Reply #14: Nixon's defense secretary comments on Iraq

[ProSense]

Nixon's defense secretary is still trying to sell the failed strategy and rhetoric that victory could have been achieved if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam.

In 2005:

Summary: During Richard Nixon's first term, when I served as secretary of defense, we withdrew most U.S. forces from Vietnam while building up the South's ability to defend itself. The result was a success -- until Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting off funding for our ally in 1975. Washington should follow a similar strategy now, but this time finish the job properly.

MELVIN R. LAIRD was Secretary of Defense from 1969 to 1973, Counselor to the President for Domestic Affairs from 1973 to 1974, and a member of the House of Representatives from 1952 to 1969. He currently serves as Senior Counselor for National and International Affairs at the Reader's Digest Association.

<...>

President Bush does not have the luxury of waiting for the international community to validate his policies in Iraq. But we do have the lessons of Vietnam. In Vietnam, the voices of the "cut-and-run" crowd ultimately prevailed, and our allies were betrayed after all of our work to set them on their feet. Those same voices would now have us cut and run from Iraq, assuring the failure of the fledgling democracy there and damning the rest of the Islamic world to chaos fomented by extremists. Those who look only at the rosy side of what defeat did to help South Vietnam get to where it is today see a growing economy there and a warming of relations with the West. They forget the immediate costs of the United States' betrayal. Two million refugees were driven out of the country, 65,000 more were executed, and 250,000 were sent to "reeducation camps." Given the nature of the insurgents in Iraq and the catastrophic goals of militant Islam, we can expect no better there.

link

In 2007:

<...>

Democrats are positioned to offer a plan for Iraq, but cutting off funding is not a plan. Holding hearings to excoriate the executive branch is not a plan. Emotional oratory about casualties is not a plan. Such is the stuff of dinner-party debates and protest rallies. It is not what the American people need from their elected representatives, and it is not what they voted for in November.

To Congress, which has the opportunity to make a difference, I offer some perspective:

...Surprisingly, at least from an old Republican such as myself, the best hope for leadership I see now in the majority party is Sen. Hillary Clinton. She is highly motivated to tread a path to success in Iraq; she knows that without it, she will never be president...

...We never did this during the Vietnam War; nor has any Congress or administration in recent memory seemed willing to trust the American people to understand and make choices about what is at stake and what we are willing to pay in time, money and lives. Congress must also realize that if there is no settlement in the Middle East, the price of oil will more than double. Lawmakers must recognize the threat this poses to our economy.

? Defense spending must be substantially increased. Since 1986 the defense budget has been slighted while needs have only grown. The all-volunteer military needs better wages and better equipment. The troops today have what we lacked in Vietnam -- the will to win and unit cohesiveness and pride. What they don't need is a Congress that thinks it is doing them a favor by cutting off funding for Iraq. They need a Congress that makes national defense a budget priority. Even including the war in Iraq, defense spending is still a sliver of gross domestic product.

? Congress must take the lead in demanding accountability from the Iraqi government. Our troops are in escalating danger from Shiite militias because Iraq's elected leaders do not have the will or the ability to crack down. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been unable to keep the tribal and sectarian factions of Iraq in balance. We cannot do that for him. If he can't or won't do it, he should step down, or we cannot justify the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.

...The call to jihad is powerful, and it is apparently irresistible in the Third World where attempts to export Western culture and values have failed. If widely adopted, radical Islam will fail them even more in the end. And if allowed to play out to its goal of world domination, radical Islam will make the "domino theory" of Southeast Asia pale by comparison.

more

(emphasis added)

Fascinating! After spewing RW talking points, here is the gist of his argument:

He's under the impression that Hillary is willing to stay the course.

A failed Iraq will result in higher oil prices in the U.S.

Dig the country deeper into debt by spend a lot more than the half trillion dollars Iraq has eaten up, fix the broken army, and do the soldiers a favor by giving them better wages to face escalating danger in a war most people think is immoral and unwinnable (That's responsible! With estimates that the current war will cost nearly $2 trillion, anyone for a $3 trillion, never-ending war?)

Link victory to al-Maliki (start packing up troops and equipment). Agree with this: "we cannot justify the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq."

Leaving will result in world domination by radical Islam (fear mongering similar to the spread of communism after U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam).