Sunday, July 6, 2008

Peace People Media in Action

Make your own Media happen as the Warmongers continue to talk up the surge in Iraq and another war coming to a country near you! CODEPINKers Toby Tighe Des and Liz stakeout the studio for quality time with Senator Joseph Lieberman,Senator Jack Reid, and Nightline Host Ted Koppel.Misnomer -----W e are far less safe because of the US occuaption of Iraq!
Get one fact - straight People
Aqi or Al- Queada never existed in IRAQ before we invaded in 2003!


JimPreston said...

Keep up the good work!! So glad you have so many new and old faces coming in to help.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

W e are far less safe because of the US occuaption of Iraq!

It's more nuanced than that.

Get one fact - straight People
Aqi or Al- Queada never existed in IRAQ before we invaded in 2003!

Not entirely accurate

JimPreston said...

I just heard some of the replays of the Sunday Morning talk shows. The big question I have is: Why do they call it the conventional wisdom, when it is so obviously wrong in so many ways?
Example: Everybody can see that "the surge" has worked.
Counter-example: Everybody was sure that Afghanistan was on the road to becoming a peaceful and stable democracy in 2004.

As for the wordsmith and his nuance, he should probably spend some time with John Bolton trying to figure out whether the Vietnam adventure or Iraq is really the crown jewel of US foreign policy. I know that they are proud of both.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...


What was shameful in regards to Vietnam, is not that we went into Vietnam (the domino effect was real, folks), but that we did not wage it to win, and that when the North Vietnamese shirked on the Paris Peace Accord. There were two secret agreements made: one was billions of dollars in reparations, after the war. But the North did not get it, because they had broken their agreement by invading the South. The 2nd secret agreement was with the South Vietnamese. He gave them a solemn pledge, in writing, that if the North broke agreements, and invaded the South, America would get back in, and provide whatever aid the South needed; even troop support. Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, Nixon was driven from office by the Watergate scandal. When the North Vietnamese invaded the South, an unelected President in the form of Gerald Ford pleaded with Congress to enforce our agreements and honor our pledge to our South Vietnamese allies. In 1975, more than one million innocent Vietnamese fled in terror from a massive invasion by the North. Congress and the anti-war movement did nothing to alleviate the suffering.

What was the anti-war movement's (actually, more properly labeled an "anti-draft" movement)accomplishment back then?

From The Measure of a Nation, by Mark Silverberg:

Arnaud de Borchgrave noted that during the Vietnam War, General Giap relied on the American peace movement to weaken American resolve. That had the effect of turning an American military victory into a political defeat. Former North Vietnamese General Staff officer Bui Tin once said that the peace movement was "essential to our strategy." In America, the open support of Hanoi by Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (now head of International ANSWER, which coordinates the largest protests) and others "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses," Bui Tin said. "Through dissent and protest," the US "lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

As a result, the surprise 1968 Tet Offensive (which involved suicidal attacks by the Viet Cong in some 70 cities and towns, and 30 other strategic objectives simultaneously) turned the political tide of the war against America and eventually led to the protest movement that (in turn) led to the American defeat in Vietnam. From a military perspective, it is important to note that the Tet Offensive was a singularly unmitigated disaster both for Hanoi and for its Viet Cong troops in South Vietnam. Not one of the objectives of the Viet Cong in that Offensive was achieved. Yet, it proved to be a major turning point in the war.

Being the first major "television war," Americans watched the carnage in horror and concluded (incorrectly) that it was a military disaster for America. One of America's most trusted newsmen, CBS's Walter Cronkite, even appeared for a standup piece with distant fires as a backdrop. Donning a helmet, Cronkite declared the war lost. Eugene McCarthy carried New Hampshire and Bobbie Kennedy stepped forward to challenge the policies of an already distraught President. Six weeks later, Lyndon Johnson, in the midst of national protest, announced that he would not seek re-election. His ratings had plummeted to 30 percent after Tet. Approval of his handling of the war had dropped to 20 percent. He had concluded that the war was unwinnable.

In the end, American support for the Vietnam War faded. Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the antiwar demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a "conditional surrender," Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.

Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear that the antiwar movement in the United States (which led to the collapse of political will in Washington) was "essential to our strategy."

Whether or not Iraq becomes a "crown jewel" of U.S. foreign policy all depends on whether or not those on your side succeed in abandoning Iraq shamefully the way we abandoned our Vietnamese allies.

What would the cost of non-intevention have been, were Saddam and his murderous sons still in power to this day? The recent Pentagon funded study examining captured Iraqi documents in the HARMONY database clearly shows that a secular Saddam was indeed willing to work with religious fanatics to achieve common short-term aims. He also showed that he hadn't given up his ambitions nor ability to acquire wmd capabilities, and was biding his time to see sanctions lifted, working behind the scenes with corrupt UN officials.

There were good arguments to be made against the war in Iraq. But after the decision was made, what is the point of the anti-war movement, now? The war is over. The counter-insurgency is seeing a successful turn. Why are y'all still fighting yesterday's arguments? If you want to see less suffering and bring stability, the way forward is to do exactly what we are doing right now. We're the ones helping Iraqis rebuild their country's infrastructure- schools, hospitals, etc. The insurgents and al Qaeda terrorists are the ones fomenting chaos and destroying things, targeting innocent civilians.

Seriously, do you really want peace and to bring about less suffering? Then quit giving aid and comfort to the insurgents and foreign fighters who follow the news closely and are counting on you folk to help them sway public opinion and propagandize efforts against the U.S.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Whether or not Iraq becomes a "crown jewel" of U.S. foreign policy all depends on whether or not those on your side succeed in abandoning Iraq shamefully the way we abandoned our Vietnamese allies.

Actually, I correct myself: We- that is innocent Iraqis and the U.S.- may still obtain "victory" and success, even if your side continues on with your best efforts at fighting against the best interests of Iraqis and of the U.S.

Mike's America said...

I found the Code Pink disruption of the Naturalization ceremony at Monticellow troubling.

Here, many new citizens stood up, put their right hand up and took the following oath as administered by President Bush:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I'd be interested to know just how many of the protesters and other Code Pink supporters who were lucky enough to be born in the U.S. would be willing to take the same oath?

JimPreston said...

Wordboy is pretty funny, but I prefer peace. Like I said, tell it to Bolton. Also, someone who calls himself 'wordsmith' should probably have used the name Nixon somewhere in the text before the 'he' which refers to Nixon, if I am parsing it correctly (or is it parsing it incorrectly, but obtaining the correct meaning). Irrelevant, in any event, since your argument boils down to the theory that the American people had an interest in sending their children to die in the jungles to save the Vietnamese and the honor of Richard M. Nixon. Game over.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

It wasn't about honoring Nixon; it was about honoring the pledge given in written agreement by the office of the presidency.

We didn't send children over; the majority who served in Vietnam and who died in Vietnam were volunteer serviceMEN, the majority who even knowing the outcome, have said they are proud of their service.

Like I said, the domino effect was real. International communism was testing and probing all over the globe. Confronting the global threat of communism in Vietnam was the right thing to do.