GOP Can't be Trusted with National Security

Will we ever forgive the Democrats for Vietnam? After all, it is the single most important event that has fueled American distrust in their inability handle national security.

Never mind that the foundation for Vietnam was laid during a Republican administration. Was it not President Eisenhower who labeled South Vietnamese Prime Minister, Ngo Dinh Diem "a miracle man" as he reaffirmed U.S. support for their cause in 1957--more than a year after the last French solider left South Vietnam?

But U.S. escalation happened under a Democratic administration. On the heels of President Kennedy's 1961 inauguration speech, when he declared, "...we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to insure the survival and the success of liberty," American commitment grew.

With a defense secretary out of out touch with reality, and a policy that was tantamount to stay the course, the U.S. had increased its involvement from 16,000 "military advisors" in 1963 to more than 500,000 soldiers in 1967.

Ironically, with a growing insurgency, then-California Governor Ronald Reagan suggested the U.S. should get out of Vietnam citing the difficulties for victory.

The social and political mood of the country turned on President Johnson and the Democrats, electing Richard Nixon in 1968, but it wasn't until the Ford administration that the last of the U.S. troops left Vietnam in 1975. By staying the course, approximately 50,000 American soldiers died in a conflict, that by 1967 many knew could not be won.

More than 30 years since the last American troops departed, the Democrats are still paying for the mistakes in Vietnam--so much so that we have entrusted a group of neo-cons, many of whom avoided military service, to be the purveyors of an overly hawkish military intervention that is based on preemption.

What have been the results? We are less safe, less respected, less feared by our enemies, and more hated globally.

Politically, we are no different than the dilemma that has befallen team sports in America. With free agency, players come and go with no real allegiance to the community. Therefore, today's sports fan has been reduced to rooting more for the uniform than the player itself.

Our tolerance for the infractions of our elected leadership is based more on our political affiliation than our commitment to the country at-large--reducing our support to the rhetoric of the parties more than the individuals.

Imagine if Bill Clinton oversaw the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Would Republicans still articulate the need for staying the course? Would they be willing to blindly spend roughly $300 billion? Or would they be on the Sunday talk shows proclaiming the need to cut and run?

The players responsible for Vietnam are no more. Yet, we are still holding today's leadership accountable because they have the misfortune of wearing the same uniform.

With Vietnam firmly supplanted in our historical rear-view mirror, why should we trust Republicans to keep us safe? Have they not overseen a debacle that, in the best-case scenario, rivals the mistakes of Vietnam? What Democrat would have preemptively gone into Iraq?

We are currently undertaking three wars--Afghanistan, Iraq, and the amorphous war on terror. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are back in business. In Iraq, our efforts have led to civil war. In the war on terror, since theoretically it is a war of ideas, it appears that Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda have more to celebrate than we do.

The counter argument to the failed policies of the Republicans is always: "What is the Democrat's plan?"

This red herring must be met head on by the facts. September 11 happened on the Republicans watch. While we were unnecessarily bogged down in Iraq, two-thirds of the "axis of evil" enhanced their nuclear capabilities. Nearly five years since 9/11 the Bush Administration has failed to get Osama bin-Laden.

It is time that we face reality. Beyond the tough rhetoric and the cyclical nature of politics, the facts suggest that today's Republican Party cannot be trusted on national security issues.