By JAMES TARANTO
Fighting
the Last War
"In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader said the
United States 'ran and left their agents' in Vietnam and the jihadists must
have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq,"
the Associated Press reports from Washington:
"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a
letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of
the collapse of American power in Vietnam--and how they ran and left their
agents--is noteworthy. . . . We must be ready starting now." . . .
"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the
media," he wrote.
The translation of the letter, in PDF, is here.
Is Iraq another Vietnam? Zarqawi thinks so, as do "antiwar" politicians
here in America and many in the media. And in this respect, at least, Iraq does
resemble Vietnam: America's enemies and domestic opponents of the war, acting
in sync if not in concert, are attempting to defeat the war effort "in
the battlefield of the media."
But there the similarity ends. For one thing, the media are nowhere near as
monolithic, or as powerful, as they were during the Vietnam era. Arguably the
war in Vietnam was lost when Walter Cronkite declared as much after the Tet
Offensive. Cronkite's lapse into advocacy was, as Newsweek's Howard
Fineman argued in January, the beginning of the end of "the notion
of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press." Cronkite and his successors
squandered the public trust they had earned, with the result that no journalist
today--no, not even your humble columnist!--comes anywhere close to wearing
the mantle of "most trusted man in America."
For another, there is no serious antiwar movement today. Antiwar protests in
2005 consist of the same crackpot rent-a-mobs who long before 9/11 were disrupting
meetings of groups like the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary
Fund. Cindy Sheehan is a case in point: Sold by the media as a grieving Everymom,
she turned out to be an America-hating lunatic. Thus, as we noted
Monday, there is no move among American politicians, outside the Angry Left
fringe, to withdraw from Iraq or defund the effort there.
But what about those public opinion polls that show a majority of Americans
think liberating Iraq was "a mistake"? The same polls show a majority
opposing a precipitous pullout. This seems to be a contradiction, but it really
isn't. The idea that Iraq was a "mistake" reflects anxiety about another
Vietnam-like defeat; the opposition to withdrawal reflects a determination not
to let that happen.
In short, those who hope for another Vietnam appear to have succeeded,
for the moment, in persuading most Americans to fear another Vietnam.
But that is a far cry from persuading them to accept another Vietnam.