CNN reports that US President George W. Bush will – Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, in a speech for Veterans of Foreign Wars – remember the American people of what happened in Vietnam when the US withdrew. Bush will argue that the US should not withdraw from Iraq, because what happened in Vietnam will also happen in Iraq: those who supported the US – and those who did not actively support, but did not resist the US either – will be slaughtered.
From the speech:
Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left, whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people,’ ‘re-education camps’ and ‘killing fields’.
He will also tell the American people / the members of this organization, that although many Democrats argue that terrorists will not be emboldened by an early withdrawal, the opposite is true – history teaches us:
The president will also make the argument that withdrawing from Vietnam emboldened today’s terrorists by compromising U.S. credibility, citing a quote from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden that the American people would rise against the Iraq war the same way they rose against the war in Vietnam, according to the excerpts.
“Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility, but the terrorists see things differently,” Bush will say.
The New York Times adds that Bush’s speech also contains “the following sharp warning”: “Our troops are seeing this progress on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they are gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?”
In other words, “Bush is hardly ready to throw in the towel on Iraq.”
In the speech, he will not only warn the American people, he will also distance himself from al-Maliki. It seems – more and more – that the strategy will be to blame Maliki for just about everything. Although he certainly shares part of the blame, Bush should not act as if he has nothing to do with it. Maliki is not a strong (read good) leader, but Bush mishandled the aftermath of the war terribly as well. If he would have sent enough troops, if he would have opposed the de-baathification of Iraqi society, the situation in Iraq would be quite different today.
Does Maliki need to go? In my opinion it would be better for Iraq. He is far too weak, or he simply secretly supports the Shia militias – which one is correct I am not sure. However, this decision should not be made by foreign politicians, it should be made by Iraqi politicians and the Iraqi people. Bloggers and normal Americans (yes, I made the distinction purposefully) can say that they believe that Maliki should go, but it is quite another thing for politicians to say the same thing. Bush should threaten Iraq that America’s patience is wearing thin, he should talk to other Iraqi politicians, but he can never – never – call for Maliki’s resignation.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.