Kissinger Debunks Dem War Rhetoric
Friday, November 17, 2006 at 02:20PM Bottom Line Up Front: In contrast with Democrats, Henry Kissinger says the conflict in Iraq cannot be won without a U.S. military presence.
For 3 years, Democrats have consistently been calling Iraq a quagmire, comparing it to Vietnam and claiming that Operation Iraqi Freedom “cannot be won militarily”. DNC Chairman Howard Dean and Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha, whom incoming House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi lauds as a "magnificent contributor to the debate on the war in Iraq", all say that the war on terror in Iraq cannot be won militarily.
However, not everyone agrees. Henry Kissinger, the German born Secretary of State of the United States from 1973 to 1977 for Presidents Nixon and Ford, helped negotiate an end to the Vietnam war in 1973. Kissinger was interviewed this morning on Fox News Live at 10:15 am EST/9:15 am EST with E.D. Hill about the similarities between Iraq, Vietnam and whether this war can be won militarily.
HILL: President Bush (is) in Vietnam for an economic summit, the first visit to a country where America lost a two decade long fight against Communism. And the Commander in Chief says the Vietnam war is a lesson for today’s conflict in Iraq, and that it takes time to trump hatred.
HILL: As you saw Pres. Bush in Vietnam, what went through your mind as he was saying that we have to draw lessons from the Vietnam war as we wage this battle in Iraq?
KISSINGER: The Vietnam war really was a different kind of war from the war in Iraq. The Vietnam war was an episode in the Cold War. This is an episode more of an ideological conflict with no clear cut front lines as there were in Vietnam towards the end. So there was a government from the other side in Vietnam with which to negotiate. There is no government really on the terrorist side in Iraq, so that is a very important difference.
HILL: So when people say, “Iraq is another Vietnam” you would respond that it’s not even close.
KISSINGER: The local conditions are not even close. The only similarity is that some of the divisions in our country can reach a point where it becomes difficult to do any creative foreign policy.
HILL: There are some concerns in Washington DC that the military alone can’t win the war in Iraq. When you take a look at what the conditions are, what the outside influences are on this region, do you think it is a political solution that will end the conflict in Iraq, or is this something that the military can handle?
KISSINGER: I don’t like the distinction between saying “Is this a military or a political solution?” because when you say “political solution” then it implies that there is no military component to it. Clearly, there has to be a political negotiation about the whole area, but that cannot possibly work unless the United States is present and unless the terrorists and Iran don’t believe they can sweep the field by themselves. So we have the requirement of a military balance and a diplomatic initiative, and the two have to go together.
Logistically, Iraq and Vietnam aren't even close. Kissinger has argued for several years that Vietnam and Iraq are dissimilar, except in that the anti-war movement divides the country to the point that it may ruin our foreign policy, preventing success. Clearly the vitriol by the anti-war left is a flash back to the 60's and 70's pro-communist, anti-war movement, which succeeded in America's first defeat. In this interview, Kissinger expressed that negotiations "cannot possibly work" without a U.S. military presence, stating that the two must coincide.
The end to the Vietnam war negotiated by Kissinger through the Paris Peace Accords, signed in 1973 by the U.S., North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. Under the terms, the U.S. agreed to immediately halt all military activities and withdraw all remaining military personnel within 60 days. The North Vietnamese agreed to an immediate cease-fire and the release of all American POWs within 60 days.
However, in June of 1973, the U.S. Congress passed an amendment forbidding any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia, effective August 15, 1973. Funding to the South Vietnamese stopped and the way was paved for communist North Vietnam to wage another invasion of the South, this time without fear of U.S. military consequence.
Two years later came the fall of Saigon, in which communist North Vietnam invaded the South, knowing the United States would not defend the South Vietnamese, and more than one million South Vietnamese were slaughtered or thrown into "re-education camps". This is what happens when America cuts and runs.
On Thursday, Nancy Pelosi made these statements as the incoming Democratic leaders held their press conference in DC:
I was proud to support him (Murtha) for majority leader, because I thought that would be the best way to bring an end to the war in Iraq. I know that he will continue to take the lead on that issue for our caucus, for this Congress, for our country.
I believe the biggest ethical challenge facing our country is the war in Iraq.
For all the reasons that you know, that you don't need me to go into, it must be stopped.
I have to be who I am. And I am a person who is committed to ending this war. It is a grotesque mistake that is costing lives, limbs, over a trillion dollars cost in dollars, reputation in the world, cost to our military. And I promised that I would do everything possible to end it.
Make no mistake about it: the Democratic plan for “change” in Iraq means ending the war, and ending it now. What makes the Pelosi/Murtha "plan" a grotesque mistake is that this is not a successful plan for winning Iraq, but a defeated plan to exit. The Democratic objective is not to win, it is to quit. The result of such a grotesque plan is slaughter, betrayal and abandonment. Kissinger believes that, like U.S. military leaders, success is not possible without the military.
Iraq may not be a Vietnam now, but it’s not too late.
Vietnam was America’s first defeat. Will we make Iraq our second?
EXTRA: Great Kissinger Quotes
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/775253
Anti-War, Iraq, Murtha, Pelosi, War on Terror 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (25)
I see I'm not the only one doing satire.
Secondly, Kissinger was never in favor of cutting and running, but in establishing a treaty that bound the North Koreans from attacking South Vietnam. Unfortunately, the Congress passed the amendment forbidding the US from any military as of 1975. That's why the Communists went in to S. Vietnam. Kissinger would not have endorsed cutting and running. It was more like what we have on the DMZ (DeMilitarized Zone) between North and South Korea.
I'm sure you recognize that Kissinger is an authority on Vietnam and particularly in retrospect he has quite a bit of clout.
The Democrats STILL haven't told us their strategy for victory agaisnt Islaomofascism. Heck, they have only told us what they are AGAINST, many of which have saved perhaps thousands of lives and untold financial losses.
It's hard to govern when you opposed, but NOT proposed, and you only wanted to tear down your opponents good efforts at solutions to our complex problems. Leadership takes real vision, which the Democrats are sorley lacking.
Nixon was elected in 1968 in large part because of his "secret plan" to end the war in Viet Nam. As Nixon's NSA from 1969-73, and then his Sec. of State, Kissinger largely formulated and oversaw the realization of this plan. All I can say is, Great work, Hank.
I'd agree that he's an authority on the subject, in the same way that Bill Buckner is an authority on the 1986 World Series. As for your suggestion that two North Koreas would be better than one, I admit that when it comes to satire, I'm out of my league.
The lesson of Viet Nam isn't that domestic opposition hobbled the war effort. It's that the war was deceitfully manufactured, poorly conducted, and largely unnecessary. The resources and manpower would have been better put to use securing freedom elsewhere. Like, say, Mississsippi, Alabama, or Boston. So the parralels to Iraq are appropriate.
The most effective way to eliminate terrorism is solid intelligence and police work, targeted use of special forces units, and skillful management of the battle of ideas and images. People eventually lose interest in dead ends, both literal and figurative, especially when there are other, better options available. Unless, of course, we clumsily deliver a new generation of motivated recruits into the hands of our enemies.
Way to go, guys. We're already halfway there!!
- We were never in VietNam intending to "win" occupation of the country. That was not what was going on. We were there as part of the long standing State Department policy to "Stem the spread of world-wide Communism", starting with Eisenhower, all the way up to Ford, until we could get the "MAD" initiative in place, which we did finally, with the deployment of the first MIRVED versions of the TITAN to the existing nuclear sub fleet. Once those were on station, we could get the hell out of everyplace we didn't need to be, and Communisn never advanced one inch from that day on in '75. To this day, every Communist/Marxist despot in the world hates those nukes sitting out there in the oceans.
- Iraq is about driving a knife through the heart of the Jihad, by establishing, and supporting, any sort of Demoratic governance we can in the region. Totally different goals. That is precisely why every branch of the extremist Islamic thug group. all of them, are so dresperate to stop our goals. One of the real resons the Left wants us out of Iraq so badly, is it puts the US forces in a good position to immediately jump to the aid of Israel, a country all the soft Marist groups here in America hate, because again it stops the advance of socialism, among other things, by its mere existance in that part of the world.
So the answer is "No". We will not fall for the old leftist tricks of sedition, and undermining America's efforts this time around. We fell for that once, although it was never what all the 70's hippies, and the nucklehead Nixon thought it was. But that was then, this is now.
- The Dems are already back pedling their canoes, to mix a metophore, starting to call for INCREASED troop deployments to Iraq. Surprise, surprise. They wanted the lead, now they've got it, and an all out bloodbath, and failure in that area of the ME, with all the other things that would come on the heels of such an event, would doom them for '08, and they know it.
By the way, Vietnam was most certainly necessary, and is largely why we won the Cold War, as it drained much of the Soviet's economy.
After ten years, 58,000 casualties, umpteen billions dollars we were tired of propping up a corrupt government that refused to fight for itself.
And if that doesn't have a historical parallel with Iraq I don't know what does.
Soldiers wouldn't be volunteering to go to Iraq if it were a lost cause.
- On the other side of the issue in Iraq itself, things are starting to move a bit, with the Capture of a high up Secular terrorist leader, and the call for the arrest of the leading Cleric, Also accused of being the head of the Sunni militia secular murders and attacks. Sooner or later, aL Sad'r will overplay his hand, and he'll be next on the coalition hit list. With his demise Maliki will be free to stop pandering to the Sunni's, and that will go a long way to breaking the Iranian influence in the tiangle. Maliki, and the rest of the Iraqi leadership know they have to get things moving now, because the clocki is ticking. I think they've been told point blank they have 6 months, more or less to really turn things around.
- Of course no amount of success will satisfy the hard Left, because they simply don't want to engage the enemy, or even admit they exist.
FACTS:
Old War - Viet Nam:
START: 1959 with sm. contigent of US military observers.
ENDED: April 30, 1975 - Fall of Saigon to North Vietmanese Army Regulars.
Highest Level of US Troop Deployment: 553,000-plus in 1969
US Troop Losses: 57,690 deaths
South Viet Nam and Allied Troop Losses: 225,000-plus deaths
North Vietnamese Losses: Est. 440,000-plus deaths (est. is considered very low)
US War Leadership: Democrat Presidents JohnF Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Republican President Richard M Nixon. US troop withdrawal commenced in 1973 from a Republican (Richard Nixon/Henry Kissinger) negotiated "Peace with Honor".
RESULT: Current President George W Bush visits Communist Hanoi to induce mutually beneficial trade with this "friendly" trade partner.
---Next War - Operation Desert Shield:
BEGAN: August 2, 1990 -Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
ENDED: March 3, 1991- Iraq accepts cease-fire
Total US Invasion Force: 550,000-plus
US Forces Losses: 147 battle-related deaths and 235 non-battle-related deaths.
Iraqi Losses: Est. 100,000-plus troop deaths. (Est. is considered very low)
RESULT: Sadam Hussein, Dictator, retained control of his sovereign nation to continue terrorist activities. (Historical equivalent of Hitler retaining control of Greater Nazi Germany after invading and then giving back Poland in 1939.)
US War Leadership: Republican - President George Herbert Walker Bush, Senate and House of Representatives declare victory.
---- Current War:
Iraqi War (ditto) - Operation Iraqi Freedom:
BEGAN: March 19, 2003
ENDED: Unknown at this time
Total US Invasion Force: 100,000-plus
Current US Troop Level: 150,000-plus Troops
US Troop Losses: 2853 deaths (as of 11-11-06)
EST. RESULT: One day a future US President will visit IRAQ, an Islamic theocracy, and seek a mutually beneficial trade agreement. He or she wil also lay a wreath in honor of the total # of US soldiers who died there.
US War Leadership: Republican - President George W Bush, Senate and House of Representatives.
QUESTION: Can ANYONE explain whats wrong with this picture?
Here's a clue - Why did we invade Iraq, a country with a reported army of 1 million, with just 100,000 US Troops (remember - "Shock and Awe"?) when we used 500,000-PLUS Troops to kick Sadam Hussein out of Kuwait??
This is why Americans shouldn't let friends vote Republican.
Bill M.
Viet Nam era veteran - US ARMY
I see what you're saying.I also see that Kissinger is saying that what defines 'victory' will have to change. I think that's one of the problems with this war and I know I'll be rebutted all over the place here, but this shift from WMDs to a humanitarian mission to bringing Democracy to Iraq has caused unclear strategies and problems from the get go.
Well, onto the article:
Sharon
LONDON - Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.
Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors _ including Iran _ if progress is to be made in the region.
"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.
But Kissinger, an architect of the Vietnam war who has advised President Bush about Iraq, warned against a rapid withdrawal of coalition troops, saying it could destabilize Iraq's neighbors and cause a long-lasting conflict.
"A dramatic collapse of Iraq _ whatever we think about how the situation was created _ would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another, into the region," he said.
Kissinger, whose views have been sought by the Iraqi Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker III, called for an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Iraq's neighbors _ including Iran _ and regional powers like India and Pakistan to work out a way forward for the region.
"I think we have to redefine the course, but I don't think that the alternative is between military victory, as defined previously, or total withdrawal," he said.
The above note by Sharon concerning Henry Kissinger's admission is a fitting conclusion to my original message. Let me now quote our esteemed SecDef Henry Kissinger DURING the Viet Nam war:
"Henceforth, no matter how effective our action, the prevalent strategy could no longer achieve its objectives within a period or within force levels politically acceptable to the American people."
H. Kissinger, US Secretary of State under R. Nixon
I don't want to sound patronizing either BBH, but you are obviously NOT a student of history. Let me enlighten you, if I may. Let's take one battle during the Viet Nam "Conflict" that was later called a turning point in the war. This was the great TET OFFENSIVE.
START: Jan. 30, 1968
END: June 8, 1969
Overview: The desperate North Vietnamese Army, commanded by legendary Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, was ordered by Hanoi to commence one LAST major offensive against the US and South Vietnamese forces. Giap did not agree with this plan, because he prefered a guerilla war of attrition to break the American spirit, not direct attack. Hanoi's main objective was to either defeat the Americans outright or at least bring them to the table for a negotiated peace, whereas the North would control all of Viet Nam.
The Hanoi planners counted on American losses to create further American homefront digust for the war (i.e. anti-war protests, Hollywood "Hanoi" Jane Fonda, John Kerry tossing medals, Kent State student killings, etc, etc) to bring the troops home. This would be, of course, a massive victory for the North Vietnamese Communists.
The attack commenced simultaneously in over 60 major towns throughout the south, including Saigon and the ancient city of Hue', on the eve of the Lunar New Year, January 31, 1968.
North Viet Nam Forces: 70,000-plus regulars and Viet Cong guerillas
US Forces: Over 500,000-plus
RESULT:
Although his forces were somewhat successful in Saigon and Hue', Gen. Giap forces were SOUNDLY DEFEATED. He had lost over 45,000 troops of the 70,000 committed to the offensive and knew the war was finished. He decided and wrote in his diary that Hanoi's best chances would now be to negotiate a quick Communist withdrawal from the South and at least, try to retain North Viet Nam under Communist control.
The MIRACLE:
Gen. Westmoreland, who was "in country", KNEW that Giap was on the ropes and immediately asked Congress for 250,000 additional troops to finally FINISH HIM OFF and WIN THE WAR!!.
MIRACLE CONT:
This battle was widely seen by the US press and thus American public as admission that WE HAD NOT DEFEATED the North in the Tet Offensive and that WE WERE IN A STALEMATE -period! Even Walter Cronkite said so on television!!
Politicians from both sides of the isle (Dems and GOP) now demanded a quick end of our Viet Nam involvement, in effect, denying our soldiers the VICTORY that we had bravely FOUGHT and DIED for!!
In March 1968, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson decided he had had enough and would not seek re-election - ENTER - new Republican President Richard M. Nixon and his Secretary of Defense Henry Kissiger. This resulted in the famous "Peace with Honor"(see above quote) or put another way - A COMPLETE VICTORY FOR THE NORTH VIETNAMESE COMMUNISTS. Our Republican leaders gave the Hanoi Communist regime complete victory on a silver platter from the JAWS of DEFEAT!!
UPDATE: Current Republican President George W Bush brings in fmr. SecDef Henry Kissinger to advise him on the current Iraq War strategy (See above quote and PREV. MESSAGE from Sharon).
Do you get it now BIG BANG HUNTER????????????
Faithfully Submitted,
Bill M.
Viet Nam era veteran - US ARMY, 1st Inf. Div.
“Old War - Viet Nam:
START: 1959 with sm. contigent of US military observers.
ENDED: April 30, 1975 - Fall of Saigon to North Vietmanese Army Regulars.”
This is a minor point but January 27, 1973 was the official end of the Vietnam War.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/iraq_kissinger_dc_1
The title of the article is :
Kissinger says US victory in Iraq is impossible
What a self serving lying way to put it. Kissinger said no such thing. The reporter who submitted this article is sexing up the comments to say exactly what the headline said, which is not the content of the remarks.
"If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control ... I don't believe that is possible," -Kissinger
What Kissinger is saying is that military operations are only a part of the overall strategy. If you rely solely on the government or solely on the military, victory will not happen. This is a very intricate operation that is multifaceted. My husband a couple weeks ago helped an Iraqi friend write a speech which he was giving to Iraqi and US leaders in Baghdad. Our friend's emphasis was on economic measures.... promoting privatization and financial independence, entrepreneurialship, etc. This is part of the overall strategy as well.
Kissinger understands that you have to have diplomacy, politics, economic strategy and military operations to pull this off. For liberals to say we should pull out now contracts Kissinger's view that the military MUST be coupled with these other things and that to pull the military out of Iraq will make the rest of the strategies crumble.
My point to Big Bang Hunter and now yourself is that I believe we have to be COMMITTED AS A NATION to winning this war - period. During the Viet Nam war, the American public (who were misinformed by our media and politicians) decided the war was over. I DO NOT WANT A REPEAT HERE! The stakes are way TOO HIGH.
Do we need more troops? ABSOLUTELY! Sending our troops in for their THIRD tour of duty (3rd Inf. Div, Fort Stewart, GA) is a dishonor to our entire military. I speak regularly with WWII vets who flew B17 missions over Nazi Germany. One told me a few days ago that he's voted Republican all his life, but voted straight Democrat this time to send a message of disgust with current policies in Iraq. He said that once a crew flew their 25 missions in WWII, they were DONE and those who survived were sent home to their families. They were NOT ordered to keep flying until they didn't come back as was the case for the Nazi and Japanese pilots.
Does the Press (liberal or otherwise) misinform all of us all of the time? ABSOLUTELY! But why can't the current administration, Fox News, bloggers, etc. etc. find an effective way to counteract this garbage?? That's a dishonor to free speech. What's getting the most press right NOW? Iraq or OJ Simpson and TomKat??
In short, Amy, I trully RESPECT the blood being shed daily by our men and women in Iraq. I respect the blood being shed by friendly Iraqis who DO want freedom. That said concerning myself and my family, can the same be said of the vast majority in this country? To respect is to honor. Does this country really want to deny our nation and military forces a victory in Iraq and Afghanistan? Put in those terms, I believe the answer is NO. Unfortunatly, our leaders don't seem to be able to EFFECTIVELY communicate that simple message to everyone in this country.
If not, we will soon have another - "PEACE WITH HONOR".
Bill in Las Vegas
From where are these additional 400,000 troops to come?
Kissinger doesn't believe it's possible to get sectarian violence under control and a unified Iraqi government established in an acceptable time period. He has concluded that the United States must choose between stability and democracy in Iraq -- and that democracy, for now, is out of reach. But he also warns against a rapid withdrawal of troops.
- As far as Iraq, there is no plan, nor could there ever be one that I've ever seen or heard of, that would effectively force the integration of three sizable sectarian groups. I'm assuming Bush and the admin. hoped/wished/believed the Iraqi majority would stabilize, once they got a taste of a livable situation, after the decades under Saddam. No serious scholar of history would believe that of course, but that must have been the "plan".
- The only people that can stabilize Iraq, are the Iraqi'a, and it could take generations, if they're even willing to do it.
- If you're a serious student of history, then I don't have to tell you how long it took our rag tag bunch to 'git 'er done'. this isn't a case where instant gratification is going to happen, and beyond giving the chance, it's not clear to anyone just what more we can do. and just for the record, if you read my post I said "cut and run" is not an option, or are you just emoting?
We're on the same page concerning this war. We can't cut and run!! We can't go back for a replay either. One of my points earlier was that we needed the same force in this war to attack Iraq that we had during Operation Desert Shield - over 500,000 troops. Gen. Schwartzkopf has often stated that he could have easily taken Baghdad then, if so ordered.
With Western Coalition partners like Germany that don't allow their troops to be directly in harms way (in addition to wanting to indict Don Rumsfeld for war crimes), and waning support in Britain, Canada and Australia, we need ADDITIONAL US TROOPS:
The US Army is happy to have met their Fiscal 2006 Recruiting Goal with 80,625 new soldiers (625 over Goal). Can this sustain us in a long drawn out war and longer peace? How about recruiting 300,000?
Obviously and unfortunately, we missed our opportunity , due to poor planning, to WIN this war outright with military action. Now it's our own politicians (both parties) that will put us on the road to appeasement. That will be the REAL tragedy, unless we reverse things NOW. Are we as a nation COMMITTED to do that?
Bill in Las Vegas