May 02, 2004

For those who doubt the effect ...
Posted by McQ

This is why many of us say that anti-war protestors can't also "support the troops". The man being interviewed is Col Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. The text is from a 1995 WSJ interview:

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

And of course, today you have General Giap also thanking them:

Celebrating the 29th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the North Vietnamese general who led his forces to victory said Friday he was grateful to leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, one of whom was presidential candidate John Kerry.

"I would like to thank them," said Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap ...

So keep it up.

But excuse me if I don't buy the "... but I support the troops" bit anymore.

Hat tip to Blackfive for the WSJ cite.

TrackBack

Comments

Man, more supreme wonderment here, John. You have to support the war in order to support the troops? Please.

Posted by: bopst at May 3, 2004 08:37 AM

To start, Bopst, I didn't write this post.

Mostly, though - I don't think McQ was implying that you cannot disagree with the war at all....just disagreeing with the way that many people express their disagreement.

ANSWER, for example, openly supports the groups who attack US troops.

Posted by: Jon Henke at May 3, 2004 08:44 AM

The point was that anti-war protests have an effect. So its not a context free or effect free endeavor. It EFFECTS the lives of the soldiers you say you support whether you want to admit it or not.

In the case of Vietnam, it gave them the psychological boost they needed to keep fighting and killing our soldiers.

Hard, for me at least, to see that as 'support'.

Posted by: McQ at May 3, 2004 09:11 AM

While we all support freedom of speech, we cannot take that to mean that there is freedom from responsibility regarding that speech.

In times of war, any words against that war will by their very nature serve to undermine morale among our troops and encourage the enemy.

This is true regardless of the First Amendment.

This does not mean we should restrict freedom of speech. But it does mean we should realize that some speech has consequences, and sometimes very dire consequences. Then we can make our choices.

We don't live in a utopia where any speech offered up in legitimate political debate may not have unintended consequences that cause harm, even though we believe in open debate.

Posted by: Anotehr Thought at May 3, 2004 08:19 PM

Those who oppose the war can continue to offer up their mantra that they "support the troops but don't support the war."

However, just saying that doesn't make it so.

To offer up an imperfect analogy, imagine if your child chooses to take up music as a profession and really believes in the power of music to affect people's lives. It is not very comforting to the child to say that you support them but not their music, especially when they so believe in their music.

Soldiers are not mercenaries or robots just taking orders; they fight because they believe in its purpose. To oppose a war is to deny
the purpose that soldiers rely upon to sustain them. That is extremely dangerous to the soldiers.

Posted by: Anotehr Thought at May 3, 2004 08:27 PM