Jinglebob
Well-known member
This is from the Rapid City Journal. I thought it was very informative and interesting and I agree whole hearterdly with the author. Tsitrian writes a column for that paper.
By Anton C. Kaiser Jr., a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and served 23 years in the U.S. Army, including service in Vietnam, Germany and "Operation Just Cause," the Panama invasion.
I certainly respect John Tsitrian's service as a Marine in Vietnam (Semper Fi), but as a historian he leaves a lot to be desired.
John states ("War dissent is not aiding the enemy," Nov. 20 column) that early in his Vietnam tour he knew that "the whole endeavor was a waste." Interestingly, John served in 1966-67, long before the anti-war movement ever took hold, which actually happened after the Tet Offensive and the Chicago-based Democratic Convention, both occurring in '68. (In fact, the No. 1 song in America in '66 was "The Ballad of the Green Berets" by Staff Sgt. Barry Sadler.)
John's current "politically correct" perceptions hardly hold true prior '68.
In fact, when I served in Vietnam as an infantryman in 1971-72 the war was already won, thanks to 10 years of effort by John and many others. When the largest battle of the war was fought in '72, more than 12 divisions of North Vietnamese Army (NVA) regulars (not Viet Cong militia as in Tet '68) crossed the Demilitarized Zone, invaded the Ashau Valley and attacked down Highway 1 toward Saigon. (I was with the 1st Cavalry Division, defending Saigon.) With heavy U.S. air support and President Nixon's naval blockade, the South Vietnamese army handily defeated this massive invasion.
U.S. troops served only as advisors and backup to the South Vietnamese army during this offensive. Meanwhile, American war protesters prepared our nation for defeat. A Democratic-controlled Congress eventually pulled the plug on these highly trained South Vietnamese armed forces by withdrawing funds. In 1975, the NVA waltzed to victory.
The liberal anti-war strategy is clear: pull the troops, pull the funding, lose the war - and win elections. Welcome, Jimmy Carter. Not even Machiavelli (but maybe Ted Kennedy) could devise a more sinister political strategy. Will Iraq suffer the same fate?
John also invoked Korea in his support for anti-war protesters, stating that dissent against that war "didn't hand over victory to the communists in the North." I might remind John that U.S. troops have been stationed in Korea for more than 50 years, and that Gen. Singlaub bravely sacrificed his military career by politically opposing President Carter's attempts to withdraw U.S. troops from that peninsula.
War protesters have learned that if U.S. combat troops are on the ground, they can't win. Accordingly, we still have thousands of troops in the Balkans, almost a decade after Clinton bombed that region into submission. What happens if we withdraw from there?
Do war protesters affect the morale of troops? Don't ask the soldiers, most of them are too busy.
Instead, ask the wives, husbands, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends who suffer the subtleties of disapproval, the anxieties of potential loss and the abuses of political correctness. These are the genuine messengers who send the most meaningful signals to our troops.
Yet the real negative impact is not while our troops are overseas but rather when they return home. Step off that plane and ask yourself if you don't see a crude duplicity in that liberal adage: "I support you but not the war."
Burn the flag, it's your right. Protest the war, it's your right. But don't tell me you aren't aiding the enemy with your protests.
The enemy listens, and if you tell them what they want to hear you can expect more of the same.
Of course, as a self-proclaimed patriot, you can still keep a sanctimonious "body count."
Otherwise, ignore the self-righteous babble so prevalent in the failed "baby boomer" generation and change history. Fight the politics of the war after the war is won - because human lives depend on it. Take responsibility for your vote, especially if you lose - because human lives depend on it. And pay more attention to your politicians than to mountain lions - because human lives depend on it.
Like it or not, winning saves more lives than defeat. Just ask the families of the 100,000 (almost twice as many lives as we lost in the war) Vietnamese boat people who drowned trying to escape the NVA, or the countless numbers who disappeared into concentration camps, after we "lost" in Vietnam.
By Anton C. Kaiser Jr., a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and served 23 years in the U.S. Army, including service in Vietnam, Germany and "Operation Just Cause," the Panama invasion.
I certainly respect John Tsitrian's service as a Marine in Vietnam (Semper Fi), but as a historian he leaves a lot to be desired.
John states ("War dissent is not aiding the enemy," Nov. 20 column) that early in his Vietnam tour he knew that "the whole endeavor was a waste." Interestingly, John served in 1966-67, long before the anti-war movement ever took hold, which actually happened after the Tet Offensive and the Chicago-based Democratic Convention, both occurring in '68. (In fact, the No. 1 song in America in '66 was "The Ballad of the Green Berets" by Staff Sgt. Barry Sadler.)
John's current "politically correct" perceptions hardly hold true prior '68.
In fact, when I served in Vietnam as an infantryman in 1971-72 the war was already won, thanks to 10 years of effort by John and many others. When the largest battle of the war was fought in '72, more than 12 divisions of North Vietnamese Army (NVA) regulars (not Viet Cong militia as in Tet '68) crossed the Demilitarized Zone, invaded the Ashau Valley and attacked down Highway 1 toward Saigon. (I was with the 1st Cavalry Division, defending Saigon.) With heavy U.S. air support and President Nixon's naval blockade, the South Vietnamese army handily defeated this massive invasion.
U.S. troops served only as advisors and backup to the South Vietnamese army during this offensive. Meanwhile, American war protesters prepared our nation for defeat. A Democratic-controlled Congress eventually pulled the plug on these highly trained South Vietnamese armed forces by withdrawing funds. In 1975, the NVA waltzed to victory.
The liberal anti-war strategy is clear: pull the troops, pull the funding, lose the war - and win elections. Welcome, Jimmy Carter. Not even Machiavelli (but maybe Ted Kennedy) could devise a more sinister political strategy. Will Iraq suffer the same fate?
John also invoked Korea in his support for anti-war protesters, stating that dissent against that war "didn't hand over victory to the communists in the North." I might remind John that U.S. troops have been stationed in Korea for more than 50 years, and that Gen. Singlaub bravely sacrificed his military career by politically opposing President Carter's attempts to withdraw U.S. troops from that peninsula.
War protesters have learned that if U.S. combat troops are on the ground, they can't win. Accordingly, we still have thousands of troops in the Balkans, almost a decade after Clinton bombed that region into submission. What happens if we withdraw from there?
Do war protesters affect the morale of troops? Don't ask the soldiers, most of them are too busy.
Instead, ask the wives, husbands, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, cousins and friends who suffer the subtleties of disapproval, the anxieties of potential loss and the abuses of political correctness. These are the genuine messengers who send the most meaningful signals to our troops.
Yet the real negative impact is not while our troops are overseas but rather when they return home. Step off that plane and ask yourself if you don't see a crude duplicity in that liberal adage: "I support you but not the war."
Burn the flag, it's your right. Protest the war, it's your right. But don't tell me you aren't aiding the enemy with your protests.
The enemy listens, and if you tell them what they want to hear you can expect more of the same.
Of course, as a self-proclaimed patriot, you can still keep a sanctimonious "body count."
Otherwise, ignore the self-righteous babble so prevalent in the failed "baby boomer" generation and change history. Fight the politics of the war after the war is won - because human lives depend on it. Take responsibility for your vote, especially if you lose - because human lives depend on it. And pay more attention to your politicians than to mountain lions - because human lives depend on it.
Like it or not, winning saves more lives than defeat. Just ask the families of the 100,000 (almost twice as many lives as we lost in the war) Vietnamese boat people who drowned trying to escape the NVA, or the countless numbers who disappeared into concentration camps, after we "lost" in Vietnam.
:lol: 