The Democrats Learned the Wrong Lesson From Vietnam, Too

Many observers were astonished when President Bush recently compared to Iraq to Vietnam, suggesting that a withdrawal would "pull the rug out from under the troops" and lead to a bloodbath. But if he's drawing the wrong conclusions from the Vietnam analogy, he's not the only one. Their memories of that war, and what happened afterward, have kept the Democratic leadership from doing what the voters elected them to do by ending the war in Iraq.

Call it the "Rambo syndrome." Those of us who lived through the Vietnam years - and the Rambo movies - will recall the political intent behind the Viet-vet hero's famous line to his former commanding officer: "This time, Sir, do we get permission to win?"

The Republicans presided over the the final disastrous and futile years of Vietnam, and they presided over losing the war, but they won the postwar political debate handily. According to conservative spinmasters, we didn't lose because it was an ill-conceived war, but because a Democratic House and Senate denied the troops "permission to win." If only they hadn't done that , conservatives argued, an eleven-year record of military failure would have miraculously turned around. The USA could have stood astride the world stage like Colossus, instead of limping across it like - to use Nixon's words - a "pitiful, helpless giant."

Absurd? Of course. Politically effective? Absolutely.

That's why Bush's Vietnam analogy shouldn't have been so surprising. (Well, okay, except for the Quiet American reference. That was surprising.)

Vietnam is the nightmare scenario that haunts the dreams of Rahm Emanuel. Of James Carville. Of Carl Levin. Of Hillary Clinton. It goes like this: Democrats de-fund the war in Iraq. Then something happens - say, another terror attack on U.S. soil. The Republicans tell voters that the Democrats denied America "permission to win." And the Democratic Party goes down in defeat. It would be the worst kind of 70's flashback.

That's why the Democrats are too timid to use their Congressional warmaking (and war-ending) authority. That's why Dems like Joe Biden and Jerry McNerney keep repeating the mantra of getting a "veto-proof majority" against the war. Most Democratic voters - and most Americans - would prefer a clean vote to withdraw. Most progressive Dems believe a Bush veto would seal the war as a Republican creature in the public's mind, making a de-funding bill politically smart as well as morally sound.

But the Democrats are cowering under the shadow of Vietnam. That's why Dems like McNerney keep talking about finding "sympathetic Republicans" to vote with them. And that's why they haven't found them. Because the Republicans remember Vietnam, too.

The specter of Vietnam isn't only haunting the Dems when it comes to Iraq, either. The FISA debacle - a hastily-passed and ambiguous bill that trashes the Constitution, passed as Congress left town - is another product of this post-Vietnam psychology. They were afraid that terrorists might strike during their August recess, and that voters would blame them. That fear trumped the Constitution in their political calculus.

Hillary Clinton's recent statement that another terror attack would benefit the Republicans also comes from a post-Vietnam mentality. Naomi Wolf misunderstood the criticism Sen. Clinton received when she called critics "naive." Actually, Sen. Clinton was right to name the issue, but wrong in her handling of it. Chris Dodd was wrong to call it tasteless, but Hillary was wrong to reinforce the media notion that Republicans would benefit from a terror attack.

So, are the Democrats right to be worried? I would argue that they are, but that they're handling it the wrong way. Take Sen. Clinton's statement: It was smart to name the pink elephant in the room - that Republicans exploit terror tragedy for political gain - but wrong of her to feed the belief that they will continue to benefit from it. She should have gone a step further and explained how the GOP has failed to protect America since 9/11. Democrats should be listing the Administration's national security failures , so that another attack will be seen as evidence of their incompetence in this area - just as the first one was.

As for Iraq, there's no doubt that the GOP and its media arm will try to spin any withdrawal as denying the troops "permission to win." But here's where the Democrats need to find some courage, or risk going down in flames. They were elected to stop this war, and their approval numbers are plunging because they haven't. What's more, their behavior is giving the public the impression that they are indecisive and weak.

Democrats need a "post-post-Vietnam" mentality, and a strategy to go along with it. They need to inoculate themselves against the Rambo syndrome by telling the public, plainly and directly, what their opposition will try to do to them. Repeat over and over again: "They will say anything to win elections, but we'll do what's right for the country." Create a mental association in the public's mind between "permission to win" language and the same cynical politics that has shattered the country in the last six years.

Will it work? There are only probabilities, not certainties. But this strategy is much more likely to work than today's timorous approach. And it has the added advantage of being the right thing to do.

That's gotta count for something, right?

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post

Comments

[gilbaker]

After setting forth a false "resolution" to justify attacking Vietnam, LBJ made millions by investing in the company (KBR) contracted to build US bases in SE Asia. After making false claims of a "link" between Saddam and al Queda to justify invading Iraq, Bush & Co. made millions from their investments in the Carlyle Group, Haliburton and other defense contractors. By failing to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, Bush also accomplished key GOP goals: 1) Limit spending on social/domestic programs by cutting taxes at a time of war. 2) Fatten GOP campaign coffers by awarding huge no-bid contracts GOP-led companies. 3)Use the guise of "national security" to extend governement powers and limit the freedom of citizens. The post war reconstruction of Germany and Japan would not have succeeded if the people of these countries had been a) apathetic, like the Vietnamese or b) eager to engage in civil war, like the Iraqis.

[wampus]

Are there ANY politicians in the Washington bubble with any spine other than republicians?
If so, who the hell are they?

[WaterRat]

Weak kneed democrats need to pull up their pants and tell this administration and its president that the people - the American people - have had it.
They want the troops home. They want an American government to solve the Katrina crisis, the health crisis, the gas and food crisis.
The democrats said they would do this. So, forget the partisan GOP., even it means taking a few kicks in the gut.
The American public will stand up behind a resolute and dedicated party that sticks to its guns and removes this president and his vice president. What ever happened to that last remaining piece of the Constitution - impeachment?
The Democrats need to save the country and not wait and molly coddle a lame duck president who has led us down the road to bankruptcy with his highest ever national deficit - in the trillions, a war created by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and supported by him.
Are the Democrats forgetting their war cry?
Their mission was to save America.
But they allow funding for the war fearing comparisons to another war that was started on lies - Vietnam. Remember: Gulf Of Tonkin? Just like the WMDs.
Unless they toughen up we'll be in Iran.

[WWWoDMOCRATSoORG]

Call GOP contributor and war contractor General Electric Corporation at 203 373 2211 and ask for the public relations department. Tell the person in public relations that you want the GE CEO to get Bush to end the war in Iraq and then Bush resign with Cheney and until that happens you will not buy any GE products and that you also told your friends about this.

[fantagor]

But if the Democrats DO promote the message you suggest, WILL THE PRESS REPORT IT?

Doubtful.

The spin of course WILL get plenty of face-time, "defeat-o-crats", "cut and runners", "terrorist capitulators" and so on.

As long as the MSM is mostly in the hands of Republican sympathizers, the Democrats don't stand a chance being heard above the din of the Conservative Noise Machine.

It's a no-win situation.

Defund the war and the Republicans will foist blame on the Democrats for Iraq's probable implosion.

Fund the war and the Republicans will portray the Democrats as "Republican-Lite".

And the press will report either scenario as rote truth. You can bet on it.

How does everyone KNOW John Kerry was a "flip-flopper" and Al Gore was a "compulsive liar"? Because it was in the newspapers, on TV, so it HAS to be true.

Randy (a pessimistic dude because reality dictates perception not vice versa)

[esquire07]

So many Articles its funny. None of it matters.

FACT: Democrats will give Bush all the Money he wants for the bloodbath with no strings. Period. End of Story.

Crime pays in America !!!

[GenericBlogger]

"Absurd? Of course. Politically effective? Absolutely." There lies the problem. Grown men mandated with the responsibility of making laws for the benefit of their constituents and the nation behaved like brats feuding over territory in a sand box.

They wrongly reckoned the way to defeat the other side is to discredit them, don't forgive or let them forget their mistakes. Time passed, the table was turned, the accusers became the accused, the previously accused became the accusers and the public, those they are supposed to have served experienced the loss. The accusing game is a perennial ritual that degrades the effectiveness of the legislative and executive branches...The discontent spills to the judicial branch, the media and the public. None are better for it.

Rather than the Democrats staying in the corner having to defend their concocted opposition to the "permission to win", they should put the Republicans in the corner and have them defend the unjust war while they gather the veto-proof vote. What is the point of winning an unjust war that is in increasingly detrimental to America's present and long term future?

Now that he announced his resignation, will John Warner gather more votes for the veto-proof bill?

This time, the Democrats, liberals, progressives and centrists should be on the offensive but not with hostility, with veto-proof bills.

[SRegnet]

You have to wonder what the effect of a 'big
move' by Bush in Iraq would be on next year's
elections. If he were to redeploy forces out
early next year, by moving troops into Kurdish
areas & Kuwait, declaring (defacto) victory,
would the Republicans not recover all that they
have lost over much of the past 7 years?

Republicans would win easily in 2008 if this
were to happen, and it would be the Democrats
who were left in shambles.

Would the Democrats permit this to happen?

[negogato]

MACHINE CHANGE

I am from the long tradition of Vote the Bums out. Politics is like lead poising: the longer you eat at the table the more toxic you become. I am not talking about the elephants in the closet. I am talking about the influence market for campaign contributions. Dollars for Votes, Votes for Dollars. An inventory of Bribes.

What this country needs is a change in the political machine. Junk It. The voters are ready for it, now more than ever.

Let"s take a deep breath and say it: the storied 'Experience" factor is a password for a history of involvement with deep pocket lobbyists and special interest groups " a pre-sold candidate; a bought incumbent.

So when they say, "he would be great, but does not have the experience?"
Take that breath and say it:
That very lack of "Experience" is the best thing for the country.

[cuddletuffy]

absolute insanity. this is what the democratic party is concerned with? their image? collectively, we americans are idiots. any party that has its image as the central concern in a time like this that isn't completely discredited as an abject failure as an opposition party reflects a country that deserves the fascist dictatorship it has become.

may those that oppose it not suffer from the collective ignorance of those who don't. unfortunately, history reveals that the opposite tends to happen.

[negogato]

We withdrew from military action in Korea, set up a line and still are there.
Vietnam was never winnable militarily, and that reality was known to McNamara, Nixon, Kissinger et al. Yet we could not lose. That would be political death for them. Coming off the red scare of the 50's there was little resurrecting to be done to convincingly name an enemy as being from within. The long political movement that ended the war was tarred as being the action of traitors. The bunglers were noble and victims of traitors and won the blame game.

We are at the heart and soul of the issue. If you listen to what the gop is insisting: we are blameless, nobody knew, we were right to go in, the war is working, the 9/11 connection, they will follow us home, you have the game plan.
Entirely the Reverse is true.
We entered into a war of choice by a president and his gop circle exercising willful distortion and damned lies.
It is an occupation not a war and not winnable. There is no 9/11 connection. We are making enemies of neutral people who had no intention of harming us. And we are recruiting a new army of those who will.
It is time for relentless attack on the gop game plan.

When something happens America should be ready to lay it at the gop doorstep.

It is Bush"s war of choice.

I would go so far as to say that this president bears some real responsibility for the attacks on 9/11. This is the guy who was given the report on Aug 6 that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike the US and something on the order of the 1992 World Trade Center attacks. He gave it a look and went fishing.

Nobility and victimhood is the key to Bush and company's survival. It is their end game. They are masters of controlling the game. And for that to happen the gop game plan has to remain intact.

Take it apart. It is the only option.

[factanonverba]

It is incongruent to expect the Democrats at this point to unwind the war in the next 16 months. Yes I am disappointed, at time downright full of ire and despair but the truth is no option is a good one. I am not Clinton fan but I watched her appearance on Letterman and came away somewhat heartened by some of here comments (public financing of campaigns, assistance for the Kurds). Most prescient I thought was the comment that no matter who is elected is the fact that undoing Bush will be challenging to say the least. We do need to disengage from Iraq but we also need to remain engaged with the Iraqis. There are no good options. Bush campaigned that he would not engage in nation building but little did I imagine that he would so assiduously engage in nation wrecking. He has in effect destroyed Iraq and the US. Not that I have lost all hope but who has a comprehensive plan to rebuild what this shrub of a man has broken?

[bourbon]

I was part of the debacle in Vietnam for over 19 months and I thank you for your enlightening interpretation of what transpired then versus what is happening now. I agree with your suggestion that the same mentallity exists today amongst Democrats as existed in the '70's.

The majority of those I speak with agree that it is time for the Democratic party to truly represent the citizens of this country and get our young (and not-so-young)men and women out of Iraq.

[realpolitic]

Democrats do have to keep repeating that "Republicans will say anything to win elections" because they will. Republicans are great at demonizing an opponent and smearing him or her. They are awful at governing. Bush has given us runaway deficits, tax cuts for the wealthy, and a war with no end in sight. What his administration has accomplished beyond that, besides turning a blind eye to New Orleaneans during Hurricane Katrina, I do not know. Democrats must meet Republicans in the trenches at election time and say that the Republican Party will say anything, anything at all to win. At least, we have Bush's record of failure to run against this time.

[timbyrnes]

When are we going to quit treating this war as a soccer match. This crazy approach is so 7th grade it isn't funny. After all these years we have learned that the perp of this bad dream has continually changed to purpose of it from wmd, nukes, bringing prosperity and democracy to Iraqis who do not want it. Now when all those things are found to not be the reason for the war we are left with the need to WIN because it is our team on the field.
Well I am a citizen of the world and I am tired of seeing the people of Iraq suffer Bush's folly.
The Dems need to emphasize to voters the magnitude of american treasure wasted on this war both in terms of money and children.
Next they need to empasize again and again the lack of connection between the war and global terrorism.
American's can reflect on how they would react to having their world blown up. At the same time they can wonder how they would react to their neighbors being bombed and destroyed (as Iran is now doing). The seeds of terrorism are the result of this fiasco. It