By William Tucker on 2.13.04 @ 12:04AM
Kerry’s Vietnam business is serving a useful purpose by raising issues that need to be discussed this presidential election.
Suddenly the second-term fortunes of President George Bush are
being cast in doubt, and frankly I'm not disappointed. There are
lots of issues sitting on the table that the public really hasn't
had the chance to resolve.
What this country needs right now is a good, well-contested
Presidential election. It will be a shame if we're still talking
about John Kerry's Vietnam service and President Bush's National
Guard stint by November, but in a way that's what the election is
going to be all about.
No one can fault Bush for his response to September 11 and the
way he has rallied the nation. On his role as commander-in-chief,
it's thumbs-up all the way. But there are other questions looming
just over the horizon. Just how far is the nation willing to commit
to building democracy the Middle East? Is this a single tour of
duty or an open-ended enlistment? The brouhaha over CIA
intelligence is only symptomatic. There is serious talk in
Washington about expanding the military. Condoleezza Rice is
projecting a 15-year tour through the wallows of Middle Eastern
nation building.
The real question is, what's our mission over there? Are we
really ready to embark on this kind of effort? Let's ask the
question now, rather than argue about how we were "deceived" into
it later.
IN THIS LIGHT, John Kerry's Vietnam service is extremely relevant.
Granted he turned against the war, but at least he enlisted in the
first place. Anyone who lived through that era knows how
surpassingly easy it was for people with a college education to
avoid military service. For me, it was a college doctor who hated
his army experience and made a practice out of writing letters to
people's draft boards asking that they be excused. Even for those
who volunteered, the road away from combat was easy to take. The
quarterback of my college football team was enthusiastically
training as a platoon sergeant in 1965 when he got a glimpse at the
mortality rates for platoon leaders already serving in Vietnam.
Within a few months he had quietly steered himself into a training
assignment and spent the rest of his enlistment stateside.
In its early stages, the Vietnam War was fought by hotshots,
adventurers, and army veterans bored after more than a decade of
peace. A sign hanging around army bases in 1963 said, "Vietnam --
it's not much but it's the only war we've got." By 1970 the war was
being fought by 18-and-19-year-olds drafted directly out of high
school. That's what went wrong -- we were sending draftees with six
months' training up against the most seasoned army in the world.
But draft boards were tired of dealing with protesters and went for
the path of least resistance. With student deferments, a college
education practically exempted you from military service. As a
result, the burden of fighting split along class lines.
That's why John Kerry's Vietnam service is such a throwback to a
different era -- namely World War II. Granted he is a Massachusetts
Brahmin who attended Swiss boarding schools. Granted he has a taste
for Italian motorcycles and his favorite form of address to common
people (according to one Massachusetts radio host who has followed
him closely) is: "Do you know who I am?" Still, Kerry is following
in the footsteps of another Massachusetts liberal with a stellar
war record -- John F. Kennedy -- and that's not a bad place to
be.
KERRY'S EXPERIENCE THROWS the Bush administration into sharp
contrast. Whether Bush has done the right thing or not in invading
Iraq -- and I think he has -- there is about him a certain air of
the armchair soldier. Even worse is Dick Cheney, whose "other
priorities" argument may yet blow up in everyone's face. There is a
lot of responsibility in sending American soldiers into combat
right now.
Yet read David Frum and Richard Perle's An End to Evil
and you'll find a pair of former Bush and Reagan administration
officials talking about moving the American armed forces around the
globe like a box of toy soldiers. We should invade Syria just to
make sure Saddam didn't store any weapons there. Then we should
overthrow the mullahs in Iran. Next let's blockade North Korea.
Granted Frum and Perle are no longer in government service, but
there's a hint of the kind of ideas that may be circulating through
the Administration. With these kinds of ambitions, it's nice to
have someone with Kerry's combat experience in on the
discussion.
Of course Kerry is kidding himself -- and voters will be fooled
as well -- if he thinks he's going to change course in Iraq any
time soon. The dividends have already been too great -- getting rid
of Saddam, Libya's capitulation, the revelation of the
Pakistani-North Korean alliance (a real "Axis of Evil"), plus
who-knows-what to come. Kerry may try to hang his hat on the UN,
but anyone who ties his electoral fortunes to the whims of France
and Germany will be entering his own quagmire.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMEONE do is put our entire world position in
perspective. Although radical Islam is on our front burner, an
equally challenging shift is the rise of China and India as mature
economic competitors. Democracy and free markets are finally taking
root in these Far East goliaths -- which is exactly what we wanted
when we fought the Vietnam War. Yet now that the Chinese are
manufacturing things instead of shoveling manure on agricultural
communes while preparing for land war with America, we suddenly
find ourselves worrying about them as an "unfair trading
partner."
The most recent world economic statistics show that, for the
first time in history, the gap between rich and poor around the
globe has actually started narrowing rather than widening. This is
a direct result of China and India's adoption of capitalism.
So what do we want? Do we immediately close our doors and start
putting up trade barriers, trying to restore the miserable
conditions that gave rise to Chinese Communism in the first place?
Or do we try to retool America as a flexible, high-tech society
that can remain inventive and keep its place at the head of the
world economy?
That's an issue on which George Bush and the Republicans have it
all over the Democrats. If he wants to shed his image as a weekend
warrior and emerge as a true world leader, the President should
start laying out some of these hard truths to the country right
now.
topics:
Education, Trade, Islam, Military, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Communism