My Lai, Iraq and Liberal America

Pam over at Iraq War Today delivers another one of her spot on rants.

Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of My Lai. She takes on the myth that is My Lai and lays it directly on the feet of those who should be most ashamed of its occurrence by starting out with this line:

Like it or not, My Lai was the best thing ever to happen to those who malign our troops and what they do - to the anti-troop crowd, My Lai was an unprecedented gift.

Oh so true Pam, oh so true. Just as the left waits in the wings for another "atrocity" to occur in Iraq or Afganistan so they can malign the millions of those who serve based upon the actions of a select few, so they did with My Lai. Pam in her post digs deep into the myth presents the numbers and reminds us that yes, My Lai did occur, and so did Abu Ghraib, but those acts are not the acts of a military bent upon destruction or murder, but as we already know the mistakes of a few who could not handle the stressed placed upon them by a populace that expects no risk and a divided administration that accepts no mistakes.

No thanks to the first Gulf War where the populace began to believe that we could prosecute war without any risk to ourselves, war is not the sterile environment of explosions on your monitor, and detached voices authorizing the killing of another. War is dirty, grimy and painful. It is the most depraved thing man could wrought upon man, to think otherwise is to live a fantasy. The terms surgical strike and collateral damage are misnomers, oxymorons in a world where oxymorons thrive. War is not clean and pretty and as I've said before you can't save the game and start over or respawn back at the start when things start to go sour.

Every war has its trial, its villains from the winning side. The victors have to find those who will bear the cost of what we needed to do to win; those who will in essence shoulder the responsibility for the fact that when armies meet to settle things, people are killed and maimed. Vietnam had My Lai. Iraq had Abu Ghraib - the stupid behavior of a very few soldiers, who took some idiotic pictures. Since that didn't turn out to the torture-fest that would have satisfied the need to demonize someone on our side, the hunt went on. They almost got Lt. Ilario Pantano. And they almost got Haditha - a tale that has been falling apart from the start. Frighteningly, both could have gone far worse for the troops involved had it not been for a couple of factors that didn't exist during the My Lai circus - milbloggers and talk radio. This time, there was opposition to the lynch mob that always waits in the wings. Haditha is still open, and it is up to that opposition to remain vigilant.

What always throws me for a loop in these situations is that we are collectively so ready to view American troops as if they're something other than human. We're always so ready to forget that those "animals" at My Lai were, in some cases, barely out of high school. They were brothers, sons, fathers...they were ours. In another place, at another time, some of them might have been that nice kid next door.

I wonder what's more savage - the behavior of troops in war, who occasionally cross the line after they are pushed to their limits, or the behavior of the bloodthirsty mob of critics who clamor for the heads of the heroes that protect their freedoms? I think, and always have, that the latter is more reprehensible. Our Heroes display remarkable restraint when criticized, often enduring the attacks without a word.

As Pam so succinctly notes - noting the passing of these ignoble anniversaries is one thing, but if we are only going to do so so that the left can use them to attack the millions who serve proudly and honorably then what is the reason of "celebrating" them at all? We don't celebrate Memorial Day because we enjoy killing our sons and daughters in war. We celebrate Memorial Day because we as a nation must remember those that have sacrificed their lives for our lives. We should as Pam recommends remember these occurances and learn from them. We must realize that war is not without risk, that it is dangerous and it does things to our young men and women that we should not wish upon anyone. Many come home from war, some broken and unable to adjust, many with no problem at all, and yes our sons and daughters die in war. But that is not the depravity that is war, the true depravity is those who sit idly by and debate and slander those who go off to war. The true depravity is the active anti-war activist that conducts war upon those who go off to war form the safety of their office or classroom.

War is hell to paraphrase Sherman, but a greater hell is to expect our sons and daughters to accomplish their mision while putting barriers in their way to accomplish that very mission. When the Rules of Engagement are twisted by Monday morning quaterbacks to satisfy the bloodlust of a few in our society that can find nothing right with the mission that is when war becomes a deeper hell for our sons and daughter.

If we truly want to learn from events like My Lai then we should start to point the finger at those most responsible for My Lai and its lingering mysticism of evil, the left and their war on the military is the perfect place to start.

Relishing Defeat

By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com

For all the twists and turns of the conflict in Iraq, it’s comforting to reflect that one thing hasn’t changed: The antiwar “movement” -- that motley aggregation of Hollywood glitterati, bullhorn radicals and leftist Democrats -- remains as irresponsible and unserious as ever.

As evidence, consider this weekend’s much-hyped antiwar protest in the nation’s capital. Coming on the heels of last Wednesday’s nonbinding anti-surge resolution, a cynical stunt engineered by the Democrat-dominated Senate Foreign Relations Committee to oppose the 21,500 troop increase in Iraq, the protest was a transparent attempt by a political fringe to capitalize on popular discontent over the war’s conduct.

To wit: The star of the demonstration was none other than Jane Fonda. As she told it, the 69-year-old actress had come out of protest retirement -- this was her first anti-war demonstration in 34 years, Fonda solemnly explained -- in order to break her silence about, well, the need to break her silence. “Silence is no longer an option,” Fonda announced, thus dealing a certain blow to public discourse. Fonda also delivered a historical lecture. Likening Iraq to the war in Vietnam, Fonda condemned what she called America’s “blindness to realities on the ground.”

This is richly ironic. It was Fonda after all who distinguished herself in the Vietnam War by glad-handing communists in Hanoi and making propaganda broadcasts for their cause, only to look on as the real destruction commenced once South Vietnam fell to her former hosts.
Read the Rest...

Jim Webb Has Lost His Way

It is the only conclusion I can come too after reading his own words concerning Vietnam written in 1995. His essay The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty is reposted courtesy of the folks at FrontPage Magazine:

In the first fifteen years or so following Saigon's fall, there was nothing but bad news to report from Vietnam, and those who had made their political and journalistic careers on the wrongfulness of the war bear a culpability for persistently failing to report it. Similarly, during the twentieth anniversary observances these icons and their intellectual progeny persisted in focusing almost solely on the conduct of the war during Mr. McNamara's tenure as Secretary of Defense, which ended in disgrace in late 1967. It was as if the political, military and even moral issues had been decided in favor of the communists by that point, and the ensuing eight years of fighting and twenty years of suffering were merely an afterthought.

The end result was a startling disservice to a full understanding of the war. Media depictions of the fighting typically showed tired and frustrated American and South Vietnamese soldiers, while often using stock propaganda footage of communist troops marching cheerfully down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The elders who made their names in younger days on such allegations as U.S. troops lying about their "body counts" gave almost no mention of the horrendous communist military casualties, despite the most newsworthy item of those few weeks: the Hanoi government officially admitting it lost 1. 1 million soldiers dead and another 300,000 still missing from the fighting, compared to American losses of 58,000 and South Vietnamese of 254,000. And few discussions recalled the Hanoi pledge in the 1973 Paris Peace Accords that Vietnam would be reunited only by peaceful means, with guarantees of individual freedoms in the South, as well as internationally supervised free elections.

Senator Webb is committing the same crime today in regards to Iraq that he accused the media and the Intellectual Left of committing against Vietnam. If Senator Webb can not be trusted to remember his personal history how can we trust him with the future of this country? If he can honestly reflect that the Anti-War left didn't care if the policies would or would not work, but only that the Communists won, how can we trust that those same people who are leading the current the Anti-War movement, want anything other than the US to lose again?

Senator Webb should re-read his own words and find the truth in them, for the lessons he learned in and about Vietnam are being forgotten now all in the name of a vote, he is the true Manchurian Candidate. One doubts whether Mr. Webb, who understands only popular opinon, or the antiwar leaders, who find solace and even hope in the preaching of Islam's hard-line leaders, will ever understand the true character of Iraq - or for that matter the nobility of the Americans who attempted to save it.

President Bush's Speech - Reactions Around The Blogosphere

Instead of a typical Web Reconnaissance today, I decided to roam through the blogs both on the left and the right to see what the consensus was concerning President Bush’s speech last night.

Read it all in the extended section:

ON THE RIGHT
Kobayashi Maru asks: “Are the recent actions and words of the Reid-Pelosi-Dean wing of the Democratic party in Congress explained better by the theory that their primary motivation is: ...prevailing in the war on terror but through different means? ...or proving that George Bush is wrong in all he stands for, thinks, says and does? Ponder that one for a moment.” (READ MORE)

Jay Tea writes Iraq: Where Did We Go Wrong?: “simply withdrawing is not the answer. I've never served in the military, but many of those who have find it insulting that they signed up to protect us civilians, and now the ‘cut and runners’ are saying they want to protect our warriors by hiding them behind us.” (READ MORE)

Donald Sensing writes The Gathering Gloom: “We can still prevail in Iraq, but that would require our president to speak straight to us about what it will take and the Congress to turn its eyes away from ‘the children’ (meaning more big spending programs and federal control of our daily lives) and toward building the military numerically and deciding that once again, partisanship stops at the ocean's edge.” (READ MORE)

Macranger writes Democrats send a distinctive message to troops “No matter what Pelosi, Reid, or the rest of Democratic leadership say, they are telling our troops in Iraq, ‘Sorry about your sacrifices, but we’re pulling out, the whole thing was a mistake - your sacrifice was a mistake.’” (READ MORE)

Froggy writes Not Feelin' It: “I saw nothing in President Bush's demeanor to suggest that he really believes in this new plan or that it is at all likely to be successful. He has to know that the Iraqis will not follow through on their commitments either militarily, legislatively, or politically.” (READ MORE)

Captain Ed writes Bush Speech Live Blog: “…nice finish to the speech, and a journeyman effort in delivering it tonight. Will it change minds? I don't think it will have that much effect. Bush and his team spent quite a bit of time on the address. They included several elements to bridge political differences. His assumption of responsibility for the failure to quell the violence in Baghdad is the one element that had been missing until now, and it may help take the edge off of some of the criticism.” (READ MORE)

Jack Army writes My Reaction to the Commander-In-Chief's Speech: “This ‘new’ plan is a readjustment of the old strategy based on the changing situation on the battlefield, the political as well as the military battlefield. It's a good plan. So was the old one. But the enemy voted, and adjustments were needed. So we'll push on with this plan, see how the enemy votes, if he's alive to do so, and make more adjustments in the future. Same as it ever was.” (READ MORE)

John Hawkins writes The Right Side Of The Blogosphere's Reaction To Bush's Speech “The support for the war in Iraq and Bush's handling of it has been slowly but surely dropping on the right side of the blogosphere for months, like the air hissing out of a balloon. However, the speech and the new strategy that went along with it seems to have reversed that trend, at least for the moment.” (READ MORE)

Right Thinking Girl writes Bush’s Speech “Any plan that does not incorporate victory is going to lead to more terror attacks on American soil. The only way out is the way through: that means doing the hard work required to win - unleashing the men and women to do their jobs, and then telling the Iraqis to step up.” (READ MORE)

C.J. Jacobs writes Commander in Chief’s Strategy for Victory in Iraq “The President’s revised strategy for Operation Iraqi Freedom gives our country the best chance for victory and provides the Iraqi people their best chance for sustaining democracy.” (READ MORE)

Chickenhawk Express writes Blast From the Past AND Clark Demonstrates Ignorance on Iran “Before the President even gave his speech the Dems were coming out against it. The biggest complaint - the troop surge. But let's go back in time and see what the Dems (and even the NY Times) said about increasing the troops in Iraq BEFORE it was part of President Bush's plan...” (READ MORE)

Reformed Chicks Blabbing writes The New Strategy in Iraq “I've been reading some of the reaction on the right and they believe that there is not much new in this strategy. I think that it answers the problems that critics have been complaining about, that we have to take out people like al-Sadr and his militia because they are part of the problem.” (READ MORE)

Curt of Flopping Aces writes The Presidents Speech - Jan 10, 2007 “He laid out the fact that this war will not be pretty but the advance of freedom and Democracy in a portion of the world that has seen neither and has been a breeding ground for Al-Qaeda is the most important fight of our generation.” (READ MORE)

The Anchoress writes Speech and reactions - UPDATE “I thought it was a good speech, not delivered as well as some past Bush speeches, but well enough. I was glad to hear that this new tactic would also mean a change in how some things are done. I pray it will be enough to turn things around so that we might finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. But I think it will be a hard year.” (READ MORE)

Don Surber writes Bush to Iraq: We had an election here. You guys lost “Bush’s style was Jerry Fordish. He looked sincere but occasionally stumbled. His subliminal message: Being president is a tough gig.” (READ MORE)

Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard writes America Cannot Afford To Fail. “The words of a senior administration official talking about the contents of President Bush's speech tonight. One of the things I think the administration has done very badly is to communicate the need to succeed in Iraq.” (READ MORE)

Right Wing Nut House writes BUSH SPEECH “He said all the right things. He said them in the right way. He said them with conviction. He was humble where he should have been. He was firm where he should have been. He was vague where he should have been (Iran). He was specific where he should have been (Anbar).” (READ MORE)

ShrinkWrapped writes Iraq and Desire, Conscious and Unconscious “I do not know enough about the various factors involved to offer a particularly knowledgeable opinion about the potential success or failure of the plan. I would suggest that it is always easier to create chaos than order so our job in Iraq is challenging, but I am struck by what the reactions tell us about what people Desire.” (READ MORE)

Jules Crittenden writes Leadership “That's what it looks like. It's not exercised by committee. It doesn't waffle on polls. It does not take dictation.” (READ MORE)

Rightwing Guy writes Mr. President Unleash Our Troops “I firmly believe that victory in Iraq is obtainable and something that we must have, I also believe that this President is just about doing all he can to fight this war and at the same time have to fight one against the Democrats.” (READ MORE)

In From the Cold writes About the Money “Responding to Mr. Bush last night, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin delivered one of the most vapid political speeches in recent history. No substance, just a rehash of Cindy Sheehan's latest talking points on the dangerous ‘escalation of the war,’ and another call for a ‘phased withdrawal’ of U.S. forces.” (READ MORE)

HomeFront 6 writes Thoughts on the President's speech “The President had a lot to say this evening that I agree with. Some that I was even saying "YES!" out loud to. The question is whether we will actually follow through on what needs to be done. Personally speaking, I don't think you can win a war with one hand tied behind your back. Which is where we sit right now.” (READ MORE)

Stop the ACLU writes Bush Surge Speech Open Thread And Liveblogging “This speech will most likely not change any minds. It had points of genius, but I’m already hearing that victory is the wrong direction according to Dick Durben. What really matters is whether or not this plan will succeed. Pundits will debate this, but the President says he believes it will…” (READ MORE)


ON THE LEFT
Kos writes Decisive ideological struggle of our times “I can't take anyone bellowing crap like "decisive ideological struggle of our time" seriously when they refuse to call for the sort of national sacrifice that a real ‘decisive ideological struggle of our time’ would demand. If Bush and his pals truly believe the fate of Western civilization hangs in the balance, they should show they mean it. Mobilize the country. Call for a draft.” (READ MORE)

Kagro X a diarist at The Daily Kos writes The Uniter Divides: Bush plan fractures the DLC “Well, the reviews are in. Bush's 11% doctrine speech was a bomb IED. So now, the scramble is on for politicians of all stripes to distance themselves from his idiotic "plan." Of course, that surge was well underway even before the teleprompter was even hooked up, and Democratic presidential candidates were among the first to find their way to the microphones.” (READ MORE)

BarbinMD a diarist at The Daily Kos writes Deja Vu All Over Again “In the end, last night's speech was the same thing that George Bush has been saying for nearly four years. The only changes between the speech last night and the one in October is the additional 207 dead servicemen and women and Bush not saying:” (READ MORE)

BobcatJH a diarist at The Daily Kos writes Did Bush really accept blame? “The reality behind ‘not enough’ American troops isn't a mere 20,000, like the president thinks, it's more like several hundred thousand. Bush's ‘surge’ would only bring our forces to levels they've seen before. So, therefore, the failure to which Bush admitted Wednesday is one he again seems poised to repeat*. And that's madness. Sheer madness.” (READ MORE)

kpete writing at Democratic Underground writes The Real Disaster Is Bush “President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush’s war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it.” (READ MORE)

cal04 writing at The Democratic Underground writes Bush's New Strategy for Iraq Risks Confrontations on Many Fronts “By stepping up the American military presence in Iraq, President Bush is not only inviting an epic clash with the Democrats who run Capitol Hill. He is ignoring the results of the November elections, rejecting the central thrust of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and flouting the advice of some of his own generals, as well as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq.” (READ MORE)

Arianna Huffington writes The President's New Way Forward Plan: Shocking in its Banality “So there you have it. The New Way Forward. The promise of great new things followed up by the delivery of more of the same failed thinking and policies.” (READ MORE)

Norman Horowitz writes My Reaction To President Bush (The Narcissist) Somber "Surge" Address “IT WAS A REPLAY OF THE SONG: ‘HOW COULD YOU BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAID I LOVE YOU WHEN YOU KNOW I'VE BEEN A LIAR ALL MY LIFE?’” (READ MORE)

Jim Wallis writes A Criminal Escalation of An Unjust War “The war in Iraq was unjust; to continue it now is criminal. There is no winning in Iraq. This was a war that should have never been fought - or won. It can't be won, and the truth is that there are no good solutions now - that's how unjust wars often turn out.” (READ MORE)

Rep. John Murtha writes A Surge in American Forces is Unacceptable “A year ago, I said this was a failed policy wrapped in an illusion. The President has finally acknowledged this. Five months ago, we put an additional 10,000 troops in Baghdad. Attacks increased and a record number of Americans and Iraqis were killed. I see no difference between this and the President's plan to ‘stay the course.’” (READ MORE)

David Kuo writes Iraq - No Happy Endings Now “I tuned in a couple of minutes late to watch my president talk about Iraq. I saw him standing and wondered if I was watching an old news clip of an old speech. I wondered why he wasn't seated behind the great desk in the Oval Office?” (READ MORE)

Bob Cesca writes President Bush Is Really, Really High “President Bush must be knocking back some 420 from Humboldt if he expects us to buy this plan. In fact, I have photographic proof he's toasted. Note the ornate water bong on the mantel behind him. This address was, from beginning to end, a flim-flam. The president's ‘new way forward’ contained so many loopholes we'd all have to be as high as him to actually believe it.” (READ MORE)

Swopa of Fire Dog Lake writes Taking the Train to Nowhere Fast “I guess this really is the McCain doctrine being put into effect.” (READ MORE)

Matthew Yglesias writes The Speech “I've neither seen it nor read it since I was at the Wizards game where DC won despite Agent Zero scoring "only" 20 points on horrible 5-16 shooting. Goes to show crazy things can happen. Thus, the surge is a good idea. Just kidding. It's still crazy.” (READ MORE)

cfaller96 a diarist at MyDD writes NOW can we impeach? “Ok, Markos, Bowers, and others- what's it going to take? How far does this guy have to go before you finally stop peeing your pants and agree that President Bush must be removed from office? Are you at least now open to the possibility? Will a unilateral escalation of troops into Iraq change your mind?” (READ MORE)

Matt Stoller at MyDD writes A Dead National Dialogue “It's very upsetting to have political elites so out of step with a public that just voted for change. The public says no. The Congress says no. And yet Bush is going to escalate the war, and possibly strike Iran as well. It feels like a descent into tyranny. And it's awful.” (READ MORE)