Cambodia and Iran

by CKR

I’ve been having flashbacks to the hollow, betrayed, dismayed, sickened feeling that I had when President Nixon announced his Cambodian escalation in April 1970. The flashback was particularly strong during President Bush’s speech last Wednesday, but they started some time before that.

Chuck Hagel has made the comparison. He points out that Nixon’s incursions into Cambodia, began a month and more before he told the American people about them, spread the Vietnamese war into Cambodia. Hagel’s concern is that we may already be at war with Iran.

I wasn’t paying attention to politics in 1970 the way I do now, so I thought I should look up the history.

Nixon claimed in April 1970 that the North Vietnamese were setting up bases in Cambodia, which may well have been true. What he didn’t say was that he had begun high-altitude bombing of those bases in March. The bombing killed many Cambodians, and may have helped the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

Nixon was elected on a promise to end the war. It was clear during the elections that the war was tearing the country apart; demonstrations continued in the streets.

George Bush gave no sign of wanting to end the war, and the Republicans lost Congress as a result. The country is no less divided now, but young people are not being sent involuntarily to die in Iraq, so we do not have demonstrations.

The two speeches contain a number of parallels, but, compositionally and rhetorically, Nixon’s is clearly better. His points stand out clearly, whereas Bush’s points are muddled. Nixon also takes responsibility for what he knows will be an unpopular decision, whereas Bush takes pro forma responsibility only. Nixon’s speech focuses on specifics, whereas Bush agglomerates the generalities he is so fond of.

Some comparisons:

Nixon:

After full consultation with the National Security Council, Ambassador Bunker, General Abrams and my other advisors, I have concluded that the actions of the enemy in the last 10 days clearly endanger the lives of Americans who are in Vietnam now and would constitute an unacceptable risk to those who will be there after withdrawal of another 150, 000. To protect our men who are in Vietnam, and to guarantee the continued success of our withdrawal and Vietnamization program, I have concluded that the time has come for action.

Bush:

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefitted from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

Nixon:

Now faced with these three options, this is the decision I have made. In co-operation with the armed forces of South Vietnam, attacks are being launched this week to clean out major enemy sanctuaries on the Cambodian-Vietnam border. A major responsibility for the ground operations is being assumed by South Vietnamese forces.

Bush:

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

Nixon:

And now, let me give you the reasons for my decision. A majority of the American people, a majority of you listening to me are for the withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam. The action I have taken tonight is indispensable for the continuing success of that withdrawal program. A majority of the American people want to end this war rather than to have it drag on interminably. The action I have taken tonight will serve that purpose. A majority of the American people want to keep the casualties of our brave men in Vietnam at an absolute minimum. The action I take tonight is essential if we are to accomplish that goal.

Bush:

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

It’s hard to produce exact parallels because Nixon’s talk is crisp where Bush’s is diffuse. That last quote from Bush might have included two more paragraphs.

Another excerpt from Nixon’s speech that has resonances for today.

It is not our power, but our will and character that is being tested tonight.

The question all Americans must ask and answer tonight is this: Does the richest and strongest nation in the history of the world have the character to meet a direct challenge by a group which rejects every effort to win a just peace, ignores our warning, tramples on solemn agreements, violates the neutrality of an unarmed people, and uses our prisoners as hostages? If we fail to meet this challenge, all other nations will be on notice that despite its overwhelming power the United States when a real crisis comes will be found wanting.

During my campaign for the Presidency, I pledged to bring Americans home form Vietnam. They are coming home. I promised to end this war. I shall keep that promise. I promised to win a just peace. I shall keep that promise. We shall avoid a wider war, but we are also determined to put an end to this war.

In this room, Woodrow Wilson made the great decisions which led to victory in World War I. Franklin Roosevelt made the decisions which led to our victory in World War II. Dwight D. Eisenhower made decisions which ended the war in Korea and avoided war in the Middle East. John F. Kennedy, in his finest hour, made the great decision which removed Soviet nuclear missiles from Cuba and the western hemisphere.

I have noted that there’s been a great deal of discussion with regard to this decision that I have made. And I should point out I do not contend that it is in the same magnitude as these decisions that I have just mentioned. But between those decisions and this decision, there is a difference that is very fundamental. In those decisions the American people were not assailed by counsels of doubt and defeat from some of the most widely known opinion leaders of the nation.

I have noted, for example, that a Republican Senator has said that this action I have taken means that my party has lost all chance of winning the November elections. And others are saying today that this move against enemy sanctuaries will make me a one-term President.

No one is more aware than I am of the political consequences of the action I have taken. It is tempting to take the easy political path, to blame this war on previous Administrations, and to bring all of our men home immediately -- regardless of the consequences, even though that would mean defeat for the United States; to desert 18 million South Vietnamese people who have put their trust in us; to expose them to the same slaughter and savagery which the leaders of North Vietnam inflicted on hundreds of thousands of North Vietnamese who chose freedom when the Communists took over North Vietnam in 1954.

To get peace at any price now, even though I know that a peace of humiliation for the United States would lead to a bigger war or surrender later. I have rejected all political considerations in making this decision. Whether my party gains in November is nothing compared to the lives of 400,000 brave Americans fighting for our country and for the cause of peace and freedom in Vietnam.

Whether I may be a one-term President is insignificant compared to whether by our failure to act in this crisis the United States proves itself to be unworthy to lead the forces of freedom in this critical period in world history.

I would rather be a one-term president and do what I believe was right than to be a two-term President at the cost of seeing America become a second-rate power and to see this nation accept the first defeat in its proud 190-year history.

None of this makes Nixon a good guy, of course. There was a reason that I felt that sickening betrayal and that demonstrations continued, including at Kent State University, in Akron, Ohio.

The mayor of Akron called in the National Guard. During a demonstration on May 4, the National Guard opened fire, killing four students and wounding nine. The National Guardsmen and the students were about the same ages. The picture was of young people killing young people for what was now Nixon’s war.

Nixon released a self-serving report in June 1970 on the success of the Cambodian bombing. It’s long and features the detailed statistics on anti-aircraft rounds, mortars, vehicles, and bunkers destroyed that were so favored by the government at that time.

The most important parallel seems to be whether President Bush has already begun operations in Iran, as President Nixon had in Cambodia. Laura Rozen and Steve Clemons suggest that he may have. And what’s this about stuff crashing in central Iran? Looking forward, we can wonder whether widening the war will precipitate an unexpected occurrence, like the deaths at Kent State, that could help to turn President Bush away from his march toward an all-consuming Middle Eastern war.