The argument runs as follows: in 1967, South Vietnam had free elections, with high turnout, despite being warned by the Viet Cong not to vote. We did not win in Vietnam. Ergo, we will not win in Iraq.
One hates to have to fight old battles, but since the left seems stuck in the 60's, we're going to have to oblige them. The 1967 South Vietnam elections would seem to be not exactly the kind of elections we just saw in Iraq:
In elections held in South Vietnam in September 1967, former generals Nguyen Van Thieu and Nguyen Cao Ky were elected president and vice president, respectively. A number of popular candidates, including Buddhists and peace candidates, were barred from running, and newspapers were largely suppressed during the campaign. Even so, the military candidates received less than 35 percent of the vote, although the election took place only in areas under the Saigon government's control. When proof of widespread election fraud was produced by the defeated candidates, students and Buddhists demonstrated and demanded that the elections be annulled.
Unless Kos is prepared to argue that the Iraq election has been fraudulently conducted, that candidates have been barred, that newspapers have been suppressed, or that Zarqawi=Buddhist Peace Candidate, I don't see how his analogy holds together.
Let us shout it from the rooftops: ONLY. VIETNAM. WAS. VIETNAM!
No comments:
Post a Comment