Are those who cite the Vietnam debacle as a precedent for the United States abandoning military action in the Middle East considering a vital difference between the two conflicts?
In Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh merely wanted us out of his territory; he had no stated objective to destroy the United States of America.
In the Mideast today, Islamic terrorists vow — and implement whenever possible — death and destruction for America, Americans and America’s allies, including the fledgling democratic government in Iraq. And they have the near-term potential of major weapons to employ toward their ends.
There is no appeasing this sworn threat. It can only be countered and, with unflagging effort, run into the ground like Saddam in his hole!
— Dale Osborn, Camarillo
This is a strange theory to set forth. I thought this was the arguement the doves made in the '60's and '70's. But, the official version of the Vietnam War was to control the Communist threat.
The war was about stopping the USSR, and to a lesser extent China, from taking over the third world.
Does Mr. Osborn think these Sunni terrorists and Shiite death squads wish to invade the US? Does he think al-Queda unable to launch an attack here because they are all tied up in Iraq?
I'm afraid I don't see the reasoning behind this letter. Perhaps it would help if I just accepted whatever President Bush said without thinking about it.
Mr. Woodson's excellent reply hardly needs seconding.
First, Osborn gets the rationale for Vietnam completely wrong; as Woodson points out, Vietnam was merely the "first domino" that stood between the Red Tide and us. We were told that we had to fight them over there, or we'd be fighting them here.
Second, those Muslim extremists who wish to attack the U.S. are not the same as those enemies we attacked in Iraq -- the myth of Saddam-al Qaida linkages has long since been put to rest and is today a pacifier only for the most naive kool-aid drinkers.
Third, Osborn has obviously been listening to too much AM talk radio. What no one on the Right wants you to know is that (a) there is nothing, nothing, that can be done to stop a jihadist from attacking the U.S. (though that admission is often buried in the final pages of US security strategy documents) and (b) no jihadist or combination of jihadists can "destroy" the U.S. They might be able to destroy bits and pieces, but the US government, the Constitution, and "our way of life" cannot be harmed by these groups.
Who can destroy our way of life? George W. Bush and his enablers. In fact, they're well on their way to doing so. Habeas corpus, anyone?