Saturday, August 07, 2004

Kerry and Vietnamization

Looks like Kerry's inane plan to paint himself as a Vietnam vet capable of leading the USA has finally begun to implode. How he could attempt to use his brief service in the first place is beyond me- he totally erased whatever credibility that gave him when he came back and became an anti-war protestor, swearing to Congress that GIs were nothing but war criminals. For him to now claim that service as his defining characteristic is just ridiculous. It was obvious from day one that his anti-war activities would override his naval service. Quite aside from the new campaign by the Swift Boat vets, Kerry has to have known that he cannot paint himself as a war hero when he attacked not only the war but the American troops who served there.

And check out his interview with O'Neil on the Swiftvets site for his attitude to Vietnamization- the training and equipping of the South Vietnamese to defend themselves- he seemed not at all concerned about massacres which would likely be carried out by the North Vietnamese when the US pulled out-

"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. There's just no pur- –
I realize that there would be certain political assassinations, and that might take place. And I think when you balance that against the fact that the United States has now accounted for some 18,600 people through its own Phoenix program, which is a program of assassination, and when you balance that off against the morality of the kind of bombing we've been doing in Laos and the kind of destruction wholesale of the country of Vietnam, which amounts to some 155,000 civilians a year killed, then I think to talk about four or five thousand people is lunacy in terms of the overall argument and what we're seeking in Southeast Asia."

Now what I take from that is that Kerry doesn't believe that the communist N. Vietnamese will conduct a wholesale massacre after a US withdrawal, but they might carry out some political assassinations (some four or five thousand people) but that's okay, because the US war has led to the deaths of some 18,600 people. In other worlds, it's okay to abandon the United State's allies in S. Vietnam because the number of them who die as a result will not be near to the number of people killed by the US.
Is that the attitude of a man who should lead the United States as Commander-in-Chief? Is that the attitude of a man who should be anywhere near the reigns of power? That simply disgusts me. To Kerry, those people he expects to die, opponents of the spread of communism remember- the biggest threat to the free world since the end of World War 2- mean absolutely nothing. Zilch. He doesn't give a damn. Nevermind that John O'Neil points out that 50 to 60,000 people were killed when the N. Vietnamese took over the North, nevermind the sacrifice of the American troops already killed fighting the communists. Kerry just wants out.

I wonder if his attitude has changed; we're now involved in the same process in Iraq- training and equipping the Iraqi people to defend themselves while they prepare for democracy. Is Kerry going to cut and run out on them too? Does he care that the very people now striving to create a free society would be murdered? Does he care about the sacrifice already made by the coalition troops? I think Kerry's vague plan for Iraq, his secret plan, needs to be made public right now- because if it is to take American troops home and leave Iraq to the UN (who, let's face it will stay just until the first IED explodes) then we need to know. A quick Google reveals that 62 British troops have died so far in Iraq- and 925 Americans.

I'm not an American citizen, but the results of this election matter a lot to me- I'd rather those men, British and Amercian- and the 61 other coalition troops- did not die in vain. If John Kerry has a plan to solve the Iraq problem, to reduce the strain on American (and British) troops by getting other countries to shoulder their part of the burden- and perhaps save some from death by roadside bomb or RPG attack, then why doesn't he come out with it now? If he could prevent the death of another American soldier or marine, why doesn't he do it now? What's more important to him- the lives of American soldiers or playing political games?
I think the people deserve to know- where does Kerry stand? Will he support the Iraqi people? Will he try to save American lives by revealing his secret plan? Or will he pull the troops out if he's elected? Will he dishonour the sacrifce that the troops have made? Will he allow the pro-democracy elements of Iraqi society be butchered? Will he allow a nation to be taken over by terrorists?
This is too important a matter for Kerry to play games with- people have died and are still dying. Terrorists continue to undermine the movement towards democracy, they even continue to plot against the US and Britain. Where does Kerry stand? Will he see this through to the end or will he (like he did in Vietnam) cut and run?

No comments: