Why losing matters, by two authors who had sharply different points of view over the war in Vietnam. In the New York Times, of all place – which, mission accomplished and all that – they can rest a while.
SOME opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat. A number of them are simply predicting it, while others advocate measures that would make it more likely. Lending intellectual respectability to all this is an argument that takes a strange comfort from the outcome of the Vietnam War. The defeat of the American enterprise in Indochina, it is said, turned out not to be as bad as expected. The United States recovered, and no lasting price was paid.
We beg to differ. Many years ago, the two of us clashed sharply over the wisdom and morality of American policy in Indochina, especially in Cambodia. One of us (Mr. Shawcross) published a book, “Sideshow,” that bitterly criticized Nixon administration policy. The other (Mr. Rodman), a longtime associate of Henry Kissinger, issued a rebuttal in The American Spectator, defending American policy. Decades later, we have not changed our views. But we agreed even then that the outcome in Indochina was indeed disastrous, both in human and geopolitical terms, for the United States and the region. Today we agree equally strongly that the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even more serious and lasting.
We cannot be defeated in Iraq, but we can decide to lose – that’s a privileged position: Most country’s have military defeat imposed upon them.
We can make that choice because we thought it was a bad idea all along and losing would prove us right, or because we never did like George Bush, or because we think the aftermath has been horribly bungled, or because we are not sure that the price of further perseverence is worth the cost in lives or treasure, or because we think it’s an insoluble problem anyway, or because brown people don’t deserve democracy, or because we’re just tired of talking about it and want to focus on Paris Hilton’s abbreviated stay in prison. But it’s still a choice, and choices are actions and actions have consequences.
Read the rest to remind yourself what the consequences of such a choice could very well be.
[...] The New York Times No Less… I read this over at Neptunus Lex today, and thought that surely he must have gotten the link wrong. A pro-Iraq war op-ed in the New [...]
Cap’n,
I don’t need much reminding about these consequences. I have those images, those days, sights and sounds imbedded into my memories. Though I wasn’t there, I was in the service and saw it all wherever I looked. It was agonizing to watch the slow hemmorage of life in South Vietnam as the Communists rolled in, and reminded the world why we were fighting them. They brought a massive butcher’s bill with them, and viciously collected every cent.
Saddest of all, however, was the collective gloating mixed with indifference by those who opposed the war. A sort of shoulder shrug with a toss-away line of “well, we had it coming”… Couple that with those who used all of it for political gain, as stepping-stones to power and priviledge, and they are dark days we ought never to allow to be repeated, for ourselves, or for those whom we claim to care about.
If we choose defeat, then I cannot honestly decide where the bigger bloodbath will be: There or here. Might even be a tie….
Respects,
If we choose not to win in Iraq that would be the equivalent of Prime Minister Pitt turning his face to wall and saying that the map of Europe will not be needed for ten years. This will be generations…