|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
Guest
Contributor
Zell Miller
Zell
Miller is former United States Senator from Georgia.
 The
Contest For Freedom
Vietnam, Iraq, and the 2004 Election
[Zell Miller] 2/16/05
The most
significant meaning of the 2004 election is that America has
renounced the worst lessons of the post-Vietnam era. America’s
faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election
of President Bush, America recommitted itself to expanding
freedom and promoting liberty.
This election
validated not only America’s role in promoting freedom,
but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks
to chart the course of this great nation. In the 2004 election,
the American people confronted the ghost of Vietnam and considered
the threats in today’s world. In deciding how we would
confront these threats, they decided that while America is
not perfect, America has been, and still is, a force for peace
and freedom in the world – and that we should act for,
rather than retreat from, that reality.
America has
rejoined the contest for freedom, which is manifested in a
new form called the Bush Doctrine. That is why the rejection
of a Vietnam-tainted worldview in this election is so monumental.
A bad idea must be weeded out before a good one can take root.
To be sure,
Vietnam holds certain lessons for America. But for far too
many in the media, academia and public leadership, Vietnam
became the only point of reference when thinking about military
force and foreign policy. Vietnam alone defined them, and Vietnam
was consequently responsible for their narrow view of America.
But we know that many of our other struggles are at least as
important for understanding America’s place in the world,
if not more so. The waters of Pearl Harbor, the thick forests
of the Argonne, the ghastly ovens of Auschwitz, the turbulent
air over Germany and the shores of Normandy all hold lessons
for America. So, too, do the beaches of Iwo Jima, the frozen
mountain passes of Korea, the western ridges of Gettysburg,
the rolling plains of Manassas, the long-manned watchtowers
of Central Europe and so many other consecrated sites. But
ever since Vietnam, all those other sacred struggles for freedom
were overshadowed by the experience of that one struggle. For
too many, all else was forgotten.
The
Rise of “Blame America First”
Many of us
can remember when this view arrived: It was the 1972 election
when the Democratic Party of FDR, Harry Truman and JFK was
taken over by the anti-war Democratic Party of George McGovern.
From that point on, a post-Vietnam mindset dominated the Democratic
Party. We never got over it. And it grew into the view that
America was always the problem. Our enemies – never called
Communists – were considered excessive reformers whose
motives were noble. Meanwhile America’s motives, and
those of our allies, were always suspect.
Those who
adopted this post-Vietnam mindset considered the primary output
of capitalism to be poverty, and argued that poverty – not
any lust for power in the Kremlin or Cuba – was the cause
of Communist revolts around the world. They preached that military
force never solved anything – and that if it did, it
shouldn’t. It was almost as if they wanted to protect
the world from America.
These Democratic
radicals opposed our funding of the Contras in Nicaragua. They
opposed our support for El Salvador against Marxist guerillas
and, generally, our support for freedom fighters anywhere in
the world. They opposed our weapons systems as the main threat
to world peace. They attacked, resisted, tried to cancel or
cut just about every weapons system that President Reagan proposed
to win the Cold War. The list is long: the B-1 Bomber, the
MX missile, the Pershing missile, the Abrams tank, the Bradley
fighting vehicle, the Trident submarine, and many other fighters
and carriers. All were condemned as militaristic and unnecessary.
In place
of a strong national defense, they proposed the nuclear freeze,
the ban on nuclear testing, more U.N. funding, unlimited foreign
aid and unending negotiations. These, they told us, were the
paths to a safe world.
Some dared
to call these Democrats the “Blame America First” crowd,
and rightly so. For when the Berlin Wall fell and a half billion
people from the Urals to the Baltic, from Siberia to the Crimea,
became free, those who had been giving America all the blame
now failed to give America any of the credit. The Cold War
was the greatest victory for freedom in the history of the
world. But those of the post-Vietnam mindset praised it not.
So America
entered the post-Cold War era still conflicted. But the divisions
were latent – until 9/11, when we learned new lessons
of freedom in a grassy field in Pennsylvania, the halls of
the Pentagon and the skyscrapers of lower Manhattan. On that
unforgettable day – the day historian David McCullough
has called the worst in U.S. history – the scales of
the American worldview tipped back toward reality. Americans
rediscovered that the world is a dangerous place, that freedom
is fragile, and that America cannot ignore its role as leader
of the free world.
But while
9/11 woke up many to these cold hard facts of life, it also
stirred the dormant but un-diminished ghost of Vietnam. The
same stroke that unleashed the war in Iraq let loose a host
of demons from the past. For the “Blame America First” crowd,
it was as if the question of what is in the best interest of
our nation during a time of war was never asked, or its answer
never heeded.
The
Lost Idea of National Unity
The depths
of this collapse in national unity can only be understood by
looking back on leading instances of bipartisan unity in past
wars. My favorite example is Wendell Wilkie, who ran for president
against Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. At the time, Roosevelt
was pushing for a very unpopular idea: a peacetime draft. And
instead of attacking the vulnerable Roosevelt on this issue,
Wilkie gave him critical support. Further, he made it clear
that he would rather lose the election than make national security
a partisan campaign issue. Shortly before Wilkie died, he told
a friend that if he could write his own epitaph and had to
choose between “Here Lies a President” or “Here
Lies One Who Contributed to Saving Freedom,” he would
prefer the latter.
That kind
of unity was not rare in those days. It was the norm. When
President Truman needed support to oppose communism with the
Marshall Plan – another unpopular idea at the time – Republican
Senator Arthur Vandenberg stepped forward and helped pass it.
Two young Navy veterans and freshmen Congressmen by the names
of Kennedy and Nixon also supported Truman. That was the attitude
that once prevailed: Republicans supported a wartime Democrat
and Democrats supported a wartime Republican. Vietnam changed
that.
So what did
we get from the Vietnam-obsessed theorists in the Iraq War?
In essence, they decided to re-fight Vietnam. They recalled
that in the 1960s, the way they achieved victory was by pulling
down the president from within rather than defeating the enemy
abroad. This became their victory plan again. They agreed that
regime change was needed – but regime change in Washington,
D.C., not in Iraq. So they called the Iraq war “the wrong
war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” In their eyes,
the war was doomed and somehow illegitimate because it was
an “American process” and not an “international
process.” They smeared our allies, saying they were “a
coalition of the coerced and the bribed.” And then these
same critics attacked the President because he did not have
more such allies.
Again and
again, they came up with ways to blame America, claiming that
Iraq had not been a breeding ground for terrorism until our
invasion had made it one. They called the new Iraq government “an
American puppet.” Even though they knew our troops would
be put at increased risk by a misperception that America was
trying to colonize Iraq or grab its oil, they went ahead and
made those dangerous and damaging charges. They knew it was
terribly wrong not to provide funding for our troops fighting
in the field. They said it themselves. But then these same
leaders voted against funds for our troops in the most gutless
and reprehensible vote ever cast in time of war. In almost
every situation where their responsibility to their country
conflicted with their desire for political power, they chose
political power over the best interest of their country.
The
Voters of November
Only the
post-Vietnam mindset can explain the behavior of these national
leaders. Many of them, I’m sorry to say, have not changed
the way they look at the world since the 1960s. And, knowing
them, I doubt they ever will. Instead, our hope for tomorrow
came from the voters of November. As they judged what was going
on in Iraq, they too recalled what happened in Vietnam. But
they didn’t stop there. From the tragedy of 9/11, they
came to understand what Churchill called our “awe-inspiring
accountability to the future.” They realized that their
country and their president were making decisions that would
affect the lives and freedoms, not just of our loved ones today,
but of generations of Americans to come.
Throughout
2003 and 2004, the American people listened to the political
debates in Washington, D.C., and around the country and weighed
America’s role in the world. The World War II memorial
was dedicated during this time, and we gave thanks and remembered
the sacrifices of the “greatest generation.” We
recalled also how millions were spared the tyranny of fascism,
and could not help but note that our enemies in World War Two
are now free, prosperous, peaceful democracies that respect
human rights and individual liberty – thanks to the efforts
of America! And as we traveled with our dear departed President
Reagan to his final reunion, we pondered the hundreds of millions
of people no longer enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, who enjoy
their freedom because of this good man and America’s
resolve to win the Cold War. It was Reagan’s dream, but
it was America’s resolve that made the greatest liberation
of mankind the under-appreciated miracle it is today.
As the shrill charges of the post-Vietnam crowd rained down, Americans weighed
these events. They wondered: If America is not a liberator, why are our old
enemies today free, prosperous and independent? If America creates puppets,
why are countries we liberated now free to object to what we do? If America
is the problem with the world, what would the world look like today without
us? And the people’s answer to these questions on November 2nd was to
say resoundingly that America is what is right with the world, rejecting the
post-Vietnam assumption that America is what is wrong.
The message
of the voters of November was that any nation that has done
so much for the freedom of strangers, that has brought prosperity
and peace to hundreds of millions, that has free elections
and a free press – that any nation with such characteristics
and such a record deserves the benefit of the doubt. I cannot
overemphasize the importance of this point: The worst aspects
of the opposition party in the recent election campaign were
the doubt that its leaders directed against everything the
Bush administration said or did, and the lack of any doubt
directed against America’s enemies. In the debate over
Iraq’s fate, we saw these leaders and many in the media
granting every benefit of the doubt to a mass murdering, neighbor-invading,
terrorist-harboring and dictatorial regime.
The plain
facts are that Saddam Hussein not only had but used weapons
of mass destruction on foreigners and on his own countrymen.
He filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands, invaded three
countries and dropped missiles on Israel. He repeatedly and
consistently violated UN sanctions, gave refuge to the killers
of American Leon Klinghoffer, and paid families of suicide
bombers in Israel. The civilized world could not permit a man
like Hussein to continue in power. The American people agreed.
By saying
no to the wrong ideology at the wrong time, America has dodged
a bullet, and a failed dogma is doomed to wither and die on
its poisoned vine. The most destructive idea in America of
the past half century has been dismissed and America now has
the opportunity to act with energy in support of the best idea
of man – the idea of freedom. That is the core of the
Bush Doctrine. It is simple but effective.
The
Bush Doctrine
The Bush
Doctrine means, first, that America will not hesitate to use
force to stop terrorism. We will act, react, block and prevent
it. Terrorism will no longer be considered a social problem,
a political statement or a criminal infraction. Instead, it
will be seen as an act of war, and our response will be appropriate.
The second part of the Bush Doctrine appears to be new, but
really isn’t. It concerns the role of liberty. Simply
put, liberty works. It isn’t free. It has its costs.
But liberty saves more than it costs.
In Shakespeare’s
Henry the Fifth, the Duke of Burgundy recounts the losses and
sacrifices of a bloody war that drained the heart of the French
aristocracy at Agincourt. Then he asks the eternal question,
now forgotten by European leaders:
You are assembled; and my speech entreats
That I may
know the let why gentle Peace,
Should not
expel these inconveniences,
And bless
us with her former qualities.
In Europe,
where small wars once raged incessantly and major wars cursed
every generation, the courage and steadfastness of FDR, Churchill
and Truman brought a gentle peace lasting now almost 60 years.
What great change brought this about? Liberty! After World
War II, America fought hard to ensure that constitutional democracies
with individual rights and free elections replaced the totalitarian
regimes that had been our enemies. Some said that nations like
Germany and Japan, with their militaristic backgrounds and
totalitarian pasts, could never make the transition to freedom,
individual rights and the rule of law. Yet they did. And their
adoption of democratic institutions and principles has translated
into a spirit of international cooperation and respect. That
U.S. policies following WWII could change the history of lands
known for war-making proves their potential.
No one claims
or believes that freedom is free. Struggle is required, and
the linkage between struggle and freedom is as old as time
itself. No one captured this understanding as well as Frederick
Douglass
in 1857:
The whole
history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions
yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle.
. . . If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those
who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation,
are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they
want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean
without the awful roar of its many waters.
Abraham Lincoln
added to this in his second annual message to Congress: “In
giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable
alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly
save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”
President
Bush’s speeches about introducing freedom to a region
known for tyranny and terror follow in this tradtion.
Two years before Munich, when no one would listen, Churchill warned:
We must recognize
that we have a great inheritance in our possession, which represents
the prolonged achievement of the centuries; that there is not
one of our simple uncounted rights today for which better men
than we have not died on the scaffold or the battlefield. We
have not only a great treasure, we have a great cause.
If you take
one thing away with you tonight, I pray it is this: American
civilization deserves protection and has earned the benefit
of the doubt. Do not let barbarians use our civility and freedom
to destroy our liberty. Do not let barbarians sack civilization
simply because they knock gently. Holding the course for freedom
is hard. But with all I’ve learned from study, age and
experience, I believe, with every fiber of my body, that there
comes a time when a civilization has to choose between good
and evil, between freedom and tyranny.
I retire
from the Senate heartened that the America of our forefathers
has made, once again, the right choice for freedom. And I thank
Providence above for the wisdom our Founders demonstrated by
entrusting the direction of this nation to the common man and
woman. From these ordinary folks, we have again seen extraordinary
leadership, and for that we can all rejoice. tOR
Copyright
Hillsdale College. Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS,
the national speech digest of Hilldale College, www.hillsdale.edu
§
|
|
|
