Bush Election Strategy

[Pericles(MBA)]

See the article Bush: Playing to Lose. Do you think Bush needs help with his election strategy?

I am hopeful that he will come up with something good for the convention that will present why occupying Iraq is important. I'm more than a little concerned that his strategy will be me-tooing Kerry.

I recommend everyone write to the Republican committee url at the end of the article. I'm going to send Hurd's comments to them and also Jack Wakeland's (if that is ok Mr Wakeland?).

http://www.gop.com/ContactUs/Default.aspx

[Capitalism Forever]

On top of Kerry’s demand for censorship, President Bush is now running around the country declaring what a great soldier John Kerry was and how sorry he is that people who support the Republicans this year dare to question John Kerry’s war record. He’s condemning his own supporters.

The correct reaction to such abject altruism--if you are the opponent of the guy--is to take advantage of it as brazenly and mercilessly as you can. Either he will wisen up--or he will continue in his abject ways, making it easier for you to defeat him. It's a win-win.

There is no need to be afraid of people like Bush. Voters may prefer him to a malicious altruist like Kerry, but if his opponent were a shrewd Objectivist, he would be toasted, burned, incinerated, and then apologizing for the smoke.

[Yes]

See the article Bush: Playing to Lose.  Do you think Bush needs help with his election strategy?

That's why he has the Republican National Committee behind him.

Although Bush is not the dynamic Reagan was, he is still dynamic enough to cause the Republican convention to focus on his own issues such as the economy, his successes (or what he perceives to be his successes) in the war on terror, and to try to project these as a vision for the future of this country.

Kerry has failed to wow a clearcut majority of prospective voters in ANY recent poll. What the Democrats truly needed was a dynamic personality who could unite a dysfunctional party together with a clear agenda. I can see in the polls that there are enough undecideds to make a difference in the election this November.

Bush doesn't need the controversy of his military service or the "swiftboats" to cloud his campaign. It had little effect on the most recent pools.

I believe that it is Kerry, not Bush, who will ultimately need help with his election strategy.

John Kerry has gained control of the Bush campaign and has, psychologically and strategically if not yet literally, won the presidential election.

I've never read such nonsense in all my life. What's Dr. Hurd been popping these days?

[Yes]

Dr. Hurd wrote:

Hopefully, Bush will do much better at his upcoming convention and during the official election campaign than he has to date. It’s his last chance, assuming it’s not too late already. If Bush doesn’t change course soon, we won’t even be looking at a close race this time around. Imagine John Kerry winning in a landslide--without once having to take an honest, consistent position (even a wrong one) on any issue.

Honestly, I don't quite see it this way.

I can only remember Bush after 9-11 making his speech about the terrorist attacks, and, how after such speech, his ratings went up sharply.

If anyone should be afraid, it is the Democrats.

Bush has many rabbits to pull out of his hat. He is merely waiting for his moment in the spotlight.

Next week he will get it. And his supporters will come out proud.

[Yes]

There is no need to be afraid of people like Bush. Voters may prefer him to a malicious altruist like Kerry, but if his opponent were a shrewd Objectivist, he would be toasted, burned, incinerated, and then apologizing for the smoke.

Inclined to agree, CF. I think Dr. Hurd's article is way off base.

[Pericles(MBA)]

The correct reaction to such abject altruism--if you are the opponent of the guy--is to take advantage of it as brazenly and mercilessly as you can. Either he will wisen up--or he will continue in his abject ways, making it easier for you to defeat him. It's a win-win.

There is no need to be afraid of people like Bush. Voters may prefer him to a malicious altruist like Kerry, but if his opponent were a shrewd Objectivist, he would be toasted, burned, incinerated, and then apologizing for the smoke.

I think you either misunderstood my comments or Dr Hurd's article. I am a qualified Bush supporter, because of the War on Terror and his foreign policy team. Dr. Hurd's comments were that Bush was failing to adequately defend his side against unfair attacks. To say that it is a 'win' that Bush is making such a mistake would be akin to saying we should cheer when Rearden is altruistic and gets punished for his mistakes in Atlas , or we should cheer that Bill Gates is penalized when he tries to use utilitarian arguments to defend his company, or that Martha Stewart is in jail because she did not hire Thomas Bowden.

I do not think Objectivists are yet convinced of the virtues of the Bush foreign policy team. This is a group of people that turned things around. We went from attacks on our home soil in 2001 into one of our more brazen enemies, bereft of his supporters, cowering in a hole in the ground in 2003. There was a lot of work in between those events that history will record correctly. The problem is that the American people need to appreciate the Bush team now.

I am sure that had we not had Team Bush, then there would be a lot more dead in Israel and India from attacks. I would even venture to say that the secular cities of Turkey would now be Holy cities under Muslim control. While our military did not directly intervene in those areas, you cannot discount the power of backbone that our examples in Afghanistan and Iraq provided to the free nations in that region. Would Israel have finally cracked down on the leaders of Hamas without our example to follow? Would India and Pakistan be cracking down on terrorism without having U.S. advisors to assist them? Would we know the names of the leaders of the student movements in Iran that are hoping to end their nations theocracy? There were many activities behind the scene that need to be credited to the work of heroes like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice. BTW, it is easy for Kerry to criticize the Bush team for having unresolved issues. But our middle-east problems took a long time to develop and won't go away in a four year period, even under the best foreign policy team.

Unfortunately those who know of the virtues of team Bush are slow to speak, or do not have large audiences. You cannot say it is a positive that the president does not have advisors who are capable of presenting the virtues of our foreign policy leadership. They need someone like Jack Wakeland on their team to tell it like it is.

Hopefully there are enough voters who have the objectivity to weed thru the misinformation, understand the issue, and vote accordingly.

[Jack Wakeland]

Mr. Yes,

You commented that "Bush doesn't need the controversy of his military service or the 'swiftboats' to cloud his campaign. It had little effect on the most recent pools."

The press has mistakenly focused on only one of two arguments the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have against Kerry -- mistakenly, on purpose, that is. (The press is no longer uniformly Lefist, but they still vote about 85% Democratic.)

You commented that "Bush doesn't need the controversy of his military service or the 'swiftboats' to cloud his campaign. It had little effect on the most recent pools."

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are not clouding the presidential campaign. They are doing exactly the opposite. They are clearing away Sen. John Kerry’s militant evasions.

(BTW the Los Angeles Times reported today that, "For the first time this year in a Times survey, Bush led Kerry in the presidential race, drawing 49% among registered voters, compared with 46% for the Democrat.)

The press has mistakenly focused on only one of the two arguments the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have against Kerry…mistakenly on purpose, that is. (The press is no longer uniformly Lefist, but they still vote about 85% Democratic.)

The men of John O'Neill's Swift Boat Veterans for Truth got pissed off, got organized, and got into the presidential campaign because John Kerry ran for his Party's nomination and is running for president as a "war hero."

Mr. Kerry was not much of a war hero. He was no Audie Murphy, no Alvin York. He was a regular guy who simply fought with the rest of them, doing his job like the rest of them...sort of.... well... actually... not really.

It turns out that Lt. Kerry was an irritatingly self-promoting medal hunter (all wars have them). And when he had enough medals he bugged out -- after only 4 of the normal 12 months of combat duty -- using the long-established rule that three purple hearts earns you the right to opt out of combat.

At least two of his purple hearts were fraudulent.

In a reference to the fact that Lt. Kerry frequently had people take pictures of him with his movie camera when he was off duty, some of the sailors on the boats joked that John Kerry left as soon as he had enough footage to run for office.

When John Kerry got back to the United States, he jumped into the anti-war campaign -- choosing to become the top spokesman of one of the New Left's anti-American groups, Vietnam Veterans against the War.

This is where Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s other argument comes in -– their real argument; the argument that is not ‘a personal attack;’ the argument that motivates all of their arguments with John Kerry; the argument the Left-of-Center press does not want to cover.

The VVAW's argument against the war was that it was a gigantic crime against the people of Vietnam.

They asserted that America had for decades trumped up false ideological charges against communism -– claiming that it was a homicidal ideology that was so evil that it had to be met with armed force –- and then attempted to prove the charge by sending the U.S. Armed Forces out to meet a communist movement…in Vietnam.

However, according to VVAW spokesman, John Kerry, when the American troops got to Vietnam they realized that what had been fearfully, jingoisticly labeled ‘communism’ was actually, “an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever.” (John Kerry’s April 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)

John Kerry went on to explain that issues of liberty and tyranny were meaningless in a place like Vietnam, “[W]e found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from. We found most people didn’t even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart.”

The centerpiece of John Kerry’s Senate testimony, was that American soldiers were committing atrocities –- war crimes -– and that the crimes were, “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”

John Kerry then went on to use words that -– 33 years later –- he would say were “honest but…a little bit over the top.” He summarized the findings of the VVAW’s “Winter Soldier Investigation,” a show trial in which over one hundred men claiming to be Vietnam Veterans -– at least one of whom wore what appeared to be a necklace of human ears –- tearfully admitted horrendous crimes and atrocities to a New Left panel of judges:

“They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

Coming from a man who had only seen innocent civilian die as the result of the speed and confusion of combat, John Kerry’s words were not honest.

Years later, B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley demonstrated in their book, _ Stolen Valor_, that nearly every single war-crime claim during the Vietnam War was false. Armed forces records showed that most of the ‘perpetrators’ never saw combat, and the ones that did, weren’t deployed at the places and times of their ‘crimes.’

Because of all the attention -– and the VA disability checks for ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ –- paid to atrocity claimants, false claims of war crimes were common. A war that America was taught to be ashamed of, became the first war from which men returned home to tell ‘war stories,’ not to fake heroism and valor, but to fake criminality and perversion.

The anti-Kerry campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is not muddying the water with mere personal attacks. They have go hold of the essence of the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate –- a man who want’s to be the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces while the nation is at war.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have demonstrated the whole reason why John Kerry is running as a war hero. It is a militant evasion; an attempt to pre-empt the truth that during a shooting war with international communism, he worked to undermine America’s moral legitimacy and self-confidence.

Does it matter, 33 years later, that John Kerry was once the front man for a radical anti-American agenda?

Yes.

It matters because the agenda for which John Kerry fought succeeded.

One of the reasons why it succeeded was because, at a key moment, the 27-year-old former lieutenant put a credible face on incredible claims by the New Left that that American soldiers routinely committed war crimes and, by implication, that the entire Vietnam War was a war crime.

Once these unwarranted claims became credible (in a political culture poisoned by altruism), conventional second-handed politicians -– from the Old Left and the Old Right -– became very reluctant to use American military force ever again. They were terrified that any small military misstep might, once again, subject America to accusations that it is morally debased.

False claims of widespread American atrocities, false claims that communism is not a mortal danger to mankind, and conventional politicians who are sufficiently second-handed that their confidence in America’s unique morally upright standing in the world can be easily shaken -– these are the three legs of the Vietnam Syndrome.

The Vietnam Syndrome was a debilitating form of American national self-doubt that prevented any use of the armed forces for national defense anywhere for over a decade and prevented the United States from going to war for any reason until after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The moral-political-military self-doubt of the Vietnam Syndrome produced two extraordinary craven acts:

After the American withdrawal from South Vietnam, Congress made certain that there could be no re-insertion of American troops to assist the South ever again. They immediately cut off all military aid and placidly watched while too many terrified Vietnamese tried to claw their way onboard too few helicopters to get out before a reign of terror fell on Saigon.

After Iranian ‘students’ invaded the American Embassy in Tehran – sovereign American soil that was not defended because the Marine guards were not issued live ammunition – and took its diplomatic staff hostage, the President of the United States chatted away on television for 444 days…and did absolutely nothing. When he left office President Carter had achieved the goal proudly articulated for his presidency in his second State of the Union address, “I’m grateful that in the past year, as in the year before, no American has died in combat anywhere in the world.”

The Vietnam Syndrome, unfortunately, still lurks under the surface of the American political culture.

Over the past year, America has begun laboring under self-doubts about the use of military force in the Islamic World. Here and there throughout the political system, every aspect of the Vietnam Syndrome is threatening to re-surface regarding the war in Iraq.

The first sign that the Left’s opposition to American self-defense was going to re-surface was when, one week into the invasion of Iraq, the forces halted on the ground. Leftist reporters and politicians, re-enforced by a cadre of retired generals, immediately descended on the White House and the Pentagon.

‘Was the force overextended? Was this the beginning of the unraveling of the whole invasion? Shouldn’t the Armed forces be more cautious? Shouldn’t they take a defensive posture?’

Two weeks later Baghdad was liberated, Saddam Hussein’s regime was gone. The disloyal Left shut up…for a while.

This spring the Left saw their first clear opportunity to invoke the Vietnam Syndrome and stop the war. They were so horrified by the photographs of Iraqi prisoners being sexually humiliated in the Abu Griab prison they nearly danced in the street. It wasn’t the “Winter Soldier Investigation,” but it would do.

When Sunni and Shi’ite militias rose up in Falluja, Najaf, and other cities across Iraq the disloyal opposition here in America whispered so loudly among themselves, the rest of us could hear it. ‘Was this an Islamic Tet?’ they asked worried expressions on their faces, while trying to suppress a smile. ‘What about that policy of no exit strategy, now?!’ was a question they had the urge to throw in the President’s face.

‘Exit strategy’ is, of course, another word -- the Left's word -- for retreat.

The civil war that began inside America during the Vietnam War has not ended. American’s are still divided over whether or not their nation should be defended -– whether or not it is _worthy_ of being defended –- against foreign aggression.

In this the deepest public debate of the election season, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are showing us exactly what we need the most to see. They are unmasking John Kerry as the ultimate war time anti-hero; the last man we want to have in charge of our national security at the moment our nation has begun to waiver in its commitment to fight Islamism.

-- Jack

[argive99]

In this the deepest public debate of the election season, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are showing us exactly what we need the most to see.  They are unmasking John Kerry as the ultimate war time anti-hero; the last man we want to have in charge of our national security at the moment our nation has begun to waiver in its commitment to fight Islamism.

                          -- Jack

Jack,

I love your writing. This post and your writings for the TIA Daily have educated me so much regarding Kerry and the anti-war (actually more like pro-communist) agenda sicnce the Vietnam War.

But I have a question I feel you could answer. Ayn Rand wrote in many places that she viewed the Vietnam War as an example of sacrifice for sacrifce's sake. She likened it to the October Revolution of 1918 in Russia between the Reds and the Whites; both sides accepting collectivism but only differing in slogans. She said that America fought the North Vietnamese so as to liberate the South Vietnamese so they could vote themselves into a socialist dictatorship. She pointed out that the war was a case study in altruism from start to finish including its goals, its methods (of not fighting to win) and its features (ie the draft which she called 'sacrifical slavery').

I am really asking for clarification, but you seem to be saying that the Vietnam War was valid. I'm not arguing here about how it was undermined by the Left. Of that, thanks to you, I know all to well. I'm asking was America's involvement in Vietnam justified? And on what grounds?

Our involvement in South East Asia, with the exception of Japan, has been a disaster. From the Phillipines, to North Korea to Vietnam. I have heard the conservatives argue that these engagements were neccessary to fight Communism but were they? And how can the draft ever be justified?

I ask this because Vietnam (and our involvement in South East Asia) is the source of so much vitriol from both the Left and the Libertarians who condemn America to no end each from their own premises. I would like to have a clear picture in my head of what should have been America's answer to Communist insurgence into Southeast Asia during the Cold War.

What I know is that Rand despised that war down to its roots and yet you seem to be suggesting that it was neccessary. As a result I am confused.

It might be best, if you choose to answer, to answer in another thread so we don't hijack this thread.

[Capitalism Forever]

I think you either misunderstood my comments or Dr Hurd's article.

No, I just didn't make the context of my remark clear enough. I don't think that a defeat of Bush by Kerry would be a win; it would be a disgrace and a life-threatening danger. What I do think is that a defeat of a candidate like Bush by an Objectivist opponent would be a win. My remark was mainly addressed to those who think that people like Bush are the most dangerous threat to America's liberty; my point was that this is not at all the case.

Now, to address the article and your comments--I think (and certainly hope !) that Dr. Hurd is exaggerating Dubya's "other cheek" approach to the campaign, although I do not dispute that there IS something to exaggerate, i.e. that W is at least somewhat more gentlemanly with his opponent than the latter deserves. But, as I said in my first post, I hope that the American people will prefer the unduly chivalrous W to the malicious altruist Kerry.

[Yes]

Jack:

As well-written and as well-thought-out your post in response to me was, I have to disagree with you on several counts.

If the Swiftboat Vets didn't serve to cloud Bush's camapaign with needless controversy, then why is it that Bush feels so ashamed of their efforts?

In a bizarre twist to this entire debacle, the Bush campaign is now going to due process to stop the Swiftboat Vets for Truth from doing any further advertising.

Also, the Conservatives have used this occasion to brutally attack Kerry's later efforts to speak out against the Vietnam war. Their focus is on statements Kerry made regarding the brutality of certain servicemen in Vietnam.

I personally find this "Bush's service vs. Kerry's service" issue to be a very serious distraction in this campaign. I know- the Kerry campaign really was the initiator of this whole debacle. What about the REAL issues that face America today? Or is the Bush campaign going to languish in this dialogue about whose military service was more honorable?

And, finally, the Vietnam War and Argive99's comments regarding Ayn Rand's comments pertaining to such war. Thanks to argive99 for revealing Ms. Rand's comments.

I have very serious trouble with ANYONE who attempts to glorify the Vietnam war. The Vietnam war was a very serious mis-application of the defense of American self-interests.

Very basically, there is NOTHING that justified our involvement in Vietnam. It was a totally altruistic undertaking. It was indeed the forced altruism and the needless sacrifice and slaughter of American soldiers, many of whom were drafted out of college or high school, that galls me. America had no business being there. None.

Bush, I insist, has lots of ammunition to fire at Kerry regarding the issues during this campaign.

[argive99]

Jack:

And, finally, the Vietnam War and Argive99's comments regarding Ayn Rand's comments pertaining to such war. Thanks to argive99 for revealing Ms. Rand's comments.

I have very serious trouble with ANYONE who attempts to glorify the Vietnam war.  The Vietnam war was a very serious mis-application of the defense of American self-interests.

Very basically, there is NOTHING that justified our involvement in Vietnam.  It was a totally altruistic undertaking.  It was indeed the forced altruism and the needless sacrifice and slaughter of American soldiers, many of whom were drafted out of college or high school, that galls me.  America had no business being there.  None.

Thanks to Yes for recognizing the great importance of Ayn Rand's thoughts on this subject. Yes's view that the Vietnam War was completely unjustified has been my view. I would only change it if someone could show me how engaging the Vietcong at that time was absolutely essential to stopping the spread of Communism, and show me how the war could have been fought and won without a draft and with as few US casualties as possible followed by a McCarthur type post war occupation. I see the urgency in fighting in the Middle East post 9/11. But I do not see the urgency of fighting in a Vietnamese jungle in the 60's and 70's with a conscript army.

I respect and apprecitate Jack Wakeland's writing but I am unsure as to whether or not he approved of the Vietnam war the way it was fought. Further, in one of his posts, he did make a statement that it could be forseable that the US pick up the fighting in the Middle East after a Kerry presidency with a conscript army in 2009. This would violate individual rights on the deepest level; ie it would be attempting to fight Islamic fanaticism with a slave army. That would be a major step backward.

Clarification on these issues would help.

[oldsalt]

Mr. Wakeland is perfectly able to answer the questions posed, but I would like to point out a couple of things:

1. Whether or not we ought to have been in Viet Nam is irrelevant to the facts of Mr. Kerry's record, both during his active duty, and during his activities after he came home. That record demonstrates his character and beliefs. (Even a cursory look at his record will inform you that he has no character and is a thorough-going anti-militarist, anti-American Marxist.)

2. The "Kerry's v. Bush's" military service aspect of the debate is one started by Michael Moore, who first accused President Bush of being a deserter, and DNC national chairman Terry McAuliff, who accused Bush of being AWOL. The mainstream media jumped on this bandwagon and demanded that President Bush release all of his military records, which he promptly did. Where is the mainstream media on Kerry's story?

If you want to write to the Bush Campaign, my suggestion is that you direct your comments to the blatant attempt at an end-run around the first amendment. Insist that he abide by his oath to uphold and protect the constitution by protecting our most cherished right of free political speech.

As for Kerry, write to his campaign and insist that he sign form 180 and release his full military records, as the president did.

[Pericles(MBA)]

Years later, B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley demonstrated in their book, _ Stolen Valor_, that nearly every single war-crime claim during the Vietnam War was false.  Armed forces records showed that most of the ‘perpetrators’ never saw combat, and the ones that did, weren’t deployed at the places and times of their ‘crimes.’

Because of all the attention -– and the VA disability checks for ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ –- paid to atrocity claimants, false claims of war crimes were common.  A war that America was taught to be ashamed of, became the first war from which men returned home to tell ‘war stories,’ not to fake heroism and valor, but to fake criminality and perversion.

The anti-Kerry campaign of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is not muddying the water with mere personal attacks.  They have go hold of the essence of the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate –- a man who want’s to be the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces while the nation is at war.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have demonstrated the whole reason why John Kerry is running as a war hero.  It is a militant evasion; an attempt to pre-empt the truth that during a shooting war with international communism, he worked to undermine America’s moral legitimacy and self-confidence.

Does it matter, 33 years later, that John Kerry was once the front man for a radical anti-American agenda?

This is the first time I think I have really understood why so many Vietnam Veterans are so opposed to Kerry. Once again Jack Wakeland has the key points. It also highlights another important issue. John Kerry granted a degree of legitimacy to the Winter Soldier Investigation, which in turn psychologically undermined our ability to use military defense for the past 40 years. How strange that a science fiction movie about a Manchurian Candidate is currently playing, while we have a real story of such a person here.

Mr. Wakeland your material is more valuable to me than PJ O'Rourke, Michelle Malkin, and Walter Williams put together. Or to put it in the form of an Objectivist Student equation: JW1 > P'OR2 + MM1 + WW2

Looking forward to more.

[BurgessLau]

...

At least two of his purple hearts were fraudulent.

...

Years later, B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley demonstrated in their book, _ Stolen Valor_, that nearly every single war-crime claim during the Vietnam War was false.  Armed forces records showed that most of the ‘perpetrators’ never saw combat, and the ones that did, weren’t deployed at the places and times of their ‘crimes.’

...

(1) What is the evidence for saying that two of Senator Kerry's purple heart awards were claimed fraudulently?

(2) I notice that you leave the door open to claims of atrocity by saying "nearly every single war-crime claim" and "most of the 'perpetrators'" (emphasis added). Did you leave the door open, slightly, because you have in mind the fact that there were indeed atrocities? Or do you believe that the My Lai massacre in March 1968 didn't actually occur and that Lt. Calley was wrongfully convicted?

I have made no special study of the Vietnam War, but I can offer these observations:

(1) Atrocities did occur, and My Lai is an example. The Left seized the few real horrors and vastly exaggerated them, while ignoring the worse horrors committed by the North Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cambodians. Still, that is no reason to ignore atrocities committed by individual U. S. soldiers and small units.

(2) The Vietnam War was a war largely started by two Democratic Party presidents: Kennedy and Johnson. It was a war of altruism, in part, fought for "democracy." (Sound familiar?)

(3) It was a war against communist proxies, instead of against the principals: the Soviets and the Chinese Communists. (If I recall correctly, this was Ayn Rand's assessment, though I cannot find the source at the moment.)

(4) It, like the Korean War, was a war in which the altruists ordered U. S. soldiers to fight -- and die -- without the full use of U. S. weapons, especially atomic bombs, to cut our losses. (Sound familiar?)

I was drafted around 1965. Fortunately I was not inducted. I had a bad lung that kept me out of that sacrifical war -- and in and out of hospitals in the decades followng. I wanted to kill communists but I certainly didn't want to waste my life for the Democratic Party.

President Bush's war in Iraq is partly corrupt, but it is much better than the Vietnam War. That is why I will reluctantly vote for him in November, based on what I now know about the choices. One element of an Objectivist tactical plan for our time must be to vote for politicians who will protect us from aggressors. Without that, we are dead and all other issues are moot.

[oldsalt]

Oh geez, I just realized that I wrote that last post here instead of the "Peikoff for Kerry" thread. Sorry to plop it down in the middle of this particular discussion. It doesn't exactly address Bush's campaign strategy, now does it?

I need a nap.

[Capitalism Forever]

Oh geez, I just realized that I wrote that last post here instead of the "Peikoff for Kerry" thread.  Sorry to plop it down in the middle of this particular discussion.  It doesn't exactly address Bush's campaign strategy, now does it?

I need a nap.

I moved your post to the correct thread. Relax.

[oldsalt]

Thank you Cap!

[Release]

I'm thankful for his strategy...I hope he keeps up the great work.

Like father like son: 1 Term!

~Michael

[Jack Wakeland]

I have not attempted to review the Vietnam War here.

I have no difference with either you or Ayn Rand regarding the grotesque, human sacrifice -- on a gigantic scale -- that was the Vietnam War. The tens of thousands of young promising lives cut off, the tens of thousands of amputees, all the social turmoil and personal angst -- all ended up being for nothing, worse than nothing.

The primary objective of the Johnson administration in escalating the war was to impress the Soviet Union with American 'resolve.' Rather than devising ingenious ways to obstruct, undercut and damage communism, President Johnson (and Richard Nixon in his first term) wanted to show the Soviets that America was not afraid to BLEED to fight communism.

Human sacrfice was--by implication--the intended PURPOSE of the war. It was supposed to 'awe' the Soviet Union with America's ruthlessness.

As sacrifice is always sacrifice...the whole thing was a debacle that enabled the Kemr Rouge's one million murders, emboldened the Soviet Union to lauch insurgency campaigns in Central America, South America, and Africa and support Palestinian terrorists...and inspired Red terrorist movements against Italy, Germany, Japan.....and even, briefly, inside the United States of America itself.

Be careful with your comment, however that "America had no business being there. None." That is an unwitting absorption of the pro-communist New Left program in our culture and in YOU.

America had every reason to be in Vietnam...on a non-sacrifical basis. The policy of military training and assistance started by John Kennedy should have been continued -- even escallated -- as a means of harrassing, of bleeding, communism. American training personnel, American Naval and Air Forces, and American miltiary shipments belonged in Vietnam as an integral part of national defense. The American commitment should have been limited by the limited national security needs that American had in the region. We could have killed a lot of communists without giving up so many American lives.

__________________

I made a comment about how a Kerry presidency followed by a 'strong' president might lead to the military draft. In the wake of another major defeat in the war with Islamism, re-institution of the military draft is not a far out scenario. If this nation's territorial safety (e.g., preventing a nuclear attack on an American city) required the invasion of a major Muslim nation like Pakistan (pop. 180 million), I have no doubt that the president would ask and Congress would vote for military conscription.

I had to register for the military draft. And in 1979, I was pretty well convinced that I'd soon be in Iran with a rifle. And, as a 19-year-old engineering student, I DIDN'T like the idea one bit.

After the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Iran, I knew that President Jimmy Carter had a moral obligation to go to war with Iran. I even assumed that we'd over-react by invading the country, when an attack by conventionally-armed ICBMs followed by a sustained strategic bombing campaign would have been quite enough.

To this day, I am simultaneously relieved that I wasn't compelled to go...and DISGUSTED -- nearly to the point of nausia -- for the reason why it didn't happen...why NOTHING happened. Jimmy Carter's total pacifism was the climax of the superstitious fear of using the armed forces for national defense that was called the "Vietnam Syndrome."

__________________

The PRESS's attempt to focus on the "Bush's service vs. Kerry's service" is their attempt to distraction from what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth REALLY have to say: that John Kerry's dishonest claims of widespread war crimes undercut the moral legitimacy of the American soldier, the American armed forces, and the American nation.

Furthermore, his effort to promlugate the dishonest Vietnam-soldier-as-war-criminal myth was SUCCESSFUL. It undercut the nation's self-confidence at a time of war -- widening defeat in one war to a general, decades-long global defeat in the Cold War with communism.

With America showing some signs of waivering in its commitment to continue pressing the offensive against our Islamist enemies, the "Vietnam Syndrome," which John Kerry co-authored, is a major threat to national security. It is a REAL issues that faces America today.

___________________

Why is it that Bush feels so ashamed of the efforts of the Swiftboat Vets for Truth ?

That's easy. He's following the dictum of Christian altruism, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

The good things I say about Bush in comparison with Mr. Kerry do not change the fact that Mr. Bush has plenty of bad premises mixed with the good ... and the bad premises undercut his war policy and Why is it that Bush feels so ashamed of the efforts of the Swiftboat Vets for Truth ?

That's easy. He's following the dictum of Christian altruism, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

The good things I say about Bush in comparison with Mr. Kerry do not change the fact that Mr. Bush has bad premises ... which unWhy is it that Bush feels so ashamed of the efforts of the Swiftboat Vets for Truth ?

That's easy. He's following the dictum of Christian altruism, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

The good things I say about Bush in comparison with Mr. Kerry do not change the fact that Mr. Bush has bad premises along with the good. His bad premises undercut both his re-election campaign and his war policy.

But his opponent's (Kerry) and his enemy's (Islamism) premises are much much worse. Their premises undercut their efforts at confusion (on the one hand) and destruction (on the other) at a far deeper level than President George Bush's less extensive bad ideas.

[oldsalt]

Re Mr. Wakeland's last post:

Here, here!

[argive99]

Thanks to Jack Wakeland for his clarifications. They were eminantly logical and very helpful.

[Jack Wakeland]

"What is the evidence for saying that two of Senator Kerry's purple heart awards were claimed fraudulently?"

Got to www.swiftvets.com.

"I notice that you leave the door open to claims of atrocity by saying "nearly every single war-crime claim" and "most of the 'perpetrators'" (emphasis added)."

Yeah, of course. All wars contain violations of the conventions of war. They always have and always will. In war, laws against wanton cruelty and killing are observed -- by the best of nations -- about as well as the laws against speeding are observed on America's roads.

Throughout history up to the present, all Asian armies have fought wars without rules. Every form of human depravity, degredation and outrage is premitted --even encouraged.

In a conflict where civilized restraints on the treatment of the enemy provide no incentive for the enemy to restrain itself, why have rules and why follow them?

The answer is that the rules are intended to slow the normal breakdown of the individual human mind when exposed to continuous combat. The individual can function in the malevolent universe of the battlefield only if he believes it is limited in time and scope.

As a soldier witnessess more and more of his comrades die, he will become more and more convinced that he cannot control his own survival; that his own actions are irrelevent to his chances of making it. Long enough continuous exposure to sudden death on the battlefield will convince the soldier that survival is impossible. Insanity follows. (Experience indicates that the threshold for widespread 'shell-shock' or 'battle fatigue' is about 25% killed 50% wounded...In WWII this took about 120 days of combat in the European Theatre, 40 to 60 days in the Pacific.)

The laws of war reduce the rate of killing on the battlefield and offer the soldier, committed to combat for the duration of a long campaign, two ways off the field alive -- being wounded or surrendering (most conventions are about protection of medical presonnel and the treatment of prisoners and of the wounded).

When the enemy abides no conventions, American solidiers will violate the rules more often. The degree to which the American armed forces stayed within the laws of war in Vietnam was extraordinary. As a group, one could not have expected more of them.

In Vietnam, for every Lt. Calley who committed a war crime, there was an American who stopped one. At My Lai, the massacre was stopped short of its completion by two helicopter pilots who interposed their aircraft between unarmed women and children who were fleeing a group of maurading American infantrymen. At the command of a righteous officer piloting one of the craft, the door gunner leveled his 7.62mm machine gun on the marauders...stopping their action.

We should be PROUD of how well America's young men held up and held onto their humanity on the battlefields of Vietnam.

(If I recall correctly, it was under the John Kerry mindset -- the view that the whole Vietnam War as a 'crime' -- that war criminals like Lt. Calley were seen as victims of American anti-communism, rather than the prepetrators of mass murder. And Lt. Calley was pardoned before serving a siginficant term in prison as a blind rebellion by conservatives against the John Kerry war crime mentality.)

By contrast, in the island campaign against the Empire of Japan -- the most brutalizing war American men have ever been subjected to -- essentially every law of war was laid flat by American troops, out of retaliation for the barbarous nature of the Jap.

American prisoners were bayonetted, starved, beheaded, shot, and deprived of medical care by their Japanese captors -- only 1/3 of prisoners survived Japanese internment. And on the battlefield, most occaisions when Japanese troops surrendered, it was a ruse...a way of killing Yankees.

In the insanity of their mental breakdown -- which was hastened by the lack of rules -- Japanese soldiers chopped American bodies up and threw the pieces down hills into American rifle pits, mutillated American dead, cutting off genitals and stuffing them in mouths, and -- in a number of cases -- butchered and ate the internal organs of their adversaries in a homoerrotic celebrations of dominance.

Banzi charges were as much an orgy of mass suicide as they were a last attempt to kill American adversaries. Behind the frontal wave of screeming combatants standing, screeming and charging straight into American machine guns...there was often of field filled with Japanese comrades-in-arms killing each other and crying. They would shoot each other, cut off each other's heads, and lie close together to share a grenade.

The American response was predictable and shocking. All Japanese solidiers who attempted to surrender were systematically shot dead. Infantrymen made trophies of enemy bones. And -- in one instance -- when American forces reached a major Japanese field hospital, all were massacred. First the commandant of the hospital sent the female staff out to surrender. They ran out of the hospital barracks with their hands up, stripped to the waist to show they were women. American riflemen methodically shot each dead. The commandant attempted to rally the wounded to defend the hospital, but they were quickly overwhelmed. When American soldiers entered wards filled with incompacitated Japanese men, the G.I.s bayonetted each and every one of them where they lay.

So, no, war crimes were not a major issue in Vietnam. They were an issue in the Pacific campaign in WW II.

[argive99]

If this is a predictable response to the physical and psychological affects of war, then out of respect to the lives of American soldiers, the norm of war should be massive air campaigns and very large bombs. Really, why subject American boys to a living type of hell where atrocities are unavoidable? Dr. Binswanger once remarked that dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most moral acts of warfare in the 20th century. From Jack's description of the horrors of infantry combat, I can see the truth of that statement.

Once again I have to thank Jack Wakeland for bringing such valuable information to the discussion. Many Libertarians and ersatz Objectivists (Sciabarra and Silber, etc) lambaste American troops for 'atrocities' both in Vietnam and Iraq. Now I see that they speak from total ignorance.

[Jack Wakeland]

"...why subject American boys to a living type of hell where atrocities are unavoidable?"

Sorry about the very ugly post about war crimes, but there is no way to dress them up.

Ugly or not, close-in combat is an unavoidable necessity of our national security.

The best way to preserve the lives and limbs (and to prevent the temporary insanity of 'battle fatigue') is to provide American infantrymen with the best training, best weapons, best equipment, best communications, best artillery and air support, and the best organization to back them up from the rear areas.

That has been done in Iraq.

For example, night vision equipment issued to every single infantrymen allows them to accurately aim their rifles and light machine guns in the dark. Exploiting this advantage, most American infantry assaults last spring were conducted at night. This has the added advantage of allowing our young men to kill without being able to clearly see the brutality of their own actions. In one revealing interview in the Washington Post an American rifleman relayed how horrible he and all his comrades felt after a very successful daylight action against Sadr's militia...even though they had been doing the same thing at night, every night, for over two weeks.

The difference in combat effectiveness between the two sides in the skrimishes with Iraqi militia pretty much guarantees that no American soldier or Marine will suffer 'combat fatigue.' None will be given to semi-suicidal fits of rage that can sometimes seize a soldier after he has seen too many of his comrades die.

The conditions in Iraq are not conductive to the commission of war crimes by American or Iraqi national troops. They are, however, good conditions for breeding crimes of brutallization and rage -- above and beyond what Islamism already allows -- among the anti-Western militiamen. This is the reason why the devout Muslim combatants of Iraq now consistently violate their relegion's strictures against fouling the bodies of the dead -- who are supposed to be washed clean and wearing fresh clothes so as to be presentable to Allah. If I were an Iraqi civilian, I'd stay well clear of them.

[argive99]

Was this fully or partially responsible for the Abu Ghraib prison incident? And, keeping the context, how bad a violation really was the prison abuse scandal?