Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
As scholar after scholar have noted - today it was Robert Dallek, a presidental historian who just published Nixon and Kissinger - everything in the Middle East that this administration has touched is now a disaster. Show me one success. There are none. Zero. Dallek said this noting the similarities between Nixon's Vietnam and George Jr's Iraq. Virutally(sp) everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric.
|
Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975,
Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it
forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that
Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces -- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath. This is now a widely accepted narrative of the endgame in Vietnam, and it has haunted the Democrats for a generation..
If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends. Given our domestic debate, to provide this reassurance will be an uphill battle in the best of circumstances.
It will be even more difficult if President Bush succumbs to all the pressures on him to do the wrong thing in Iraq.