Those Who Do Not Learn from History Are Destined To Repeat It!!!

There are certain phrases that, if used right, paint an immediately recognizable picture. If you are unfamiliar with the leader of a rouge country, and someone refers to him as “just as bad as Hitler”, you know what kind of monster we are talking about. If someone refers to another as an “Einstein”, you know this person is a great mind (assuming that “Einstein” wasn’t a sarcastic comment). And when the left claims that Iraq is “just like Vietnam”, that too paints a picture.

The problem is, when people make these analogies, they are very rarely accurate. Yes, the dictator they are talking about is probably a despicable person, but has he killed over six million people? Sure, our “Einstein” friend is probably intelligent, but is he really on the same level as Albert? Look, I had a friend named Jeff in college that we referred to as Einstein because he had a knack for picking up girls much better looking than he was. Then again, the real Einstein was known as a real chick magnet.

And when it's someone on the left making these analogies, you really need to take it with a grain of salt. Consider New York Times reporter Frank Rich who on May 4th, 2004 wrote: "It was in November 1969 that a little-known reporter, Seymour Hersh, broke the story of the 1968 massacre at My Lai, the horrific scoop that has now found its match 35 years later in Mr. Hersh's New Yorker revelation of a 53-page Army report detailing 'numerous instances of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse' at Abu Ghraib."

Really Frank? Abu Ghraib has "found it's match" with a massacre in which hundreds of innocent men, women and children were slaughtered in cold blood? Look, Abu Ghraib was a disgrace and a low point in this war, but to equate putting womens panties over a prisoners head to an action in which infants were shot while their mothers still held them is a bit of a stretch, but apparently not for the left.

And then there is the Iraq/Vietnam analogy. This one, I actually can see some truth in. They are both wars, they are both in foreign countries, and they are both fighting “unconventional” combatants. There is another similarity – we let the media determine how we are going to fight the war rather than the generals on the ground. And we are apparently again going to give up on a winnable war – At least if the Dem’s get in office.

Consider this quote, which I came across today, from North Vietnamese General Gaip:

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!" - General Giap, North Vietnam

There is overwhelming evidence that the current surge in Iraq is working. Is this a guarantee that we can or will win the Iraqi war? Of course not, BUT there are striking similarities between how the press is downplaying any successes we have had in Iraq and Vietnam.

Consider the 1968 Tet Offensive. If you are to believe the press, it was reported as an overwhelming success for the Communist forces, and a huge defeat for the Americans. This is not true. Despite initial victories by the communists, the Tet Offensive resulted in a major defeat of the North Vietnamese forces. Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts, resulting in the death of some 45,000 North Vietnamese troops, and the complete destruction of the Viet Cong elements in South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese were successful on one front alone: The American Press.

Regardless of whether you think Vietnam OR Iraq is a right or just war, you can’t deny that Iraq will be a much stronger country IF The U.S. is successful in its efforts. There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) during the first two years following the fall of Saigon in 1975 than there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Iraq. Thanks for the perceived loss and the countless assassinations and torture visited upon Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians goes mainly to the American media and their undying support-by-misrepresentation of the anti-War movement in the United States.

So what makes more sense: Supporting the troops and accurately reporting our progress and letting us set the future course of action, or continuing to report our progress as a losing battle so that those on the left who don’t support this war don’t look stupid, and HOPE that everyone can play nice once we leave (and do you really believe THAT will happen.)

Once again I want to leave you with the words of North Vietnamese General Giap:

“You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefield.”