Anti-War Criticism

GOP politicians and their faithful chorus in the rightist media are currently ganging up on Senator Edward Kennedy for remarks he made in a speech before the Brookings Institution the other day. Sen. Kennedy,it turns out, had the temerity to actually criticize Mr Bush’s policies in Iraq. The speech dealt with several issues, but the right moved into high dudgeon when Sen. Kennedy asserted similarities between Lyndon Johnson’s obsession with somehow “winning” in Vietnam and Mr Bush’s obsession with establishing a western-style democracy in Iraq.

Sen. Kennedy also remarked on the possible deception used by Mr Bush and his supporters to drum up support for the war by over-stating the danger that the Iraqi dictator was supposed to represent to the US.

This was the equivalent of an unpardonable sin to the right.  And they started showing it--fast. 

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell lost no time in hitting Sen.Kennedy. He called Sen. Kennedy’s remarks "vicious" and "outrageous." He also indicated that Sen. Kennedy’s remarks would be viewed in Iraqas a sign of America’s lack of resolve. Apparently Sen. McConnell is of the opinion that everyone ought to just shut-up and watch the Iraq conflict consume more American lives and simply not question what is
going on or how best to do whatever we’re doing there. Assuming of course, that anyone really knows what’s happening in Iraq. (A mighty assumption to make.) Anyway, Sen. McConnell rhetoric implies that it is somehow or another unpatriotic of Sen. Kennedy (or anyone else) to actually criticize the war effort.

The rightist media attack-dogs in the media followed on by not only repeating Sen. McConnell’s outrageous charges, but amplifying them. Right-wing scribblers and cable gas-bags put it out, that anyone who dares criticize the way Mr Bush is handling the Iraq war, must be“helping” the enemy and “hurting” US troops on the ground.

A perfect example of this kind of stuff occurred last night on CNN’s Capital Gang. Mark Shields aired a few moments of Sen Robert Byrd saying on the Senate floor that the war in Iraq was beginning to remind him of the War in Vietnam.

Up comes Kate O’ Byrne of the National Review who chimes in and says,

“(Byrd’s) comparison with Vietnam was completely ridiculous. And Senator Kennedy's angry rant this week (before the Brookings Institution) was a disgrace! We have young soldiers engaged in bloodybattles. Imagine how that sounded to those young Marines and soldiersin the field, that he's giving a morale boost to their enemies. And if John Kerry disagrees with his great friend, Ted Kennedy, about Vietnam, raising the morale of our enemies, then he ought to say so because it's crucial we be united in this war. We are going to prevail, owing to the bravery and courage of those young soldiers and Marines, and also because the majority of Iraqis want a democracy.They don't want an Iranian-style theocracy.”

Ms O’Byrne conveniently forgets that the GOP and their friends in the media did precisely the same thing they're accusing Kennedy of doing when they used to criticize Bill Clinton during the Balkans campaign.

And there's more.

Self-appointed morals guru William J. Bennett spouted off in today’s New York Post, in much he same way, assuring Americans that not to worry, no matter what anyone says, Iraq is not Vietnam. He also assures us that , Sen. Kennedy’s analogy to Vietnam is “false” and“inept.”

But the fact of the matter is, that while Sen. Kennedy's analogy to Vietnam, is not perfect, it is right on point;--at least on the point that matters;--the quagmire point.

Mr Bennett (among other things) thinks the Vietnam war was a splendid little war. In fact it was a dirty, miserable, dangerous mess frombeginning to end. Vietnam was a place we shouldn’t have been in and shouldn’t have gone into in the first place. We went in nevertheless and got a beating for it. It took us nearly twenty years to get out. Along the way out we lost 57,000 American lives; not to mention countless Vietnamese lives.

The way things are  now, if casualties continue they way they have been going, we stand to lose 6,000 soldiers in ten years; twice that amount if we stay on 20 years.   And even Mr Bush acknowledges that we might be in Iraq for "years."

And we could lose more. All it will take is a few Lebanon-style barracks bombings to really ratchet up the casualties.

And for what? Nothing really. Just a stupid neo-con philosophy that asserts that the Islamic world will joyfully adopt Jeffersonian democracy if only given half a chance.

Let's get back to the other argument raised by Ms O’Byrne: She and others like her, push the view that if you criticize the war, you arenot supporting the troops in the field. This, of course, is a damnable lie, an outright falsehood, spread by the likes of Ms O’Byrne and others, who (for their own partisan purposes) would have us believe that the soldiers in the field are not going to get all the support they need to do the job they’ve been given to do.

But of course, contrary to what the right is saying, people on both sides of the issue as regards the Iraq war fully support the soldiers on the ground. Soldiers are being fully provisioned and they will continue to be provisioned with everything they need. They are the ones in harm’s way and they will get the best. They deserve it.

They are also the ones who are having their tour of duty extended, at great cost to themselves and their families.  Something totally forgotten by the right.

For most Americans, the issue of war and peace has to be dealt with; and dealt with in a democratic way.

Yet the right constantly demands that everyone in and out of Congress  be silent while Mr Bush pursues
his disastrous policies in Iraq.

Someone ought to remind Ms O'Byrne and others like her, that shutting up criticism when bad policy is being undertaken (like invading and occupying Iraq) just guarantees that bad policy will continue.

Is that what we want?

Punditwalla--