Victory at All Costs is the latest in their recent and now frequent attacks on the anti-war movement. There have been over two dozen front page storis on the issue since Sept 17, when it appears they created a peace movement section with a rather nostalgic logo:
It's as if they just woke up and realized that over 60% of the country doesn't agree with them and it's now time to make up for lost time.
Too bad they're trying to make up that time with verbal molasses like:
We must prove that we will not be deterred by the stench of the unwashed, or the spectacle of tie-dye en masse. Most importantly, we must show the resolve to prosecute this war without flinching, or inappropriate care for political considerations at home or abroad.
I would love to have them convince my 69 year-old mother-in-law, who participated in her first protest this weekend, that she is either tye-died or unwashed.
They try the 'they hate America' refrain:
In the Vietnam era, the American Left tied themselves hand and foot to the anti-war movement, with all the unsavory elements that it included - many of the same elements we saw on display this weekend. They root for America and her allies to lose. They openly advocate victory for our enemies. Anything that might go wrong anywhere in the world is America's fault, and America must be made to pay
But the point they avoid is that we are America--or at least a larger percentage of it than they are.
Of course, they have to do this this in order to conflate "America" with themselves and their goals:
And it further led me to consider that much of the moral repugnance writ legal ushered in during the 70s did not occur in a vacuum, but rather was washed in on a wave of euphoric success by an almost identical crowd of misbegotten America haters, flush with the thrill of their victory over the "establishment" in Vietnam.
Their victory, in reality, was a victory over America.
But it is hard to keep up this America = Us equation when dealing with a democracy:
The scalp they are looking for belongs to George W. Bush, but their real success will be defined by nothing less than seizing the reins of power for another generation, in an attempt to futher hamstring us from having the ability to be the horrible blight on the world they perceive us to be.
That's how a democracy works, you see. If you get more of the people on your side, you get to 'sieze the reigns of power' (in theory at least).
There appears to be only the dimmest glimmer of realization that the 'us' and 'them' that the author is referring to are all Americans.
But by pushing this 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' theme too far, the author misses huge historical lessons:
LBJ, Nixon, it did not matter to this group of rabble-rousers, they wanted victory, they wanted a scalp, and when we capitulated to the Viet Cong and Nixon resigned from office, they had won. Nevermind that their accomplishment was the disgrace of our country and our government, they were at the front of a movement that had done something.
I'll leave Nixon alone--he did enough damage to his own reputation. But Vietnam? The disgrace of our country was not that we left Vietnam, but that we were even there to begin with. And this is even more true with Iraq.
But where this article really bears watching is in its conclusions:
It's time for victory to be pursued at all costs. By whatever means necessary, we must finish the job we set out to do, accepting the reality that the patience of this generation is lamentably short.
Some may argue that this is hardly a change, since this is exactly the attitude of the Mayberry Machiavellis who are running the show. But the historical precedents offered are troubling:
If drastic measures become necessary, we must be prepared to take them. We destroyed countless historial chapels and churches in World War II when the Germans used them for refuge, and militarily, we achieved victory. We forced a constitution that we wrote upon the Japanese, and it's worked pretty well for 60 years. We pussyfooted around in Vietnam, tried real hard to be careful with everyone's feelings, and we ended up coming home with our tails between our legs. Just one of the many aspects of the Vietnam era I hope to never live through.
It is hard not to see the seeds of a horrific political harvest in the implications.
Is it really so hard for some people to see that when you are fighting against an insurgent foe, sheltered by a sympathetic populace, sheer firepower means nothing and politics everything? That we fought the way we fought in Vietnam and Iraq because that is how you have to fight these wars? That if you don't want to fight like that you don't fight the war at all?
This anti-antiwar battle is heating up because they have seen the numbers and they aren't pretty for Administration apologists. Now is the time they need to smear and to confuse the issue. To paint the anti-war majority as freaks and misfits, "homeless, the unemployed, the trust funders, and the hippie college types...societal rejects and dope smoking FM types"
But when only 400 counter protestors show up for the Support the Troops and their Misson Weekend it is easy to see where the fringe lies.
But this article was not a total loss. If nothing else I have found an eloquent description of the problem with so much of American politics:
There is a certain segement of the American population - a segment that sadly determines most elections, that is impressed by victory and successful action, no matter what that action might be. They are impressed with whoever gets their agenda passed, they are easily wowed by triumphalism, by anyone who can point and say, "See what I have done!" They are blown along by the changing tides of history, forever content to be on the winning side, never caring whether they are on the right side
Amen. And I am glad that you are now seeing this as a threat instead of a strength.