|
May 05, 2004
Closer to closure?
Regular readers might have noticed that last week I linked to a debate between John Kerry and John O'Neill. Let's see.... It was right here in Philadephia, in 1971. Subject was Vietnam. The two served in the same unit, and neither one has forgotten the issues. Then or (as Glenn Reynolds highlighted) now. Let's start with then. Here's John O'Neill, 1971: I suggest this is a very fine country. If we precipitously withdraw from Vietnam, if we pull out of there leaving our prisoners of war behind, we will leave the heart and soul of this country there also. And here's Kerry at the same event: the killing could end tomorrow if we were only willing to set a date, if we were only willing to state that we will not fire unless fired on, and to bring our troops home.I am struck by a couple of Kerry's remarks. Who was right? Historians can argue the point, but I have a problem with abandoning allies. Equating the South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese governments by calling both "regimes," asking whether bolstering the regime is "what the people want" and talking in terms of whether we should "permit" an ally to defend itself -- these phrases suggest that Kerry had little regard for South Vietnam, or those who had died trying to preserve what freedom they still had. I can't say he supported North Vietnam because I have no way of knowing. I doubt he'd admit it if he did. I don't mean to be stuck in 1971. Forgive me. I was a Marxist at the time, and I really didn't think things through, because I just didn't understand then how much Communism sucks. (After all, North Vietnam had never attacked us, they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and well, they only killed and tortured class enemies.....) I'm just a little concerned that history may be repeating itself. Hope I'm not being paranoid. But fast forward to 2004. Here's O'Neill, in the Wall Street Journal: Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces.Who won the debate back in 1971? It's tempting to ask whether anything has been learned in all those years. This time, whether he will admit it or not, Kerry would place himself in the historical role of Richard Nixon, who sincerely wanted peace with honor, and felt the best way to do that was to hand over the war to the South Vietnamese, who (Nixon believed) could defend themselves with our support. It's tough to pin him down, but I think it's fair to say that Kerry wants to hand Iraq over to the U.N.: ....[A]n international High Commissioner should be authorized by the UN Security Council to organize the political transition to Iraqi sovereignty and the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction with the new Iraqi government. Kerry said the Commissioner should be an individual who is highly regarded by the international community and who has the credibility and capacity to talk to all the Iraqi people.That's the same U.N. which has shown itself to have been in the employ of the guy we just spent untold sums of money and American lives to overthrow. It sounds like a far cry even from Nixon's peace with honor. And it's obvious how Kerry felt about that, so I doubt his bragging about Vietnam will lead us to closure. Now or then. UPDATE: Quite predictably, John O'Neill is being attacked as a "Republican shill." (Via Glenn Reynolds.) Unfortunately, that word is listed only as an adjective in my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (Second Edition, 1957), and not at all in C.T. Onions' "Dictionary of English Etymology, so I have to rely on the Internet. The following is, I guess, as good as any: Noun 1. shill - a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others -- decoy, steerer - a beguiler who leads someone into danger (usually as part of a plot)Which means that, by calling O'Neill a "Republican shill," the Kerry campaign is not merely accusing him of being a Republican, but of concealing it in a dishonest manner, so as to beguile. I do not know O'Neill's party affiliation now, but in 1971 he was apparently a Democrat. In the speech I cited above, both Kerry and O'Neill were addressing a mayors' conference in Philadelphia, presided over by Mayor James Tate, a Democrat. Was O'Neill a "shill" in 1971 too? I am sure some people would say so (as some have), because he was supporting the president's Vietnamization program, and opposing Kerry's demand for an immediate ceasefire and pullout. But if the definition has any meaning, you can only be a shill if you support something by means of deception. Otherwise, anyone you disagree with becomes a "shill," which makes no sense.... Unless, of course, it's meant as an ad hominem attack. Pretending to support that which you secretly oppose (or pretending to oppose what you secretly support) is being a shill. Thus, if someone like Fred Phelps were found to be secretly against the moral conservatism he claims to endorse, he would be a shill. From what I can see of O'Neill, he has favored "the concept of military loyalty" consistently, whether as a Democrat in 1971 or as a Republican today (assuming he is that). If he supports Bush's war strategy, that does not make him a shill for Bush, any more than it makes an antiwar activist working for Kerry a shill for Kerry. Try as I might, I cannot see how stating what you think makes one a shill. As to party affiliation, I am uncomfortable with both parties, and I have switched my registration back and forth more times than I'd care to count. With the exception of 1976 (when I voted Libertarian), I voted Democratic in every election from 1972 through 1992, and since then it's been a mixed bag. I registered Republican in this area because the primaries are "closed" and I fear the growth of radical fundamentalism in the Republican Party. That would appear to make me a shill for the liberal agenda in the Republican Party, although doubtless if I switched back to the Democratic Party and kvetched about my problems with Kerry, I'd be called a "DINO" or a "shill" for the Republicans. Yet I am really not concealing anything; I try to think what I think. What concerns me here is whether O'Neill believes what he says, and I see no reason to doubt that he does. posted by Eric on 05.05.04 at 01:35 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I guess all that makes me a "shill" for despising both political parties, although I do so quite openly.