Doomed To Repeat History?

Some folks never learn from history. The US failure to support the South Vietnamese following the US withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973 caused huge losses of life, forced millions to seek refuge outside the region, and was a nadir in US foreign policy. That signaled that the US could be defeated only if you hold out long enough.

That's the position that the terrorists operating in the Middle East are in. They're trying to unleash chaos and bloodshed in Iraq, despite the fact that most of the country is in a peaceful state, and even following the attack on the Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra and the reprisal attacks on Sunni mosques elsewhere in the country.

The Iraqi government has instituted a nationwide daytime curfew so that peace and order can be restored. Shi'ites are still plenty pissed off about the destruction of their holy shrine and Sunnis are pissed at the reprisals, even though it was some of their own who started this mess by blowing up the Shi'ite shrine in the first place.

Sunni legislators working on forming the government walked out in a huff over the attacks on Sunni mosques. Funny, but the Shi'ites didn't break off talks when their holy shrine was destroyed by terrorists.

So what does this have to do with a New Jersey Congressman Steve Rothman (D) from Fair Lawn? Well, he's calling for an outright withdrawal from Iraq, and becomes the first in the New Jersey delegation to do so. But the logic and 'facts' used to support that position are suspect:

Although Rothman said at a news conference that polls showed 80 percent of Iraqis oppose the U.S. presence and 45 percent think attacks against U.S. troops are justified, he later conceded in an interview that those figures are suspect.

So, if the numbers are suspect, and Rothman concedes that they are, will he use them again? I'd count on it because they support his worldview, even though the poll is meaningless. Who is going to challenge his figures when he spouts off?

"Nobody has found the fountain of truth," he said. "It's people using their best judgment on a variety of things. There is no certainty in this.

"I have been giving it the benefit of the doubt to every assumption that would support staying there. I've done it for three years. Now there is no one who would say that things will be that much better in six months."

Unlike several other New Jersey congressmen, Rothman has not been to Iraq. Still, he says the information he has received from military officers and Pentagon officials as a member of the foreign operations subcommittee gave him a basis to make his decision.

So, he's probably relying more on the media reports, including bogus and suspect polling, than taking any critical look at the situation on the ground. Why is it that Sen. Lieberman, who's been to Iraq more than a few times says that the US is doing a great job and that we shouldn't leave until the military decides when the time is right? He's actually seen for himself that the US is doing the right thing by toppling a dictator and that improving the life of Iraqis will help in the long term goals of US national security.

Rothman also said that he may not have come out for withdrawal had Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., not made a similar announcement in November.

Murtha's call for a redeployment was significant, because he is a decorated combat veteran and has close ties to military commanders, but it hasn't been the watershed moment some thought it would be.

That's because Murtha was wrong and the GOP called him (and the other far left wingers of the Democratic party) on it when they brought the matter to a vote - and the House soundly defeated the measure calling for an immediate withdrawal.

"I'm surprised more haven't gotten behind him," Rothman said. Murtha's stance "certainly gave me confidence in the military correctness of it."

Pascrell, who backed Murtha's call for redeployment has been one of the New Jersey delegation's most vocal critics of the war.

Murtha hasn't been in the military in 30 years, and just because you're a decorated veteran doesn't mean that you have any special knowledge of strategy, logistics, or insight into fighting a conflict 30 years removed from the one in which you fought. The military is a far different place today than it was 30 years ago. For starters, there's no draft and every soldier, Marine and sailor is there because they volunteered to serve. That's a huge difference from Vietnam, where many who fought were there because they were drafted, not because they wanted to be there.

"I don't think [Rothman] goes too far," he said. "I think we can redeploy in six to 12 months. We should begin the process and not talk about it."

Redeploy to where? The threat to Iraq largely comes from Syria and Iran. Having US forces in the region to deal with those threats means having them in close contact with the borders of those countries - and Iraq is where they should be. Having large numbers of US forces in Iraq also serves to counter the threat posed by Iran, but I'm sure Rothman doesn't see it in those terms.

Rothman seems content to repeat history, one that doomed many Vietnamese to generations of Communist rule, starvation, violence, and bloodshed.