The Democrats are proving once again that they are incapable of learning from history and hence unworthy to participate in its formation.
Democrats are daily comparing the recent spike in violence in Iraq to the 1968-1969 Tet Offensive in Vietnam. Remember, Walter Cronkite told us every night for seven months that the existence of the Tet Offensive was on going evidence of inevitable American defeat in Vietnam. The result was the final collapse of the American will to wage the war; the goal became “an exit strategy” other than victory; and disaster followed.
Today the very same feckless and silly liberals are now saying exactly the same things. Remember the very words used by the Ted Kennedys, John Kerrys and Tom Harkins of the world then are being used now by the very same radical leftists even as I am writing this column.
Here’s the catch. The spin then, as now, is utterly divorced from reality. We now know, and it is not disputed among military historians, that the Tet Offensive was a tremendous American victory. The NV failed to come close to achieving any objective. Their casualties were horrific-tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands wounded or prisoners. The communist assets and resources were utterly expended. The NVA records from the time, and the contemporary statements of their now aging vets, admit that North Vietnam could not have sustained another year of war, and much less if the United States would have counterattacked.
History abundantly demonstrates that the existence of conflict is not the definition of defeat. Sure glad casualties the prospects of hundreds of thousands of casualties didn’t cause FDR to look for an “exit strategy” right after one of the terrible, bloody and incompetent American defeats in WW2. Even happier that Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address isn’t remembered for the words "four score and seven years ago our forefather said its too muffigin cold at Valley Forge".
What was the purpose in 1968-69 and what is the point now of this false characterization of the war? What is the Democrat motive? The best case is a child like distaste of conflict that makes them pacifist by nature but that doesn't explain their enthusiastic support of a very preemptive war agaisnt our ally Serbia in Kosovo. The Democrats weren't concerned about casualties, particularly Serbian casualites in that war. Every reason Bill Clinton gave for our war on Serbia turned out to be wrong, and some of them pretty obviously wrong.
So what's the point guys?