by Mark Silva
President Bush, who will address the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City today, will attempt to draw parallels between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the wars in Korea and Vietnam.
"There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we are fighting today,'' the president will say, in remarks prepared for delivery today. "But one important similarity is that at their core, they are all ideological struggles. The militarists of Japan and the Communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity. They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force this ideology on others.''
And the American withdrawal from Vietnam had consequences which Bush warns will recur with any precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left,'' Bush plans to say today. "Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like “boat people,” “re-education camps,” and “killing fields.”
The president will again attempt to portray the Iraq war in a broader historical context when he addresses the American Legion next week in Reno.
Ed Gillespie, counselor to the president, says: "In a few weeks Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will deliver their assessments of military and political progress in Iraq, and appropriately much debate and discussion will follow. The president will provide broader context for this long-term debate in two speeches beginning (today) at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City and continuing on August 28 at the American Legion convention in Reno, Nevada.''
Today, he says, the president will talk "about the challenges we face in Iraq against the historic background of our successes in Asia. He will describe how America's presence and perseverance in Asia led to a freer, more stable, and more prosperous continent, transforming American enemies into American allies and making the world safer for our citizens.''
Next week, he says, Bush will follow up by attempting to "put Iraq in the regional context of the Middle East, and discuss why the only realistic path to a more secure America is defeating the extremists in Iraq and allowing a free and stable government to take root.''
For a sampler of what Bush plans to say in Kansas City today, read on:
Excerpts from the president's prepared remarks for the Veterans of Foreign Wars:
"There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we are fighting today. But one important similarity is that at their core, they are all ideological struggles. The militarists of Japan and the Communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity. They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force this ideology on others.
"Today, the names and places have changed, but the fundamental character of the struggle has not. Like our enemies in the past, the terrorists who wage war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places seek to spread a political vision of their own – a harsh plan for life that crushes all freedom, tolerance, and dissent. Like our enemies in the past, they kill Americans because we stand in the way of their goal of imposing this ideology across a vital region of the world. This enemy is dangerous, this enemy is determined, and this enemy will be defeated.
"We are still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we know how the others ended, and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today. The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up an Asian Tiger that is a model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East. And the fruit of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous, and stable continent – whose people want to live in peace with America – not attack America.
"In the aftermath of Japan’s surrender, many thought it naïve to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom.
"Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former U.S. ambassador to Japan who served as Truman’s undersecretary of state, told the President flatly that “democracy in Japan would never work.”
"Other critics argued that democracy could not succeed in Japan because the national religion, Shinto, was too fanatical and rooted in the Emperor. … Today, in defiance of the critics, Japan retains its religious and cultural traditions and stands as one of the world’s great free societies.
"Critics also complained when America intervened to save South Korea from Communist invasion. Then as now, critics argued that the war was futile, that we never should have sent our troops in, or that America’s intervention was divisive here at home.
"Many of these criticisms were offered as reasons for abandoning our commitments in Korea. While it is true that the Korean War had its share of challenges, America never broke its word. Today, we see the result in the stark contrast of life on the Korean Peninsula. Without America’s intervention during the war – and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war – millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime. The Soviets and Chinese Communists would have learned the lesson that aggression pays. And the world would now be facing a larger, stronger, and more implacable enemy.
"Instead, South Korea is a strong, democratic ally of the United States. South Korean troops are serving side-by-side with American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. And America can count on the free people of South Korea to be lasting partners in the ideological struggle against the extremists.
"Finally, there was Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans, and the tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So today I will limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued that the real problem was America’s presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.
"Many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people. In 1972, one antiwar Senator put it this way: “What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they have never seen and may never even have heard of?”
"The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation, torture, or execution. In Vietnam, former American allies, government workers, intellectuals, and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like “boat people,” “re-education camps,” and “killing fields.”
"There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today’s struggle – al Qaeda. In an interview with a Pakistani paper after the Nine Eleven attacks, Bin Laden declared that “the American people had risen against their government’s war in Vietnam. They must do the same today.” His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda’s chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to “the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents.” Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans “know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet.” Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility – but the terrorists see things differently.
"I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives – and that freedom has yielded peace for generations. … The advance of freedom in these lands should give us confidence that the hard work we are doing in the Middle East can have the same results we have seen in Asia – if we show the same perseverance and sense of purpose.
"There is one group of people who understand the stakes: our men and women in uniform. … And today they are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against Al Qaeda, clearing the terrorists out of population centers, and giving families in liberated Iraqi cities their first look at decent and normal life. Our troops are seeing this progress on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they are gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? My answer is clear: We will support our troops, we will support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed.
"Prevailing in this struggle is essential to our future as a Nation. The question now before us comes down to this: Will today’s generation of Americans resist the deceptive allure of retreat – and do in the Middle East what veterans in this room did in Asia?
"Today the violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are as certain of their cause as the Nazis, Imperial Japanese, and Soviet Communists were of theirs. And they are destined for the same fate. The greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the desire for liberty written into the human heart by our Creator. So long as we remain true to our ideals, we will defeat the extremists in Iraq and help that country’s people stand up a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East. When that hard work is done and the critics of today recede from memory, the cause of freedom will be stronger, a vital region will be brighter, and America will be safer.''
(Photo: President Bush arrives in Kansas City, Mo. on Aug. 21, 2007 the night before his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)
• 
• 
• 
Comments
He keeps tryin' but the people ain't buyin'.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | August 22, 2007 7:08 AM
If Bush wants to try for a different outcome in Iraq than we got in Vietnam he better do the math. Vietnam was a much smaller country and we had basically one enemy, the Viet Cong. But even with a US military draft, 500,000 soldiers in country at its peak, tens of thousands of US dead, and more bombs dropped than in WWII we still could not take it. Bush better do the math and start up the draft if he even wants to get to the levels we were at when we lost little Vietnam. How many more resources would it have taken to win? Get real Bush.
Posted by: Jim | August 22, 2007 7:49 AM
Earboy is wrong about Vietnam, but still closer to the truth than he could have imagined. Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist, not a communist. He merely wanted the French out of his country, and fought for that. Eventually, the French realized they were in another Algeria, and so looked for an exit strategy before more French soldiers were killed in an unpopular war against a united front of various terrorist groups trying to drive the foreign invaders out of the country.
Ho Chi Minh actually came to the US asking for help getting the French out. When we refused, China stepped in and offered assistance. That's when the communists became a concern for the anti-communist politicians in the US. They then trumped up the charges against the Vietnamese to get American support for the war.
We know how well that went. There are parallels to Vietnam, but they are not the ones chimpy is looking for. He better be careful or his analogies will prove to be prophetically true.
Posted by: snitramc | August 22, 2007 8:07 AM
It's not about ideology or polotics, it's about religion. In the case of Iraq, it's bewtween Shiites & Sunnis, whove fought off & on for over a thousand years.
Why do you think Christians in Iraq are in greater fear of their lives now then ever before, even with 150,000 US troops?
Posted by: RomanB | August 22, 2007 8:12 AM
GW had better drink a cup of STFU when it comes to
to Vietnam. He got no place, missed the dance. He's right about one thing - Vietnam and Iraq are ideological wars,
and we initiated our involvement in both.
Posted by: indianhead | August 22, 2007 8:55 AM
Dubya has inadvertenly created a perpetual motion machine. It's name is Iraq and it's getting a lot of people killed for no good reason.
The Machine is the mother of all terrorist recruiting, live-fire, and whack-a-mole training grounds.
The Machine has many components: Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, tribesmen, criminals, revenge seekers - and us.
The perpetuity of the Machine is all but guaranteed because the only thing that might have mitigated it is an Iraqi Government political reconcilliation solution.
And not only is that not happening, it is going in the opposite direction.
Dubya has distanced himself from Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki. The old admonition of be careful what you ask for, you might just get it has come into play. Such is the case with al-Maliki. al-Maliki was already feckless and toothless. Now Dubya's emasculated him to what end? Who's going to replace him?
We need to leave Iraq. It should be done in a careful way that props up the Iraqi military and police - to the extent it is possible. We should leave an extensive network of spies and other assorted intelligence gathering assets and a robust special operations capability that allows us swift action when needed.
We should do it now.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 22, 2007 9:20 AM
Let's combine Bush's staement with Maliki's staement of today-
"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.
"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said"
So put the two together and what do we get?
We've written Iraq a blank check payable in american lives, and the Iraqi government feels no obligation to do anything to limit the number of lives lost.
It appears Bush and Maliki are both prfectly willing to make the Vietnam comparison extend to the 58,209 US killed in action.
Posted by: Tony | August 22, 2007 9:23 AM
I hope our great and illustrious Bush reminds the vets that 30 years after 50,000 Americans died in Viet Nam he became the first American president to visit that country, and that Viet Nam has prospered over the decades since our un-glorious departure. I hope that he tells them that his decision to invade Iraq was the result of his divine, messianic visions of turning the Mid-East into one grand democracy. That is the biggest distinction between the wars we've engaged in. We lost Korea, we lost Viet Nam, and we lost Iraq the day we invaded.
Posted by: GW | August 22, 2007 9:41 AM
Why? Why does this man who knows so little about history constantly attempt to rewrite it or completely misrepresent historical findings?
What if the US government had allowed Ho Chi Minh to reach out to them prior to his transformation towards a communist leader. He structured Vietnam's constitution based on ours and was a huge proponent of the United States. Our government decided that because he was an enemy of France, he was an enemy of ours.
Today, we have Bush rewriting the history books to try and convince America that Iraq is a just and proud war, but it is not.
The sad part lies in the fact that most Americans do not understand his fabrications, which has led to the worst eight years of any modern Presidency.
I can see that in the history books.
Posted by: Matt | August 22, 2007 9:42 AM
It is astonishing that the president is asserting that the failures of policy in Korea and Viet Nam were in that we left. Thus, in Bush's mind, the additions to our vocabulary " boat people," "killing fields," and "re-education camps."
This coming from a man who at the time chose NOT to serve his country by battling for the ideological struggles he's today asking fellow countrymen to die for in Iraq and Afganistan. When war waged in Viet Nam - when Bush could have fought the ideological fight - he avoided battle and instead was a bit hard to track down as a member of the National Guard.
I am the daughter of a Korean War veteran, a man who served his country on the mainline in 1952, who never felt that those who died in that war died for a cause worth dying for. North Korea has yet to be defeated; the legacy of our action in Viet Nam is one of tragedy, not victory. We left Viet Nam because to stay would have not changed anything, and to continue to let our soldiers die for no reason had become unacceptable for the American public.
History will judge. History has declared Korea and Viet Nam wars to be failures in American policy. If Bush wants to link his war to these, perhaps he's finally realizing the devastating mistakes he's made, but continues to spin it ways that are simply incredible in their departure from truth.
Posted by: anne W. | August 22, 2007 9:46 AM
and today 18 Americans die in Iraq Helicopter collison. It goes on and on. If Bushy wants us to believe this, he should have his soon to be new Son-In-Law sign up for duty in Iraq. What a joke this man is.
Posted by: chuckk | August 22, 2007 9:52 AM
With a dozen more troops dying in Iraq today, America wants to know, Mr. President....is Jenna preggers??
Sincerely,
An Educated American
Posted by: jac holtzman | August 22, 2007 10:13 AM
Part of Bush's comments will be:
"But one important similarity is that at their core, they are all ideological struggles. The militarists of Japan and the Communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity. They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force this ideology on others."
So, it was wrong for them to have "idealogical vision of proper ordering of humanity," compared to the Chenybush regime's doctrine of toppling governments with which they disagree to force the installation of the "proper order" of government Cheneybush and the neocons want.
It was bad when "they" did it. It's good when "we" do it????
Double-speak has been lowered to the lowest depths possible by the hateful, murdering monsters that are Cheneybush.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2007 10:19 AM
Bush is walking through quicksand when,in order to prop up evaporated support for the fiasco in which his precipitous decisions have mired our nation,he compares the cultures of Japan, an homogenous one,especially to Iraq,relative to the birth of democracy, let alone to religion. Then Vietnam, where the parallel is more appropriate to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (a lie to fool the American people) and his cover to rush to preventive war of non-existent WMDs and phoney links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It will probably play well to his aging audience but the historians will have a field day dissecting it in Op-Ed pieces around the nation.
Posted by: Robert Parson | August 22, 2007 10:21 AM
The common cause is that the U.S. is once again trying to impose it's will on someone else militarily. At no time did Vietnam pose a real threat to the U.S. Remember the "Domino Theory"? If Vietnam falls to the communists, the world will follow. That was the reason given for going into that country. Well, it fell to the communists. I'm still waiting for the commies to take over the U.S. I know, I know, we were attacked on 9/11. That's the reason given for going into Iraq. However, it was not Iraq who attacked us. We should have put all our resources into getting the people who really attacked us, not Iraq. What do Iraq and Vietnam have in common? We messed up in both places.
Posted by: San Miguel | August 22, 2007 10:43 AM
I though we invaded Iraq because of WMDs? Is anyone listening to this guy anymore? I know, 29% are...
Posted by: kb | August 22, 2007 10:49 AM
The administration should be commended for seeking the historical advice of the war college experts to assess the war in Iraq. Perhaps retired Generals Powell and Shinseki should be invited to the conversation, too. It seems the President's initial comments reveal the recurring problem of "group think" in his view of military history. The asymmetric nature of the war on terrorism cannot be approached in the same manner as the WWII classic battle strategy or the proxy strategy of the Cold War. The war on Islamic extremism is complicated by US support of Israeli Zionist extremism. In fact the war on terrorism is an extension of the unresolved Arab and Israeli conflict. American leaders have no strategy in sight to resolve this problem. The reconciliation of the Palestinian issue will not come from the military experts. Rather, the answer will come from religious leaders on both sides who are missing from the discussion.
Posted by: robert yee | August 22, 2007 11:01 AM
Killing our kids and bankrupting our nation for an "ideological struggle". Now is that something to be proud of?
Posted by: DD | August 22, 2007 11:12 AM
robert yee;
I like that.
If we were to establish a national policy I would recommend that the U.S. resolve to never support any religious state. Religious states are collectively a recipe for war. I am not against religion itself, I just don't think it has a place in any government. Any government which decides to impose religious morals on it's people is failing it's people. Government needs to take care of the other stuff, not morals.
Posted by: San Miguel | August 22, 2007 12:02 PM
I don't know why I'm surprised at the gall of this chickenhawk to even mention the war he sat out.
Posted by: Cheryl | August 22, 2007 12:03 PM
"the Communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity."
Those people had a vision for the proper ordering of humanity that they wanted to implement within their own country? The NERVE!!!
Great thing we had the moral fortitude to step in there and violently attempt to force our vision of the proper ordering of humanity on them.
Wonder why it keeps backfiring on us and failing miserably? Oh well.. we'll just keep trying over and over again, expecting a different result every time. Wait.. isn't that the definition of insanity?
Posted by: david k | August 22, 2007 12:08 PM
W was too busy drinking to know what was going on in Vietnam. And Cheney had "other priorities."
Where's the POLITICAL solution, W? I thought that was what the escalation was going to produce?
Posted by: athena | August 22, 2007 12:25 PM
Deserter in time of war Dubya ought to be required to wear a bag over his head every time he invokes Vietnam.
He should thank his chickenhawk feathers that he has Secret Service protection.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 22, 2007 12:43 PM
Next, the Decider will tell us he sees the light at the end of the tunnel. Then if Iraq falls, all of the Middle East will follow. Then, we have to bomb the terrorists back to the stone age. This just reinforces that those who don't know their history are bound to repeat it.
Posted by: Kenneth Janowski | August 22, 2007 1:07 PM
"MY UNCLE DISAGREES WITH YOU" 1ST SGT MAJOR SAID THAT IS NOTHING BUT A LIE"
PLUS HE SAID, THAT IS THE REASON WHY YOU (BUSH) JUST KEPT WALKING ON BY THAT DRAFT TABLE. THAT'S WHY HE WASN'T MAN ENOUGH, AGAIN MY LITTLE NEPHEW, HE WASN'T MAN ENOUGH TO STEP UP TO PLATE AND PROTECT HIS COUNTRY, THIS COUNTRY. ITS JUST A PLOY TO SAY THAT THE VETS OF YESTERDAY ARE ON THE SAME PAGE AS HE. WHEN THEY CAN'T EVEN GET A CHECK UP AT THE VA. ITS JUST A PLOY AS THOUGH THEY ARE SAYING "we got to stay the course."
HE SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW US HERE EITHER.
WE INVITED THEM, AND NOW THEY TOO ARE OUR NEIGHBORS DOWN THE STREET.
HE SAID THEY DIDN'T AND BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE, ON AND ON DIDN'T SERVE ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES. HE SAID BUSH COULDN'T PROVIDE ONE PIECE OF PAPER SHOWING HE SERVED HERE OR THERE. NOT ONE PICTURE OF HIM WITH A VET, NOT EVEN ONE OF HIS FATHERS FRIENDS. PULL OUT A FAMILY PHOTO AND HE SAID HE WOULD REJOIN THE ARMY AND AT THE AGE OF 66 HE WOULD FIGHT IN THIS OCCUPATION. JUST ONE PICTURE.
SO TO MAKE INFERENCE OF THE TWO HAVING THE SAME PLIGHT IS JUST STUPID.
YES SGT MAJOR!
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 22, 2007 1:11 PM
Bush Lied Again;
The killing fields were in Cambodia, not Vietnam, and the Communist Vietamese ended them when they invaded Cambodia in 1979 and ousted Pol Pot.
Posted by: Rob | August 22, 2007 1:13 PM
Always interesting to watch the neo-coms
rise to the defense of Ho Chi Minh and other communist leaders.
Posted by: Shawon | August 22, 2007 1:28 PM
All of a sudden he's an expert on Viet Nam. I'm sure he gained this knowledge hiding out in the Alabama NG while working on low level Republican campaigns. Maybe "five deferrment" Cheney schooled him up on the war they both ducked.
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | August 22, 2007 2:02 PM
So Georgie was against the Viet Nam war before he was for it?
Posted by: Catherine | August 22, 2007 10:06 PM