The New Hero of the Democratic Party: President Richard Nixon

Posted by Ray Robison on 11.17.2006

It turns out modern day Democrats have quite a bit in common with the man they love to hate. While many Democratic leaders have made political hay by making comparisons to the Vietnam War there is one aspect of it they have studiously avoided mentioning; Vietnamization.



One of Nixon's campaign pledges was a promise to withdraw US forces from Vietnam. He proposed a "phased redeployment" of American forces to support positions outside the country. The Republican president, Nixon wanted and expected the South Vietnamese to do the fighting themselves. Sound familiar? This is exactly what the Democrats pledged for Iraq in order to win Congress. Who knew they would find in Nixon such a role model?

The Vietnam War was portrayed by supporters as necessary to contain the spread of Communism much as some claim the Iraq war is necessary to contain the Jihadists and terrorists or if you prefer "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here". While "containing Communism" was scoffed at by many at the time (and still is by some), events in the region soon played out to prove true the dire predictions of Communist rule. The loss of American resolve in Vietnam not only affected that country but destabilized the region. Does that sound familiar? It should. Military generals, terrorism experts and political leader have been making the point that a loss of US resolve in Iraq will embolden the terrorists, Iran and Syria.

And if that isn't enough, examine this statement from Senator John Kerry on the Dick Cavett show back in 1971 about withdrawal from Vietnam.

MR. KERRY: The true fact of the matter is, Dick, that there's absolutely no guarantee that there would be a bloodbath. There's no guarantee that there wouldn't. One has to, obviously, conjecture on this. However, I think the arguments clearly indicate that there probably wouldn't be. First of all, if you read back historically, in 1950 the French made statements – there was a speech made by, I think it was General LeClerc, that if they pulled out, France pulled out, then there would be a bloodbath. That wasn't a bloodbath. The same for Algeria. There hasn't been. I think that it's really kind of a baiting argument. There is no interest on the part of the North Vietnamese to try to massacre the people once people have agreed to withdraw.

Sound familiar? It should. Kerry is basically saying back in 1971 that "we are the problem". The Vietnamese have no reason to fight a civil war if we are gone. If that doesn't sound exactly like what the Democrats are saying about Iraq then you have had your head up your "fourth point of contact" as they say at airborne school. These similarities are chilling now in light of the utter devastation in the region caused by the Communist onslaught brought about by Vietnamization.

So what was the cost of "phased redeployment" versus a strategy of victory? Well for one the US military was demoralized for decades. During the first Gulf War in 1991 the media was still talking about the military throwing off the ghosts of Vietnam. Twenty years later and the military was still a big question in a lot of people's minds up until then (undeservedly so but it was so none the less). This type of loss of credibility has a huge impact on military recruitment and thus directly affects your security here at home. In other words, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, "you lose the war with the army you hate." Disrespect our soldiers by putting one in the lose column when they are so clearly in the win column will ruin what it took decades to get back; American military pride.

But if you are a liberal who would not deign to be caught caring about American security or influence in the world (other than to point out how immoral that is), how about the humanistic component? How about the utter devastation left in South East Asia?

During this period of Nixon's phased redeployment, the Khmer Rouge Communists took over the government of Cambodia leading to the extermination of roughly 25% of that countries population, or two million people. This horrendous slaughter on the order of magnitude of the Jewish holocaust might have been avoided if Nixon had not signaled American intentions to wash our hands of the region. And that wasn't even in Vietnam.

After Nixon withdrew all ground forces from Vietnam, the North Vietnamese broke their peace agreements (surprise, surprise) and took over Southern Vietnam that we had abandoned. Of course the Communist atrocities continued there and hundreds of thousands died. It was then that the North Vietnamese implemented the infamous "re-education" camps where the primary focus was to torture civilians into compliance.

Khmer Rouge forces invaded Vietnam, Vietnamese forces invaded Cambodia. The Chinese who supported Vietnam invaded Vietnam in retaliation for the invasion of Cambodia which was in retaliation for the Khmer Rouge invasion of Vietnam. How many more hundreds of thousands of people died because we decided the cost was too high and the war was immoral? Does this sound at all familiar?

Does anybody think that Iran won't march in within days of American withdrawal? Does anybody think that millions more in the region won't fall to insurgency after insurgency? Not only will the professional Mujihadeen class be perceived as victorious over the Americans, they will be perceived to have beaten the United States and the Soviet Union (in Afghanistan) which makes a pretty darned good recruiting poster down at the local madrassas. Al Qaeda's ranks will swell exponentially. Right now we have them on the ropes. Al Qaeda had to transform due to the brutal beating they have received from the US. Give up in Iraq and all that is gone.

How do you think this will end? Will all sides in Iraq just make nice if we leave? Or will American victory in Iraq, stabilization of a free and democratic Arab government, provide the best chance for the Iraqi people as it did for Western Germany and Japan?

And the real kicker is that although there was a reasonable argument to be made about American involvement in Vietnam being fraught with military and political blunders, the war in Iraq has been prosecuted with magnificent respect for life, respect for local sensitivities and public perceptions.

The antiwar crowd and the Democrats have successfully managed to draw unwarranted parallels between instances like Abu Ghraib and My Lai. Through their media accomplices, they have managed to plant the seeds of doubt about American military competency by convincing the public that the US suffered a defeat during the first battle of Fallujah. The withdrawal of US forces from Fallujah was a political decision of the Iraqi Coalition government which soon realized they were now the new target of the insurgents and terrorists and subsequently asked US forces to go back into Fallujah along side Iraqi forces. It was in no way a military defeat. Does that sound familiar? Probably not because the media says we lost that battle every chance they get.

Despite the democrats and the media's best efforts, the fact remains that an American force has conducted a Security and Stability Operation in the heart of the Middle East for three years with less than 3,000 KIA. That is a remarkable, historical military accomplishment. The US military is nowhere near defeat. Recruitment is up, moral is high and this military will not fail as long as we don't allow the Vietnamization of Iraq.

Ray Robison is a military analyst, former army officer and contributor to Fox News.com and The American Thinker. He blogs at Ray Robison.com