The media is getting a bit desperate sounding lately, to my ear. They are reaching further and further to work in at least one reference to Vietnam into any story they write. The New York Times coverage of today's vote in the Senate is no exception.
WASHINGTON, June 22 — The Senate voted today against measures calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, after a long and emotional debate that was in some ways reminiscent of the Vietnam War era.
The votes, 86 to 13 on one measure and 60 to 39 on the second, reflected not only deep divisions between Republicans and Democrats but within the Democratic ranks as well. The bitterness of the debate, and some comments afterward, made it clear that Iraq would be a dominant issue in this year's Congressional elections, and perhaps in the 2008 presidential race. (Emphasis added.)
Now if you read the rest of the article, that little statement is completely unsupported. Just kind of thrown in there like the reporter or the editor just needed a good home for the poor, orphaned phrase. 'Yep, that's a good place to stuff a Vietnam reference!', you can almost hear them saying. But later, you can also discern why they are getting a bit nervous.
The subject of troop withdrawals has figured prominently in the recent public debate over the American mission in Iraq. Today, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, said there would be continued gradual reductions over the course of the next year as Iraqi take on a greater role in the security. But he said there should be no public timetable.
"I feel it would limit my flexibility," he said at a news conference after the Senate voted. "I think it would give the enemy a fixed timetable and I think it would send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that is trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said troop levels, currently at about 126,000, might not take a "steady path" down, but instead fluctuate depending on such events as national elections or troop rotations. "It very likely will go down and up and down and up, depending on the circumstances and depending on the need," he said at the news conference.
In urging defeat of the Kerry-Feingold measure, Senator Warner said that to set a withdrawal date would tell American troops and the Iraqi people "we're going to possibly pull the rug out from under you." "It would be impossible to imagine a worse time than now" to set a timetable for withdrawal, said Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader.
But Senator Feingold said it was time to tell the Iraqi people that "we have done what we can do militarily" and let them run their own country.
And Senator Reid said it was wrong to blindly follow President Bush's course in Iraq. To put loyalty to a president above loyalty to one's conscience was not only "unpatriotic and servile, but morally treasonable," Mr. Reid said.
Just the quotes the Times uses demonstrates which party is weak on understanding military realities. That doesn't bode well. Contrary to the opinions of some politicians, the American people aren't stupid. They can see who understands defense. And who advocates pulling the rug out from under a friend.
I'm sure they're busy looking for another place to stuff a Vietnam reference. It'll likely turn up in the fashion section later this week.
