I was unfortunate enough to hear FoxRadioNews last night while listening to one of my favorite radio programs, Coast to Coast. The news at the top of the hour at midnight was "Bush completes tour in Vietnam". A little late for that, I'm afraid. While there are various jokes one could make about Bush's half-assed service during the Vietnam War; I find it ironic that George W. Bush, who spent his military years wasted in Alabama instead of going to Veitnam like both of the people he ran for president against; ironic that Bush would go to Vietnam when things begin to get tough here at home.
Many presidents, when the people had voted mandates against them, have gone abroad. Eisenhower made many trips overseas during his final two years as president; as did Clinton. Yet, there was no irony in their actions. Bill Clinton certainly didn't visit Vietnam in order to escape the trouble at home, (he did visit Vietnam, and the Vietnamese people went crazy for him, cheering and celebrating -- a welcome Bush did not recieve); and his visit wasn't viewed as ironic. Now, of course, we all see the irony in this one. Vietnam was the last place Curious George would have gone... up until November 8th, that is.
When asked if the Vietnam war had any lessons for us, Bush said "yes", and made a comment about how things "can't be won instantly". For a while, I had held out hope that the president of the United States is not really as dense as is portrayed, but this puts the final nail in coffin that holds that hope. Bush really is that dense. The lessons from Vietnam had nothing to do with winning. We lost in Vietnam, just like we lost in Korea; just like we are losing in Iraq -- not to mention how we're losing in Afghanistan since we kinda forgot about that war... kinda like we forgot about Korea. The lesson is not that "winning cannot always be immediate" (is it just me or did we "win" immediately in Iraq? Does anyone else remember "Mission Accomplished"?). Rather, the lessons from Vietnam are more along the lines of:
*The citizens of the United States cannot take their disapproval of a war out on the soldiers who fought, died, were injurred, or were otherwise traumatized in that war. (Fortunately, we have at least partially learned this one. Unfortunately, anyone who disapproves of a war is immediately thought to be taking that disapproval out on the military.)
*No matter how much money you throw at a conflict, if you do not have a plan going in, there will be no winning.
*It is impossible for an invading force to defeat the organized civilians of a nation. This is a lesson that was also learned in our own Reovutionary War. We won that war by using the same guerilla tactics used by the VietCong then; and those being used by the Iraqi "insurgents" now. Unfortunately, (again), the Iraqis are also using those tactics, and worse, against each other. It's a civil war.
*The United States military has no place in the civil war of another country.
There were many other lessons learned from the Vietnam war, and I will leave it to the scholars on such a subject to comment on those lessons elsewhere. However, it certainly deserved pointing out that the lesson Bush learned from avoiding the Vietnam war, was not the lessons learned by the United States, or the rest of the world.
Notice how right after the elections he went from being a single-minded almost tyrannical figure with a vocabulary of three words: "stay the course", to a complete wuss. He immediately changed from "stay the course" to "we need to begin a plan to pull out troops", from "if the Democrats get their way, the terrorists win" to "the Democrats want the best for this country just like the rest of us" and high-tailed it out of here like a whipped dog with his tail between his legs.
I'm sure the folks who supported Bush for his "strong resolutions" are upset about this (or turning a blind eye), but it just seems typical of something he'd do. The man may be middle-aged, but he's a child...
It's a complete flip of extremes. There's just no middle path with this guy.
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
It is ironic that Bush would visit Vietnam when he isn't wanted around here. Iraq and Vietname have a number of similarities, but as far as I know we aren't fighting communism this time, so it must be different!! The problem however, doesn't rest soley in Mr. Bush. The probelm persists throughout the American Political system. Flip Flopping is something that politicians have become very good at in recent decades. Once minute if anyone shows dissent they must be ex-patriots, to its their right as Americans is a bit of flip flopping. I think Bush is simply trying to save face, the problem is, its way too late.
-------------------------
ipsa scientia potesta est
One thing I still don't understand is this obsession with 'Flip Flopping'.
Is it really a bad thing? I personally think this is just word wars. Some spin doctor gave reason based decision making an unattractive name.
Let's look at the Non-Flip-Flopper: Surely making a split second decision on something and then refusing to back down on it, no matter how wrong you are proven, could not be construed as a strength.
I know loads of people go by the old proverb 'If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything', but what if you stand for something based on the fact that you know fuck all about anything, and then refuse to have your belief compromised by facts which prove your stance to be inherently wrong? Is that strength? I always had that pegged as stupidity.
Surely a Flip Flopper is a stronger candidate when it comes to reason. I mean I would be more comfortable with a president whose position changed accordingly with the arrival of pertinent facts and changes in circumstance, over a guy who stands there sayin 'I don't care if I'm wrong, thems my beliefs, facts schmacts, I've made my mind up and am not budgin an inch, I ain't no Flip Flopper.'
Rachel, stop being ridiculous. You should know that the APEC conferences are coming up in Vietnam, a big portion of which will be talking about North Korea. We didn't lose in Korea, because technically the war isn't over (they've only signed a cease fire). Also, how can you chastize Bush for not serving in a war that I'm pretty sure you didn't agree with?
--Mike
Oh now who's being ridiculous? I wasn't even alive during Vietnam!
I know you weren't alive during the Vietnam war. You're only twenty (or did I miss a birthday?) I just couldn't figure out a better way to tensify the sentence (yes, I just made up the word tensify) because it was a historical event with a current thought process, so I chose history over your feelings (oh snap).
--Mike
Yeah, you missed a birthday... but that was back in March.
Ah shit, I forgot what we were arguing about.
A minor grammar flaw.
--Mike
While I disagree with the comments about Bush and not wanting him to go to Vietnam for some reason (?), the only point I wish to discuss is the following:
*It is impossible for an invading force to defeat the organized civilians of a nation. This is a lesson that was also learned in our own Reovutionary War. We won that war by using the same guerilla tactics used by the VietCong then; and those being used by the Iraqi "insurgents" now. Unfortunately, (again), the Iraqis are also using those tactics, and worse, against each other. It's a civil war.
I agree with the first sentence about an invading force trying to defeat organized civilians. What about when Germany took over almost the entire European continent? The other countries cannot possibly be said to have been lacking some form of militia, and they lost. The Gulf War consisted of the United States going in and liberating Kuwait from Iraq. We invaded and won. Indeed, we have not tried to take over a country to claim it as our own. Although, it might be argued that the United States has done just that with Iraq, in which case, we have "won". The definition of "winning" might need to be clarified. If you do not say that capturing the leader of the country, putting him in prison, instilling a new form of government with new laws, and occupying that country isn't winning a war, then I don't know what is.
Rachel, that was such a good post. I thought the exact same thing when I first heard about him going to Vietnam. The news quotes him as saying, "Bush says the lesson we should learn from Vietnam is to be patient!" I simply do not understand how the news broadcasters can live with themselves while actively promoting ignorance as if they don't know any better. I look forward to reading more of your posts. =)
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace. --Jimi Hendrix