The Grand Old Partisan of Illinois

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Vietnam or Korea? Durbin Ignores What Really Matters

Last week, the Tribune’s Washington Bureau reported that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Meet the Press) took issue with President Bush’s likening of his handling of the situation in Iraq to that of Harry Truman’s in Korea. According to the story, Durbin “suggested that a more apt comparison might be to President Johnson….and the Vietnam War…” because:

Harry Truman had allies. NATO was behind him."

Let’s ignore the fact that it was actually the UN, which only consented because the Soviets were in the bathroom (or something like that) and thus couldn’t exercise their veto, and that it was principally Britain and Australia (two members of Bush’s “coalition of the willing”) who supported the U.S. led task force, and assume Durbin’s broader point actually matters: that the US had more international support in Korea. Is that the only salient difference between Korea and Vietnam? No. There is one more. One that makes Korea a significantly better analogy for Iraq: the outcome of the Korean War did have serious, long-term implications on U.S. national security.

Durbin apparently thinks that the lack of participation by our “traditional allies” (except, of course, the Brits, Aussies) is more relevant than what leaving Iraq too early might mean for our long-term security.


  • I have been covering, in a number of my recent blog entries, the geopolitical philosophy of liberal internationalism, a dangerous policy, which I believe that our government is currently pursuing in Iraq, and which run starkly in contrast to traditional conservative and Republican principles.

    This left-wing expansion of the 'welfare-warfare' state is going to cause problems, whether it's Democrats (such as Truman, LBJ, and Clinton) who are doing it, or whether it is a Republican President who is doing it.

    By Anonymous Aakash, at 14/12/06 2:32 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home