40 Years After Vietnam

The last US combat troops left Vietnam forty years ago on March 29, 1973. This was a result of a so-called “peace agreement” signed in Paris, but no peace occurred in South Vietnam. In fact, the ensuing year after the agreement was more deadly in South Vietnam than any year of the war.  That’s because the US wanted out of Vietnam, cared little about consequences, and declared “peace with honor” by signing an agreement everyone knew would not be honored by North Vietnam.

The US abandoned South Vietnam; much like it is abandoning Iraq and, eventually, will abandon Afghanistan (the “good” war). That is the lesson we learned from the Vietnam War. Declaring a politically incorrect war to be over is as good as a victory if it can be “sold” to the public as a win. That has now been expanded to simply declaring the economy to be fine, declaring the deficit to be no problem, declaring contraception to be a right, or declaring that the rich pay no taxes. Ideology trumps all.

One’s opinion of the Vietnam War is irrelevant to the issue of abandonment. A commitment was made to South Vietnam as part of the “peace agreement” to provide assistance if North Vietnam continued aggression, but a Democrat-controlled Congress refused that assistance when it quickly became needed. The US blatantly reneged on its commitment, abandoning South Vietnam to a total collapse and slaughter – because of ideology.

With war comes a responsibility, regardless of the reasons for the war. One should enter into war with clear goals and to win, or don’t enter into it at all. Allowing changing social mores, public opinion, or ideology to override responsibility or dictate rules of engagement is wrong. A “humane” war is an oxymoron and a losing strategy. War is hell, and hell should be entered only with good reason and traversed through as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Forty years after Vietnam, we have still not learned. Our enemies, on the other hand, learned well: Stick it out long enough and the US will tire and retreat. Where is the honor in that?

David J. Hentosh

Liberal Wars

During the Vietnam War era, liberals were aggressively vocal about their distaste for the military and made it very clear they were against almost all wars, regardless of cause. “Make love, not war” was the inane, bumper-sticker philosophy of the anti-war movement, its sheer simplicity indicative of the shallow understanding of many protesters.

Having a propensity for exaggeration, liberals took idealism and frustration to the disgusting level of blaming our troops and began denigrating them as scapegoats. This was not acceptable to the vast majority and the liberal cause lost much respect and suffered badly as a result, particularly at the voting booth.

The lesson learned showed up during John Kerry’s campaign for president in 2004 when his status as a Vietnam War vet was proudly touted by liberals as a major qualification for the presidency. It was a strange liberal turnaround – and it was a sham. It was a blatant and transparent political attempt by liberals to ingratiate themselves with the majority. It ended up backfiring on Kerry.

Flash forward to today and we find the turnaround complete with liberals fully embracing the idea of “war” as a political tool and tactic. Protests that started against “Bush’s War” in Iraq quickly turned into enthusiastic support for “Obama’s War” in Afghanistan. Bush’s “surge” in Iraq, hated by liberals and predicted to fail, became Obama’s surge when it succeeded and was held up as an example of Obama’s superior competency in warfare.

In this turnaround, liberals have embraced exaggeration again, labeling controversial political issues as a “war” in the hope of gaining sympathy from the majority. Thus we find the so-called “war against women”, the “war against choice”, the “war against the poor”, the “race war”, the “culture war”, and the “war against minorities”. All have become accepted, standard talking points in the liberal media. (Yes, conservatives are also guilty with the “war against Christians”, the “war against the unborn”, etc, – but conservatives never embraced hatred towards the military or considered all wars to be evil, therefore, the lack of irony or hypocrisy is an exemption here.)

Rather than calm things down, Obama has fueled this war effort with aggressive rhetoric that pits the middle class and the poor against the rich. He has sparked a real “class warfare” that could have dire consequences. It is deliberate, it is political, it is manipulative, it is deceitful, it is fracturing, and it is disgraceful.

David J. Hentosh

Jane Fonda: Radio Expert

Jane Fonda joined with Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem in calling for Rush Limbaugh to be pulled off the air for his remarks about a Georgetown law student. Jane has a lot of experience with offensive remarks over the radio, so perhaps her credentials should be remembered as she speaks out about Rush.

During the Vietnam War in 1970, Jane Fonda visited Hanoi, comforting our enemy and protesting US actions in Vietnam. While being treated as a hero by the North Vietnamese, she made approximately ten radio broadcasts denouncing American military and political leaders as war criminals. She also called for our soldiers in Vietnam to lay down their weapons and refuse military orders.

Jane followed her treasonous radio broadcasts with denials of torture being carried out on our prisoners of war held in North Vietnam. She naively accepted the propaganda fed to her by the North Vietnamese and called returning POWs testifying about torture “hypocrites and liars”. Her behavior went far beyond mere protesting and a very credible case  has been made for her to be brought up on charges of treason.

Unfortunately, treason charges were never brought against Jane for fear of causing more upheaval in the country during those turbulent times. Jane escaped prosecution and, instead, the country that she found so wrong rewarded her with millions of dollars from sales of exercise tapes. The infamous photos of Jane smiling and sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun (used to shoot down US planes) remain as a testament to her actions.

Those photos should resurface again as a reminder of Jane Fonda’s political acumen. Perhaps one of her radio broadcasts should be played alongside Rush’s to see which one is more offensive. Jane’s excuses and lame attempt at an apology fell very short of being anything more than an attempt to put her traitorous actions behind her. If she wants to now speak out against Rush’s radio show, she should be held accountable for her own radio show broadcasts from North Vietnam in 1970.

Beware Jane; there is no statute of limitations for the charge of treason.

David J. Hentosh