Sunday, February 26, 2006
A 38 Year Deja Vu Moment
My Deja Vu moment came when I read this editorial by William F. Buckley Jr. on Iraq , in which the influential conservative thinker and founder of the National Review delivers his judgement on the Iraq war. He begins with the assertion: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." And concludes with this advice to the Bush administration: "different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."
Coming 38 years to the month later, Buckley's pronouncement sounds remarkably similiar in tone, reasoning and timing to Walter Cronkite's pronouncement after the Tet Offensive.
The Tet Offensive was launched in February 1968. The immediate and obvious result was a series of horrific photo and TV news reports of Viet Cong (VC) incursions and initial successes, followed by hard fighting. The real military outcome was the literal decimation of the Viet Cong , which ceased to be a viable fighting force, at relatively light losses to US and South Vietnam forces. Even so, Walter Cronkite , the so called "most trusted newsman", announced to his large American audience that America had lost the war. He was dead wrong about the facts on the ground, but, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, became right when anti-war pressure and publicity over the next years built to a failure of national will. This was the outcome that Gen. Giap was hoping for when he sacrificed the VC cadre. Finally, Congress voted to cut all funding and to abandon South Vietnam to its fate.
The rest was a sad damaging history; reflected in the millions of murdered or displaced citizens of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, and also in America's loss of national purpose and resolve in the conduct of world affairs. The fall of Saigon was followed four years later by the Iranian revolution, the loss of our Embassy and the lengthy captivity of its staff. The anti-American Islamic theocracy that rose to power then is now a key participant in the Islamist terror campaign being waged in Iraq and worldwide.
In February of 2006, that campaign has generated global rioting, ostensibly about cartoons, to both arouse Muslims to support the Islamist cause and to intimidate other Muslims and the West into a posture of non-opposition and acquiessence. The great gambit, ala Tet '68, is the bombing of the al-Askari shrine, the Golden Mosque, to incite Shia - Sunni animosity into an Iraqi civil war. The bombing was followed by a series of random or instigated Shia retaliation attacks against Sunni mosques. About a hundred Iraqis were reported killed in a few days; fatwas and political statements were issued; tensions rose and remain high. Considerable media hysteria was published along with more serious media and political concerns focused on the question of whether a real civil war will ensue.
In this context of uncertainty, Buckley declares "defeat", just as Cronkite did 38 years ago. And just as then, Buckley is dead wrong about the facts on the ground. But is his pronouncement an accurate prophecy of an impending collapse of national will?
I hope not. One can draw lots of analogies to Vietnam in '68. But reasoning from (the similarities in) analogy leads to mind rot according to Marvin Minsky, who felt that insight could be obtained only by focusing on the differences. There are a lot of differences between the two situations. Most obvious are the disparate scale of forces involved - both in numbers and casualty counts; the overwhelming US military superiority with a fraction of the troops; the absence of any nuclear power providing cover to the enemy; a clearly different Americam mindset about national security after 9/11; and equally important in a contest for wills, the presence today of instant news analysis and wide dissemination over the internet by blogs as well as traditional news media.
It seems to me that the situation, while not resolved, is turning optimistic and there's a good chance that this al-Qaeda gambit will turn badly against them. We will see.
In the meantime, for more in depth assessments, some good sources include:
* This Publius Pundit Blog for the politics behind the shrine attack;
* This Victor Davis Hanson article which concludes "After visiting the country, I think we can and will win,";
* The excellent series of reports by Bill Roggio on his Fourth Rail blog. His latestIraq "Civil War" Sitrep provides insights on the role of Iran's favorite Iraqi Shia cleric, the devious Moqtada al Sadr and concludes "Four days after the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque, the threat of an all out civil war in Iraq seems to have abated."
* Finally, Ed Morrissey has a great discussion of the Buckley op-ed and the difference between Bush and Conservatives in his Captain's Quarters blog.
Coming 38 years to the month later, Buckley's pronouncement sounds remarkably similiar in tone, reasoning and timing to Walter Cronkite's pronouncement after the Tet Offensive.
The Tet Offensive was launched in February 1968. The immediate and obvious result was a series of horrific photo and TV news reports of Viet Cong (VC) incursions and initial successes, followed by hard fighting. The real military outcome was the literal decimation of the Viet Cong , which ceased to be a viable fighting force, at relatively light losses to US and South Vietnam forces. Even so, Walter Cronkite , the so called "most trusted newsman", announced to his large American audience that America had lost the war. He was dead wrong about the facts on the ground, but, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, became right when anti-war pressure and publicity over the next years built to a failure of national will. This was the outcome that Gen. Giap was hoping for when he sacrificed the VC cadre. Finally, Congress voted to cut all funding and to abandon South Vietnam to its fate.
The rest was a sad damaging history; reflected in the millions of murdered or displaced citizens of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, and also in America's loss of national purpose and resolve in the conduct of world affairs. The fall of Saigon was followed four years later by the Iranian revolution, the loss of our Embassy and the lengthy captivity of its staff. The anti-American Islamic theocracy that rose to power then is now a key participant in the Islamist terror campaign being waged in Iraq and worldwide.
In February of 2006, that campaign has generated global rioting, ostensibly about cartoons, to both arouse Muslims to support the Islamist cause and to intimidate other Muslims and the West into a posture of non-opposition and acquiessence. The great gambit, ala Tet '68, is the bombing of the al-Askari shrine, the Golden Mosque, to incite Shia - Sunni animosity into an Iraqi civil war. The bombing was followed by a series of random or instigated Shia retaliation attacks against Sunni mosques. About a hundred Iraqis were reported killed in a few days; fatwas and political statements were issued; tensions rose and remain high. Considerable media hysteria was published along with more serious media and political concerns focused on the question of whether a real civil war will ensue.
In this context of uncertainty, Buckley declares "defeat", just as Cronkite did 38 years ago. And just as then, Buckley is dead wrong about the facts on the ground. But is his pronouncement an accurate prophecy of an impending collapse of national will?
I hope not. One can draw lots of analogies to Vietnam in '68. But reasoning from (the similarities in) analogy leads to mind rot according to Marvin Minsky, who felt that insight could be obtained only by focusing on the differences. There are a lot of differences between the two situations. Most obvious are the disparate scale of forces involved - both in numbers and casualty counts; the overwhelming US military superiority with a fraction of the troops; the absence of any nuclear power providing cover to the enemy; a clearly different Americam mindset about national security after 9/11; and equally important in a contest for wills, the presence today of instant news analysis and wide dissemination over the internet by blogs as well as traditional news media.
It seems to me that the situation, while not resolved, is turning optimistic and there's a good chance that this al-Qaeda gambit will turn badly against them. We will see.
In the meantime, for more in depth assessments, some good sources include:
* This Publius Pundit Blog for the politics behind the shrine attack;
* This Victor Davis Hanson article which concludes "After visiting the country, I think we can and will win,";
* The excellent series of reports by Bill Roggio on his Fourth Rail blog. His latestIraq "Civil War" Sitrep provides insights on the role of Iran's favorite Iraqi Shia cleric, the devious Moqtada al Sadr and concludes "Four days after the destruction of the dome of the Golden Mosque, the threat of an all out civil war in Iraq seems to have abated."
* Finally, Ed Morrissey has a great discussion of the Buckley op-ed and the difference between Bush and Conservatives in his Captain's Quarters blog.
