How GOP can blame Democrats for losing war the Nixon way

[yurbud]

Published on Friday, January 12, 2007 by the Los Angeles Times
How Republicans Win if We Lose in Iraq
Bush and the GOP are shifting tactics just like Nixon did with Vietnam -- to win the next election, not the war.
by Rosa Brooks

Writing on this page Thursday, Jonah Goldberg praised President Bush for telling Americans that "he will settle for nothing less than winning" in Iraq. Sure, Goldberg acknowledged, Bush "may be deluding himself," but at least he's "trying to win." No, he's not.

***

By 1971, Nixon and Kissinger understood that "winning" in Vietnam was no longer in the cards — so they shifted from trying to win the war to trying to win the next election. As Nixon put it in March 1971: "We can't have knocked over brutally … " Kissinger finished the thought " … before the election." So Nixon and Kissinger pushed the South Vietnamese to "stand on their own," promising we'd support them if necessary. But at the same time, Kissinger assured the North Vietnamese — through China — that the U.S. wouldn't intervene to prevent a North Vietnamese victory — as long as that victory didn't come with embarrassing speed.

As historian Jeffrey Kimball has documented, Kissinger's talking points for his first meeting with Chinese Premier Chou En-lai on the topic of Vietnam included a promise that the U.S. would withdraw all troops and "leave the political evolution of Vietnam to the Vietnamese." The U.S. would "let objective realities" — North Vietnamese military superiority — "shape the political future." In the margins of his briefing book, Kissinger scrawled a handwritten elaboration for Chou: "We want a decent interval. You have our assurance."

***

In December 1974, tired of hemorrhaging funds to prop up the failing South Vietnamese government, the Democrat-controlled Congress finally pulled the plug on further U.S. financial support. The following April, Saigon fell, just as Kissinger and Nixon had privately predicted. But enough time had elapsed for Republicans to pin the blame on South Vietnamese missteps and, most important, on the perfidy of the Democratic Party

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0112-22.htm

[BOSSHOG]

1. I don't buy that argument

besides the gop will be in minority status for at least the next 25 years.

[yurbud]

2. I don't know if I buy that it will work, but it explains what Dems are doing

[AndyA]

3. Everyone knows Iraq is a Bush/Republican war. They also know it should have never happened.

I think anything the Dems do at this point, as long as it's with the intent to end the war and bring our troops safely home, will be OK. They do need to make sure the Iraq war is pinned on Bush and the GOP, and they need to repeat, repeat, repeat, that it was done improperly from the very beginning, while Republicans were in total control of everything.

Stick it to their foreheads. Let them bear the scarlet W for years to come. It's their war. It's their mess. They created it. Now they can live it.

[yurbud]

4. I agree. The democrats may be too polite to do it though

[stray cat]

5. Republicans are setting dems up to be the fall guys

We could have won in Iraq but the dems lost the war for us and now look at the mess we're in.

[AndyA]

7. How so? The Republicans have had 4 years to win the war.

They declared "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" long ago.

So, if that's the case, why are our troops still over there, and why are we spending all that money every day in Iraq?

We have dying people here in America. Bring the troops home and take care of America for a change.

The Dems just need to keep hammering it in: The Republicans started this war based on lies. We're ending it. It should have never happened in the first place. It was all based on lies from George Bush.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[TwilightGardener]

8. No, there is a danger here that the article expresses well--

if we cut off the funds, this is what will happen. We all know there is no possibility of Iraq being a "win" in the near future, so Chimpy is stringing it along to avoid calling it a loss. Psychologically, to many people, it's not a loss as long as we're still there fighting. Withdrawal=losing. If Democrats were to enforce the troop withdrawal timetable or force the war to end, then Democrats have lost the war. When the war ends, it's lost--it's like musical chairs when the music stops, and the GOP intends to grab a seat and leave the Dems standing.

Edit to add: If the GOP starts advocating withdrawal, then they will paint it as some sort of victory.

[yurbud]

10. yep--it's a problem when one party owns the media

there could still be a GOP congress and they'd figure out a way to blame the withdrawal on Democrats.

[TwilightGardener]

6. This is something everyone should read--thank you. A few

thoughts: Think of all the men who died in that "decent interval".

It sounds very much like BushCo is following the same strategy, when even Petraeus acknowledges he won't have enough troops to turn Iraq around.

I'll bet any money the GOP is going to suddenly declare that "peace is at hand" in the late summer or fall, and start advocating for some sort of withdrawal (not complete, still got the oil/embassy there, mind you). Then they will blame Democrats for dooming the surge to failure because of micromanagement, demoralizing troops, emboldening enemies, what have you, while they take on the noble role of bringing the troops home.

Isn't Kissinger still around, advising BushCo?

Scary stuff--K&R

[yurbud]

9. kissinger is still around

[agincourt]

11. Best evaluation,

Of what the Repigs did back then and what they are trying to do now. Nixon dragged out the war for 4 more years and then blamed it on the Dems. Bush used the war to hang Saddam for personal reasons and fill his cronys pockets. Now with the war costing the Repigs politically, he'll try to pin the tail of the fiasco on the Democrats. Sneaky shit lubricated by a GOP-fellating corporate media and collective American history going down the memory hole.