Iraq vs. Vietnam: Hold Them Accountable

Many well-meaning people ask, “How can you call Vietnam the beginning of a conservative era while calling an identical war in Iraq the end of the same era?”

Simple, really.

Vietnam was a defensive war. It was a Cold War activity. It was seen that way by the public at the time, defined that way by policymakers, and the argument against it was that it was useless, not offensive. See Domino Theory. Its conduct was investigated several times, the results given to the public, and the public continued supporting candidates who prosecuted the war.

Iraq is an offensive war. Even the reasons given by the Administration for invading were reasons for launching an offensive war. The WMDs had not been fired by us, assuming they existed. Most important of all, there has been, to this date, no thoroughgoing investigation of the war or its conduct. 

This is an absolutely crucial difference. Once it became apparent there were no WMDs, that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers, once the reason for the war shifted, support for the war began to crumble.

Americans support a defensive war. Even our offensive wars, against Mexico and Spain, were sold as defensive. The Maine and the alleged Mexican provocations against Texas (due to a disputed border) could be seen as attacks against the United States. There was nothing like that here – only the hint that an attack might come, a hint that was proven false.

Yet we are still there. What is being defended, except our soldiers' butts?

It's that kind of contradiction which leads people to question basic political assumptions, assumptions that had held for a generation, since the late 1960s. When those assumptions are used, endlessly, in an attempt to sell a policy in contradiction with the assumption, it's waves against a rock, and the rock wears away.

 

Democrats don't have to sell an alternative policy in order to win this election. They only need repeat the need to hold people accountable.

• Hold Osama Bin Laden accountable.
• Hold the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia accountable.
• Hold the money flows that enabled 9/11 accountable.
• But also, hold those who lied accountable. Hold those who stole accountable. Hold those who tortured accountable. Hold those who violated the Constitution accountable.
• Investigate, yes. In a bipartisan, accountable, transparent way, yes. Gather all the facts.
• Then hold people who did wrong accountable.

That work will not begin until we have a Democratic Congress, because we've had a Republican one since this mess started and there have been no real investigations of anything. Not of Bin Laden, not of the Saudis, not of the money trail, not of the war, not of the torture, not of the wiretapping, nothing.

Let's look into it. And then decide what to do. 

 

Comments

[Russ Martin]

I agree 100%, and would like to add that the accountability should go all the way to the top. The American people should not accept scapegoats as they did in the Iran-Contra affair and more recently in the Abu Ghraib case.

In a murder for hire case, if you know who pulled the trigger you have to prosecute that person. But you also have to get the person who paid them.

Put those "tired old men with the electric hands" ( Don Henley ) behind bars and then the world will be on America's side again.

[Tom]

On Aug 5, I blogged about a related thing, the abuse at Abu Ghraib, and came to close to the same conclusion. No scapegoats, hold these people accountable.

http://wunderphul.blogspot.com/2006/08/prosecutor-calls-for-murder-trial-for.html