That Vietnam Analogy 2

After four years of watching a humiliating and wretched war in Iraq, the Weekly Standard hasn’t abandoned its flip and supercilious tone, which makes me think tone was all the Standard ever had. Under the headline, “Hands Off My Analogy,” the writer goes on in said tone for paragraphs about how the Vietnam analogy was kosher in American public discourse only until Bush — a Republican — used it. True enough. But only at the end does the writer admit the uproar might really be a debate over how we read history, how we interpret the American bloodbaths. He quotes a former Clinton staffer admitting things went bad in Southeast Asia after the US left:

“But this happened because the United States left too late, not too early. . . . It was the expansion of the war that opened the door to Pol Pot and the genocide of the Khmer Rouge.”

Touché, right? Score one for the Democrat. It’s exactly the point William Pfaff made in his current disturbing column. So how does the Standard reply? With trenchant counter-analysis?

Nope, with tone:

Here is another “lesson” from Vietnam that, if true, would tend to support war opponents calling for America to leave Iraq.

Aren’t we brilliant! A far better piece on the ugly, complicated reality in Iraq is by Die Zeit editor Josef Joffe, who wonders if a strong expansionist America is really worse than a strong expansionist Russia, China, or Iran (all expanding, if not strong). Answer: Of course not. But that doesn’t mitigate the American mistake. The title on Joffe’s piece is “If Iraq Falls,” and I would just point out to Herr Joffe that Iraq fell in 2003. So far it hasn’t gotten up.

     posted 28 August 2007 by Michael Scott Moore