|
Edited on Fri Dec-12-03 12:19 AM by David Zephyr
The month was November and the year was 1969. President Richard Nixon gave a nationally televised speech to the American public outlining his “plan” for withdrawing U.S. troops from out of Vietnam. Nixon spoke of what he called the “Vietnamization” of the War, which was his “plan” to replace American soldiers with South Vietnamese combatants who would be trained by our military. This promise, as might be expected, was a great solace to the war-wearied American people.
At that time, the United States had over 500,000 American soldiers in Vietnam. And the war was not going well. Over 35,000 American soldiers had already been killed in Vietnam.
I was 17 years old and a freshman in college in Texas where I just had organized our campus’ participation in the National Peace Moratorium on October 15th. The dean had called me to his office and threatened to expel me if I proceeded. In the end he conceded and some thirty students wearing black armbands gathered together in front of the Student Union Building for a few hours of speeches, songs and chants. Needless to say, we represented only a tiny minority of the overall student population who heckled and taunted us, occasionally tossing rocks us. Wisely, we knew to resist being baited into physical confrontations as the dean had called in law enforcement from local municipalities and it was obvious they were itching for some action.
That same day, it has been estimated that some 20 million Americans took part in the Moratorium.
In reaction to the obvious growing opposition to the war, Nixon made his now infamous “Vietnamization” Speech on November 3rd---just two weeks after the National Moratorium. I have provided excerpts that 1969 speech by Nixon below because the parallels between Nixon’s Vietnamization and George W. Bush’s current Iraqization of our military’s failing occupation of that nation are simply to striking to ignore.
Just this very evening, we learn from CNN, that some “300 of 700 members of the new Iraqi army have resigned, citing unhappiness with terms, conditions and pay and with instructions of commanding officers.” The U.S. military spokesperson explains it this way: "It's a new force, and ... we face some difficulties."
Hear the language in the CNN report: “Last month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Pentagon and the Coalition Provisional Authority were discussing recalling some units of the former Iraqi army, which was formally dissolved in May. The discussions followed a letter two senators sent President Bush about the ‘need to speed up the process by which Iraqis assume greater responsibility’ for security as the coalition prepares to cede power back to Iraqis in July."
Now, l ask you to hear the language from the disgraced former President Richard Nixon in his speech to the American people thirty-four years ago last month.
*********************************************************************
PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON’S SPEECH ON “VIETNAMIZATION,” NOVEMBER 3, 1969:
“My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war. -I can order an immediate, precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action.
”-Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated settlement if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary a plan in which we will withdraw all our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.
”I have chosen this second course. It is not the easy way. It is the right way.
”It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world. In speaking of the consequences of a precipitate withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America.
”Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.
”We have faced other crises in our history and have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges. Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what had to be done when we knew our course was right.
”I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.
In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."
”Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.
”For almost 200 years, the policy of this Nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all of the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this Nation has no future as a free society.
”And now I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this Nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war. I respect your idealism. I share your concern for peace. I want peace as much as you do.
”There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war. This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam. It is very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in office. There is nothing I want more than to see the day come when I do not have to write any of those letters.
”-I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam. -But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam someplace in the world.”
*********************************************************************
Well, the war in Vietnam did not end soon. In fact, it continued on until April 30, 1975 when the revolutionary forces marched triumphantly into Saigon, which was renamed Ho Chi Minh City.
When Nixon gave his “Vietnamization” speech, some 35,000 American troops had been killed. In the near six following years another 23,000 Americans would die there---58,000 in total.
And it is always important to point out that some two million Vietnamese were killed because of the war. Professor Howard Zinn points out that the U.S. dropped more bombs on the tiny land of Vietnam then it did in all of Europe and Asia during World War II. Further, when one accounts for the dead resulting from the war in neighboring Laos and Cambodia, the numbers are a staggering 3 million.
This evening I decided to do some math of my own. The results were astonishing.
Imagine with me for a moment the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. Imagine the somber, sobering extent and length of that sacred wall.
If the names of the Indo-Chinese killed because of the war were added to the memorial, the same length of wall would then stand 53 stories high! What a dark shadow such a wall would cast over the Capitol of our nation!
When President Ford, Nixon’s successor, and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger finally pulled our troops out of Vietnam --- doing, I might point out, exactly what Democratic Presidential Candidate George McGovern had promised to do back in 1972 --- the richest and most powerful nation in the world had been humiliated and defeated in war by a small, farming and peasant population.
The Vietnamization of that occupied nation had failed miserably against a popular uprising and insurgency. Do we honestly expect a different result in Iraq?
Dennis Kucinich has the only solution to the War in Iraq: "U.S. Out, U.N. In."
--David Zephyr, Claremont, California
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
