Vietnam Redux

“The American response during the enemy offensive was timely, forceful and decisive. This staunch resolve of the U.S. to stand behind its ally stunned the enemy.” LTG Ngo Quanq Truong, Army of the Republic of Vietnam, 1972

“It is a fact that in the United States all the press, the media and intellectuals have a vested interest in our defeat.” Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, 1974

“. . . perhaps the major lesson of the Vietnam war is: do not rely on the United States as an ally.” Sir Robert Thompson, one of Britain’s leading experts on counterinsurgency, 1974.

Yesterday (October 18), George Stephanopoulos, in an interview with President Bush, asked if the current increase in violence in Iraq is comparable to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. His question deserves an answer.

In the minds of many liberals, invoking Tet is the ultimate trump card to prove that the U.S. cannot, perhaps should not, win any war in the third world. In this, they are right that the lessons of Vietnam should be applied to Iraq. But, they are totally wrong in both fact and interpretation of what those lessons are.

The quotes above summarize the path of the Vietnam War and, regrettably, the path that we seem to be taking in Iraq.

In February 1968, North Vietnam violated the lunar New Year cease fire agreement and launched a massive attack throughout South Vietnam. Their goal was to spark a local uprising to overthrow the South Vietnamese government. In spite of some brief territorial gains, most notably in Saigon and Hue, the attack was a total failure. The local uprising in support of the North did not occur, the communist infrastructure established in the South was eliminated, and at the end of the battles, the casualties suffered by the North Vietnamese were more than 100 percent of the original attacking forces.

More importantly, Tet was such a major setback to North Vietnam’s ability to wage war in the South, that it would take another four years before the North could restore the capability to do so. By the end of 1971, 95 percent of the population of the South supported their government, agricultural production was at historically high levels, the communists were confined to small enclaves in the jungle, and one could travel almost anywhere in South Vietnam in security. I know. I was there.

By most accepted definitions, the war had been won and the peace was fairly nearly won.

But, Tet was portrayed as a defeat for the American effort by the media and that view was adopted by a large segment of our country. Indeed, it has entered the conventional wisdom as a symbol of the futility of exercising American power.

The political climate that emerged from such a biased view, led to precipitous withdraw of American forces based upon unilateral timetables that bore no relationship to what was actually happening in Vietnam. (Sound familiar?)

In 1968’s Tet battles, the US had 543,400 military personnel in South Vietnam. The politically imposed reductions lowered that number by more than 90 percent to 49,000 by early 1972. In spite of those reductions, a dramatic shift in the tactics used by the U.S. forces and acceleration in training and empowering the South Vietnamese military helped secure the peace after Tet.

The reductions in US force levels were accompanied by promises to the South Vietnamese that the US would continue to support their country with supplies and air support. That promise was to be tested in Easter 1972.

On March 30, 1972, North Vietnam launched a conventional invasion of the South which, in terms of manpower, was larger than the 1968 Tet Offensive. Every combat division and independent brigade in the North Vietnamese army was committed. The South Vietnamese army faced them standing alone on the ground; there were no American troops to help them. They were helped only by continued supplies and available American airpower. (As an aside, my tour in Vietnam ended just a month before this offensive began. I was intimately familiar with many of the areas of conflict and followed it in great detail—my friends were still there.)

The results were the same as in 1968. South Vietnam, without US troops at their side this time, massively defeated the North. The Republic of Vietnam had turned back the communist invasion and was still in control of its territory. America’s quest to help an ally obtain freedom was almost accomplished. And, our fidelity was appreciated, as seen by the first quote above.

But, this victory was not reported in America. To the extent it was covered at all, the reporting was critical of the South and, especially, of continued US support of a “doomed” cause.

Political pressure to withdraw the US at any cost continued to mount, forcing a peace accord in 1974 that all parties knew at the time was a sham; North Vietnam would not honor any commitments it had made. Knowing that future attacks were certain to occur, the US promised South Vietnam that it would continue to provide military aid and air support in the case of another invasion.

The Congress didn’t care, it only wanted out. Treaty commitments were ignored. Promised aid was not forthcoming. South Vietnamese military supplies were so limited that, in some units, bullets were issued to the soldiers one at a time. When the inevitable invasion occurred in 1975, the South was truly alone; the US reneged on every promise of support that it had made.

Even though the invading forces of 1975 were no more powerful than those of 1972, this time they won handily.

Who can forget the images of the final day of Saigon’s fall? The rooftops were covered with those who had believed that the American Dream of freedom could be theirs. Their arms were raised to the heavens, some holding children. Those arms were not raised in prayer to God, but in unanswered prayer to the fleeing US helicopters that they not be abandoned.

The South Vietnamese lost their struggle to be free, and the cost of their defeat was high. The armed forces lost 275,000 killed in action. Another 465,000 civilians lost their lives; many were assassinated by the Viet Cong and others fell to the indiscriminate shelling of cities by the North. More than two million were driven from their country. Of those who stayed, an estimated 315,000 were either executed outright or killed in the vicious “reeducation” camps set up by their “liberators”.

I fear that my country is traveling down the same ignominious path that it trod three decades ago. Once again, we are trying to help the people of a country to be free and in control of their own land. Once again, we have many influential voices who have staked their political future to an American failure. And again, they are using the same tactics that they used in Vietnam to twist the facts, distort the accomplishments, and ignore the implications for those we are trying to help.

If they succeed in their efforts to get America to withdraw from the struggle, the strategic implications for the Middle East and impact on the US will be dire. But, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have joined with the US to fight for freedom and democracy in their country won’t care. They will be dead; killed, like others before them, for putting their trust in a country that is not bound by its own promises.

The combat troops of Vietnam shared an attitude that is common with the troops of today in Iraq: the cause of freedom is a worthy one and the people we are trying to help deserve that help.

It’s a shame that too many of our political leaders don’t agree.

What's Going On?

Today's Washington Post and National Public Radio share the same headline: "U.S. Casualties in Iraq Rise Sharply". The basis for this is the fact that 776 wounded U.S. troops in September is the fourth highest total since the war began in 2003.

These publications, along with the other "mainstream" media such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN make much of the 2,700 U.S. killed since the start of the war. Each week the death count finds its way into the headlines in some form. Periodically, many of them will post photos of the young men and women who have died.

I'm sure that these numbers are accurate. But, have you noticed that these same media sources:

• Almost never mention the number of enemy casualties?
  
• Almost never mention any successes achieved by the coalition forces?
  
• Almost never mention the many acts of individual heroism and awards for valor?

What does 2,700 deaths mean without placing them in the context of what is being achieved at such a cost? Yes, each death breaks the heart of a family for evermore. But, from the viewpoint of a nation, such a number doesn't tell us very much in isolation. For example:

• 2,700 deaths equal about three months of fighting during the height of the Vietnam War.
  
• 2,700 deaths equal a half a day of fighting during the Normandy Invasion in 1944.
  
• 2,700 deaths equal about an hour's worth of fighting at the battle of Antietam in 1862.

But, does any one of the above "facts"--by itself--tell us whether those wars were worth fighting?

It is possible to tell nothing but the truth, and still fail to give a truthful picture of what is actually happening. With the media focusing only upon the cost of the war and giving very little attention to what is being achieved, do you think they are really giving us the full story?

Regardless of your position on the war, please ask yourself this: Can your position be as fully informed as it should be, if your source of information provides only selected negative "facts"?

What's really going on here?

The Decline of Majority Rule

Among the most treasured principles of American democracy are “one man, one vote” and “the majority rules”. Together, they ensure that the will of the people cannot be held hostage to the views of a determined minority. They are the secret of our political stability; they force compromise. Unlike so many other countries that change governments with the seasons, we have been blessed with stability and a government that never strays too far from the center of gravity of American opinion.

That is beginning to change, and America is the worse for it. If you are among the many who decry the lack of bi-partisan cooperation in Washington, what has happened in the U.S. Senate has helped fuel the acrimony.

How this is happening is a little bit technical. But, the implications are so important that it is worth looking at. Here is the bottom line:

It has now become conventional wisdom in Washington that no important measure can pass the Senate unless it has 60 votes—a 60 percent super majority. This has happened because the Senate Democrats have abused Senate rules and the Republican leadership has allowed them to do it. The legacy of the 109th Congress will be a new practice that weakens the need for compromise and empowers whomever is in the minority to block legislation and thwart consensus.

This is how it came about.

The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, codifies the principle of “one man, one vote” in the sections that created the Congress and its two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The vote cast by each of our elected representatives is equal to those of all other members of the Congress. The Constitution is silent, however, on what the voting standard should be for the Congress to enact a law. It does require that a super majority be required for such extraordinary actions as: impeachment, expelling a member from the Congress, vetoing a bill signed by the President, or passing an amendment to the Constitution.

But it says nothing about what will be required to approve a bill or, in the case of the Senate, confirm a Presidential appointment to the Executive or Judicial Branches. Perhaps the American tradition of settling disputes on the principle of 50 percent plus one vote was so ingrained in our culture, that the authors of the Constitution felt it was unnecessary to spell it out. And, that has generally been the practice until lately.

Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution provides that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . .” Thus, each has developed detailed rules of how it will conduct its business. They are different for each; generally, the Senate is much less restrictive on the rights of individual members. Under the Senate rules, the first Senator to ask the chair for recognition must be recognized and, once recognized, may hold the floor for as long as he or she is willing to speak. All business before the Senate stops at that point. The Senator holding the floor is in complete control and cannot even be interrupted without his consent—as long as the Senator keeps talking and doesn’t sit down.

The vast majority of the time, this is no impediment to the conduct of business before the Senate. A Senator will hold the floor only long enough to state a position or argument in the debate and then yield it to other Senators. But, when a Senator decides to capture the floor to force public attention to an issue, it makes for high drama. This is called a filibuster.

We’ve all seen the movie in which Jimmy Stewart bravely holds the floor to protest corrupt legislation until his eventual collapse from physical exhaustion shames the guilty into confessing the crime. In real life, the cause has not always been so noble (e.g. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina set the record with a 24 hour speech in 1957 to defend racial segregation), but the drama has been as compelling as the movies.

The Senator controlling the floor to champion a position forces all other 99 Senators to participate. A majority is forced to be available or on the floor regardless of the hour. Cots are brought in so that other Senators may sleep outside the door of the chamber to be ready for instant attendance when the quorum is called. It is physically and emotionally exhausting for everyone. But, the country is transfixed by the drama. It is perhaps the single most effective way to publicize a position for public consideration.

The only way to end a filibuster is to invoke cloture. This requires a 60 percent super majority vote. If all Senators are present this requires 60 votes.

Filibusters are messy and expensive. And, worst of all, from a political point of view, they can backfire. A Senator may feel strongly opposed to a position that a majority of the Senate and the American people would support. A filibuster will allow that Senator to bring everything to a halt for a while and focus national attention on his or her views, but it will also make that Senator personally responsible in the public’s eye for opposing a popular measure or nomination.

Wouldn’t it be more convenient if one could block legislation without ever taking personal responsibility for doing so? This is what is happening now.

The Senate has had a long standing, informal practice that allows an individual Senator to put a “hold” on a measure or nomination that will be coming to the floor for a vote. Implicitly, it is a notice that the Senator may filibuster the vote. A hold is secret. The name of the Senator requesting it is not made public. It has no standing in the rules and is not formally binding on the leadership. But, by custom, it is honored.

When a hold is placed, all action on that measure is stopped until the Senator changes his or her mind, the leadership breaks with custom, or cloture is invoked to preempt a filibuster.

This is the technique the Democrats have perfected over the past few years. A secret hold is placed on nominations and bills to which the Democratic leadership objects. This is done even when it is clear that a majority of the Senate—including Democrats—would vote to approve the matter. The Republican majority is then placed in the position of finding 60 votes to break the hold. Since the issue then becomes one of party solidarity on a procedural matter, that is a threshold that has been almost impossible to achieve.

The only way to circumvent a hold, as things are now done, is to have 60 votes in your pocket before you bring a bill or nomination to the floor.

As long as this practice is allowed to continue, it will increase in frequency until the vast number of bills and nominations are subject to it. We are not very far away from the point that passing legislation will require a three-fifth’s vote, not a majority. That is because blocking legislation in this way is a free gift of power to the minority. They have much to gain and nothing to loose.

When the ruling party has only a small majority, this practice increases the strength of the minority party. It gains not only negotiating leverage, but the power to disrupt or derail the other party’s legislative agenda. At the same time, there is no political risk or cost to do so. No individual member of the minority must take responsibility.

This is wrong. If a Senator feels strongly enough about a bill or nomination to block the entire chamber from taking action, then he or she should have the right to do so with a traditional filibuster. But, the Senator should also take the responsibility for his or her position. Let the country decide on the merits of the issue.

No Senate Majority Leader of the past, of either party, would have allowed stealth, in-the-dark filibusters to so weaken the ability of the Senate to fulfill its responsibilities. It is not too late to end the practice, and it should be done with the beginning of the 110th Congress in January.