debate, perhaps even reaching into the next presidential campaign. And what would that debate be about? More than anything else, one key question: Would this engagement tell the world that the United States has become weaker--or wiser?"
Greenfield paused briefly before adding "or wiser." A verbal cue, perhaps, to tell Americans which description he agrees with?
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 4:46pm on December 4, follows:
Wolf Blitzer: "More now on our top story: The situation in Iraq and the upcoming report from the Iraq Study Group which will be released on Wednesday. When it comes to the war in Iraq, our senior analyst Jeff Greenfield is contemplating the ‘L’ word -- losing. Jeff?
Jeff Greenfield: "Even before we know what Iraq Study Group will recommend, a pessimistic notion seems to be gathering strength. The idea that there is no good course to pursue, that the goal should be to make the best of a bad situation. So could the U.S. lose in Iraq? And what would a loss mean? Think of what happened when the French left Indo-China after a military debacle in 1954. More than a communist triumph in the north it helped mark the end of France as a legitimate international power. The same was true of Britain after it abandoned its efforts to hold on to its African colonies half a century ago. And some argue that the Soviet loss of Afghanistan in the 1980s marked the beginning of the end for that nation. But what about what happened in Vietnam in 1975 after the U.S. pulled out and the communist north conquered the south? Or when the Shah of Iran, a longtime U.S. ally, lost power to the Ayatollah Khomeini? And when U.S. hostages were held in Iran for more than a year without any effective response? In one view, such setbacks encouraged America’s adversaries to be more bold in their assaults. But over time, another picture emerges. Less than 20 years after the fall of Vietnam, the Soviet Union literally ceased to exist. More than half a century after China became communist, the U.S. is economically, at least, a partner. And America's biggest companies see China not as a threat, as but a huge market. And Vietnam? It embraces an American president and American investments. As for Iraq, the turmoil there almost surely means that the ambitious goals of the invasion, a stable, functioning democracy are beyond reach. But if the United States chooses to engage and chooses, as well, to talk with nations in the region like Iran and Syria, that course will likely trigger a profound debate, perhaps even reaching into the next presidential campaign. And what would that debate be about? More than anything else, one key question: Would this engagement tell the world that the United States has become weaker--or wiser? Wolf?"
