Posted by
Mr. Anonymous on Saturday, April 07, 2007 2:03:36 AM
It's always interesting to me how people can be so myopic and, often, just plain blind to events that don't meet their idealistic view. A case in point is the opinion piece by David F. Schmitz in today's Seattle Times.
The information at the end of the article says that Mr. Schmitz is the Robert Allen Skotheim Chair of History at Whitman College in Walla Walla. Sounds impressive. But Mr. Schmitz sees in Vietnam the pattern for "limiting war." He recites the usual litany of similarities between the events and situation in Iraq now and Vietnam back in Nixon's day, including building up of troops, a congress that was determined to end the war, and a president who refused to listen to the people. Then he talks about the Cooper-Church Amendment which basically required the president to bring the troops home. You can read the article
here.
The problem is that the war didn't really end when the US pulled out. Instead the north continued the war against the south in Vietnam and the south quickly fell to the communists. Additionally we had the killing fields in Cambodia. The US was the buffer that prevented a slaughter from taking place. Once we pulled out of Vietnam, all hell broke loose and the country fell.
The situation in Iraq is comparable in this respect, that if we pull out the country will fall to the terrorists and the Iranians and we'll end up with a much worse situation than we have now. So what's interesting to me is how Mr. Schmitz totally ignores this aspect of history and doesn't even mention it at all. Just bring the troops home, that's all anybody cares about! Really? Then why do 61% of the people feel that we shouldn't pull out of Iraq immediately, and that we ought to give the "surge" a chance before leaving, hmmmmm?