If the left hates anything, it is facts. They hate the fact that their compassionate leftist policies have increased poverty. But they don’t change the policy; they just deny the fact. They hate the fact that their “stimulus policies” have fewer people employed today than when the ‘Anointed One’ first took office. But they don’t change the policy; they just deny the fact.
Louie Gohmert stated at CPAC that, “The war in Viet Nam was winnable.” Of course the forces of the left have been gathered in order to, you guessed it, deny the fact (Click Here). Once you have overcome the shock upon realizing that these forward looking progressive lefties think this is an issue worth their valuable attention, you cannot help but realize Representative Gohmert was stating an obvious fact.
Allow me to stipulate that our understanding of a war is that it is a collection of armed conflicts between two or more parties which is concluded when either one of the sides is annihilated, or both sides agree to the terms under which the conflict is terminated. Except in the most unusual of circumstances, the victor generally has to have won at least one of these conflicts. The rare exception occurs when one side becomes bored and decides to go home. This latter circumstance most accurately describes the conclusion of the Viet Nam war. Even North Viet Nam military leaders have stated that the US anti-war movement was essential to their victory and that militarily they could never have prevailed without it.
For reasons which are unfathomable to me, few fantasies bring greater joy to the leftists’ hearts (even American leftists) than the belief that the army of Paraguay or Luxemburg could easily defeat the US military. Can we not further agree that any conflict in which we are not the obvious victor is not because of our lack of strength but because of our reluctance to use it? If memory serves me correctly, these same lefties dressed up like characters from the Rocky Horror Picture Show and paraded around with placards claiming the US nuclear arsenal was so great that it could have halved the planet. Not annihilating an enemy is a matter of choice for the US. So even a person whose thought processes are never more than ankle deep must realize the Viet Nam war was eminently winnable.
Consider Representative Gohmert’s detractors on this issue for a moment. The first, Anti-War Blog, cited in the link in paragraph two above has cleverly placed their entire philosophical argument in their name. It is like the ‘Puppies and Rainbows coalition.’ It sounds good; I mean who is pro war? War breaks things and people get hurt. But the implication is ‘no good ever came from war.’ Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t war end slavery in America (the Civil War)? Didn’t war end the Nazi genocide of the Jews in Europe (World War II)? Didn’t the Cold War put a stop to genocidal communist plans of worldwide domination? Didn’t the war for American independence (the Revolutionary War) provide, not just for the people of the United States but for freedom loving people all over the world, a beacon of hope, that the rights of man came not from concessions from the powerful but were a birthright from nature’s God? This line of reasoning came from a period known as “the enlightenment.” Someone should enlighten the good people at Anti-War Blog. Left up to anti-war lefties we would live in a world where the Jews had been eradicated from the planet, communism prevails and if I am not being redundant, slavery is common. Great plan Anti-War Blog.
On the Daily Kos, ‘Matador’ claims Rep. Gohmert said we should be in more wars. Talk about taking liberties with a quote. Perhaps Matador should consider changing his name to Gardener because I think he is more likely to be spreading bull than fighting it.
Luke Johnson, from what Rush likes to call the Huffington Puffington Post, seems incensed that Louie said that “if the U.S. finds itself at war with another nation, it should just ‘take ’em out’.” If I might be allowed to paraphrase, it seems that Rep. Gohmert was suggesting that we ‘win.’ In considering the moral aspects of war, is it moral to send soldiers into battle and ask them to do anything but win?”
On “The Raw Story,” (they’re just lining up to be stupid) David Edwards was incensed that Gohmert suggested we should have gone to war with Iran over the takeover and occupation for 444 days of our embassy in Tehran. I wonder if Mr. Edwards is even aware of the incident in Benghazi and if so, has he considered that there may be a link. Personally, I think any newly elected US President should, on their first day in office, bomb the USS Pueblo in its harbor where it is still held by North Korea in Pyongyang. The USS Pueblo is still considered a commissioned ship in the US Navy and we should exercise our right of ownership by disposing of it at the time and place of our choosing.
A brief review of recent history tells the story of a political loss in Viet Nam, not a military one. The most successful operation for the forces of the north was the Tet Offensive which took two months to tamp down but ultimately resulted in major losses for North Viet Nam. The US military was able to hold territory at will. Losses for the US occurred in the streets and newspapers back home. Although our military at the time was a conscript military and the rules of engagement were written to not upset the hyper sensibilities of spoiled rich kids hiding out in endless PhD programs, our military still prevailed in every conflict in which they were allowed to use real bullets. The opportunities for a measured military victory were squandered by a militarily ignorant Lyndon Johnson as he spent his evenings in the White House sitting around in his underwear picking out bombing targets he hoped would not offend the Hollywood types whom he depended upon to fund his reelection campaign.
In the end, victory was handed to Hanoi Jane by spineless politicians. Another decade would pass before we elected a president who would stand up to the communist quest for world subjugation. But to imply that Viet Nam was not winnable requires a cognitive disconnect so obvious that anyone who engages in it should, for their own safety, be required to wear a helmet.