How Democrats Lost Vietnam… And, How They Plan On Losing Iraq

Tonight, President Bush is going to deliver a speech to the nation on how he intends to win the war in Iraq.

The Multi-Force Iraq spokesman and Bush believe that Iraq will take responsibility for security operations by the end of 2007.

A plan is already in place.

Already, three of 18 Iraqi Provinces have complete control over government and security. By the end of this year the remaining 15 will be turned over to the Iraqis according to the MNF-I spokesman.

But, tonight President Bush will announce his plan to shift more troops into Iraq to squelch the violence in the young democracy that has reached New Orleans levels this past year.

Democrats are not happy about this.
They think the war is already lost.
Today, they will force a symbolic vote to see who wants to surrender Iraq and who wants to surge with the president to the finish line.
It’s no surprise.

Their stance on Iraq is nothing new.
From 1864 to 2007 the democrats haven’t changed a lick.
They’ve been against the war since it started- despite what they said beforehand.
And, oh how Teddy Kennedy and the democrats wish this war would turn into another Vietnam despite the facts.

Today then, is a good time to look back at how the democrats managed to lose Vietnam.
Melvin R. Laird, former Secretary of Defense under Richard Nixon, explains how Vietnam was lost. This time he hopes America will finish the job properly.
Via Foreign Affairs:

STAYING THE COURSE

The truth about Vietnam that revisionist historians conveniently forget is that the United States had not lost when we withdrew in 1973. In fact, we grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory two years later when Congress cut off the funding for South Vietnam that had allowed it to continue to fight on its own. Over the four years of Nixon’s first term, I had cautiously engineered the withdrawal of the majority of our forces while building up South Vietnam’s ability to defend itself. My colleague and friend Henry Kissinger, meanwhile, had negotiated a viable agreement between North and South Vietnam, which was signed in January 1973. It allowed for the United States to withdraw completely its few remaining troops and for the United States and the Soviet Union to continue funding their respective allies in the war at a specified level. Each superpower was permitted to pay for replacement arms and equipment. Documents released from North Vietnamese historical files in recent years have proved that the Soviets violated the treaty from the moment the ink was dry, continuing to send more than $1 billion a year to Hanoi. The United States barely stuck to the allowed amount of military aid for two years, and that was a mere fraction of the Soviet contribution.

Yet during those two years, South Vietnam held its own courageously and respectably against a better-bankrolled enemy. Peace talks continued between the North and the South until the day in 1975 when Congress cut off U.S. funding. The Communists walked out of the talks and never returned. Without U.S. funding, South Vietnam was quickly overrun. We saved a mere $297 million a year and in the process doomed South Vietnam, which had been ably fighting the war without our troops since 1973.

Hat Tip Rob C.

The democrats lost Vietnam.
Don’t let them lose Iraq.

The Jawa Report has more on the Democratic war plan.
Tom Vilsack joins the cut and flee crowd today.
The Anchoress has more on the “If Bush is for it, we’re against it” philosophy.
Jack Lewis offers a dim dem look at the numbers.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning