What a wonderful phrase. Josh Trevino writes about the folks who have just taken over the Congress.

The Democrats' battle cry.

Alan - The problem is that the whole "Democrats cut-and-run" thing is a soundbyte.

Trevino lists two examples of "cutting and running" - one being Clinton in Somalia and the other being Reagan in Beirut. I'm still surprised people bring up Beirut as showing a lack of resolve on the part of the Reagan administration. I don't think many folks considered Reagan weak-kneed back in the day. I mean, the guy bombed Tripoli and patrolled the "Line of Death," re-flagged oil tankers and guarded them through the Straits of Hormuz, played brinkmanship with the whole Pershing 2 / SS-20 missile standoff in Europe (against very heavy popular opposition by Europeans), advocated the possibility of "limited nuclear war" rather than simple deterrence, and found time to have an excursion in Grenada.

Clinton, for his part, had no problems with deploying forces to Kosovo without a UN mandate and in opposition to Russian support. And historically, Democrats started every war and major military conflict the U.S. was involved in during the 20th century with the exception of the first Persian Gulf War - World War I, even the American Expeditionary Force in Russia in the later stages of World War I as well as even after WWI had already ended. Recall that Russia had already withdrawn from WWI, so you can see why the Soviets were a little sore about the whole episode. World War II, the Greek Civil War (this was the first major engagement by proxy between the U.S./UK and the Soviet Union), Korea, Vietnam, and of course Kosovo.

Recall that not only did Republican presidents promise (and deliver on the promise) to end the unresolvable conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, but also signed virtually all of the arms reductions treaties with the Soviet Union: SALT I, ABM Treaty, INF Treaty, START I, START II, and SORT. Jimmy Carter signed the SALT II Treaty.

There are always going to be vocal adherents and opponents within a Party during any conflict, particularly when the conflict was initiated by the opposition Party or appears not be be going well. Recall also the vocal Republican opposition to Clinton's deployment of troops or use of military in Somalia, Kosovo, etc. (be objective on this and do a Google search - ignore the Party affiliation and just read the comments that were being said back then).

I honestly don't see how people buy into the whole "Party X is the Party of cut-and-run." As I illustrated, Democratic Presidents have more of a history of initiating conflicts while the GOP has more of a history of ending conflicts, as well as signing a majority of Cold War treaties with the Soviet Union. Yet a rational, thinking person would not, I would hope, accuse Nixon or Reagan of being "soft" on Communists or afraid to use military force just because those two Presidents withdrew from Vietnam and Beirut, and were responsible for the bulk of the arms treaties with the Soviets.

How about folks just recognize a few fundamental facts that are continuously born out by history as it unfolds:

1) Don't put all your money down on rosy predictions. James Baker who is currently leading a group to try to come up with a solution for Iraq "has publicly expressed skepticism about George W. Bush's ambition of transforming Iraq into a democratic beacon of change for the entire Middle East. Speaking at Princeton University, his alma mater, in April, shortly after the study group was formed, Baker said, "We ought not to think we're going to see a flowering of Jeffersonian democracy along the banks of the Euphrates.".
2) While things don't turn out as nicely as optimistic projections would like, they also often don't turn out as poorly. Vietnam was supposed to be the linchpin of domino theory in the Far East. Vietnam has also been all over the news in the last couple weeks. Here are some highlights:
* Intel is expanding investment to $1 Billion for a fabrication plant
* Vietnam is on the brink of attaining WTO membership
* Bush is going to Hanoi for the APEC conference
3) Criticism or support of military action are governed more often by political expediency than anything else, probably followed next by a rational belief in the likelihood of failure, stalemate, or success. GOP leaders have over the last year begun to less and less tentatively criticize Iraq or call for changes. Why? Well, the majority of the public isn't behind it anymore.

For anyone who's been reading the news, Baker's panel is reportedly considering recommending engaging Syria and Iran to participate in solving the Iraq problem. I'm curious whether that will end up in the final recommendations, and if so, what the support of it will be like among both the GOP and the Democrats.

I don't know many people who had any expectations of a Jeffersonian Democracy in Iraq. The only hope was a secular Democracy.

However, I think that the military and many others who supported the war in Iraq would be near riot if the US government or Iraq (which I can't see Iraqis ever supporting this themselves) allowed Iran and Syria to operate anything within Iraqi borders. I suspect that was a trial balloon by some idiot in Baker's commission. If the entire commission thinks that way, then they have lost touch with reality.

Korea is a resolved conflict?

"Recall that not only did Republican presidents promise (and deliver on the promise) to end the unresolvable conflicts in... Vietnam"

How'd that work out?

Trevino makes some weird claims in his article. For one thing, I take exception to this comment: "The ability of a society to see through grinding conflicts like the Philippines Insurrection or the Boer War augers well for its future, lest it lose the mere capacity to _conquer,_ and be susceptible to humilitation by any small power with no advantage save mental fortitude."

What century does he live in?! Is he really arguing that wars of _conquest_ are a good thing? Should we invade Japan and take their stuff? And might one be so impolitic as to point out that the basic idea of "mental fortitude" in war can have negative extremes? The trench wars of WWI are an example where the various powers tossed their young men into meat grinders simply to prove their mental fortitude. The world has changed a bit since the wars that he refers to, and he seems to be advocating an attitude that is about 90 years out of date.

There's also this bizarre claim: "This pattern is shown to hold true even against the mythos of Vietnam: Americans turned away from that cause not because of the toll in young men, but because they lost their belief in the political leadership's will or ability to win."

Not exactly. As everybody should know by now, the Tet Offensive was a military disaster for the communists. They lost a lot of fighters. But it was a political disaster for the US leadership. The reason was NOT that the public "lost their belief in the political leadership's will or ability to win," but because they believed that Tet indicated that the leadership had been LYING to them about progress in the war. LBJ and General Westmoreland had been saying for months--years--that the US was winning and that the enemy was being decimated and they were in their last throes. Then Tet happened and suddenly the Viet-Cong no longer looked like the decimated enemy any more. The American people decided that they could not believe their leaders. That's when they lost faith. Yeah, maybe that's another way of saying that the people lost the belief that the leadership had the "ability to win," but whose fault was that, exactly? When it becomes bloody obvious that the leadership isn't working and does not know how to win, the public will decide to get new leadership.

Yes, there may be a few parallels to today...

Leland - I agree on official sanction of engaging Iran and Syria to participate in Iraq - not the most ideal solution by any means. Sure, they're doing stuff unofficially, but it's at odds with U.S. goals. If the Baker panel recommends giving Iran and Syria participation in Iraq, it would be better to just pull out all the troops and tell them to do it than to leave U.S. forces in place dealing with officially sanctioned Iranian and Syrian "help."

Korea was open warfare between United Nations forces and Chinese forces. Ike ended that conflict. There was never a formal end to the war, but periodic exchanges of small-arms fire across the 38th parallel are not on the scale of what Ike ended. Most Korean War veterans will attest that the Chinese forces were formidable, even given the decimating and outsized losses the Chinese forces incurred during the Marines' "retrograde advance" from the Chosin Reservoir. A stalemate was most likely the best solution at the time, particularly given the U.S. need to not waste its forces on China while the Soviet Union sat by and watched.

Craig - "Recall that not only did Republican presidents promise (and deliver on the promise) to end the unresolvable conflicts in... Vietnam" How'd that work out?

I actually discussed that in the latter part of my admittedly lengthy post:

While things don't turn out as nicely as optimistic projections would like, they also often don't turn out as poorly. Vietnam was supposed to be the linchpin of domino theory in the Far East. Vietnam has also been all over the news in the last couple weeks. Here are some highlights:
* Intel is expanding investment to $1 Billion for a fabrication plant
* Vietnam is on the brink of attaining WTO membership
* Bush is going to Hanoi for the APEC conference

Imagine in the early 1970s telling "domino theory" adherents the following; they would have called you nuts:

Within 30 years, the following will have happened:
* China will have become the U.S.' main trading partner and a major holder of U.S. debt
* The Soviet Union will have collapsed and become a democracy (albeit a nationalist-leaning one)
* Several Warsaw Pact nations will join NATO
* Former Soviet republics will allow U.S. forces to establish bases and perform military operations from them
* Russia, China, and Vietnam will join the WTO
* The U.S. President will host the Communist Vietnamese prime minister at the White House and in turn visit Hanoi for the APEC conference
* Dominant technology firm Intel will be building a $1 Billion fab plant in Vietnam

Then again, 30 years ago a lot of people would have asked, "Who's Intel? And what dos that mean?" They would have likewise been surprised that within 15 years the Japanese auto industry was going to pummel the U.S. auto industry.

Matthew,

My point about Korea is that North Korea still believes it is in a state of war with the US and has continued to act accordingly over the last 50 years. You address the issue from our perspective, but the North Koreans found US forces overwhelming and needed China to prevent being wiped from the map. Chinese support in a shooting war deminished, so North Korea disengaged tactical operations and moved to strategic planning and build up.

If you don't understand this, try comparing US-Vietnam relations to US-North Korea relations.

Leland -

I understand your argument about the state of relations between the U.S. and Korea today. But my point was that Ike was addressing a cessation of direct military engagement between primarily U.S. and Chinese forces.

Ike sought an end to that, and that is what he got. They were very aware that this did not include a formal end to the war from the perspective of North Korea (hence the periodic and mostly symbolic meetings between South and North Korea to try to hammer out an end to war that continue today). Basically, they chose a cold war with North Korea rather than a hot war with China, with the hope that it would be resolved somewhere further down the line.

North Korea does what it does because it hangs like a semi-independent dingleberry from China's backside. Or like a little kid shooting the finger at you while he hides behind his parent's leg. I kind of prefer the dingleberry analogy. North Korea exists and persists because it's convenient for China to have North Korea do so - just as it was convenient for the Soviet Union to have Castro being an ass off the coast of Florida.

"While things don't turn out as nicely as optimistic projections would like, they also often don't turn out as poorly. Vietnam was supposed to be the linchpin of domino theory in the Far East."

Uh, doesn't that simply prove that the domino theory was wrong?

Your claim that "Republican presidents... ended the conflict in Vietnam" is pretty ludicrous. Nobody thinks that a Republican president "won" Vietnam. Just about every sane person views Vietnam as a defeat for the US--we withdrew, leaving a shaky government and a shaky peace in place, and then nobody was surprised when the communists took over a short time later. To declare this as a victory for Republicans is wacky.

Craig -

I'll put it into context for you as you appear to have misunderstood.

Starting with the beginning of my (admittedly wordy) post:

The problem is that the whole "Democrats cut-and-run" thing is a soundbyte. Trevino lists two examples of "cutting and running" - one being Clinton in Somalia and the other being Reagan in Beirut.

What I'm doing there is addressing the contention that "Democrats are the Party of cut-and-run."

I follow that with immediately noting that despite being one of the two examples of cutting-and-running, the bulk of Reagan's record was anything but - i.e., it was an exception rather than the rule.

I then follow that with the historical fact that Democrats initiated virtually all the U.S.-engaged wars of the 20th century and with the exception of Somalia, any ending of the conflicts was done by Republican successors who had specifically campaigned to end the conflicts:

I honestly don't see how people buy into the whole "Party X is the Party of cut-and-run." As I illustrated, Democratic Presidents have more of a history of initiating conflicts while the GOP has more of a history of ending conflicts, as well as signing a majority of Cold War treaties with the Soviet Union.

I further explain some of the motivations behind those who call for ending participation in a given conflict (why and when they may do so) which isn't particularly unique to one Party or the other.

I'm also not sure where you got the impression I called Vietnam a "victory for Republicans." Here was my statement:

Recall that not only did Republican presidents promise (and deliver on the promise) to end the unresolvable conflicts in Korea and Vietnam...

I don't believe my words imply that we "won" the unresolvable situations in Korea or Vietnam. The context of my entire post, led off by the initial stand-alone sentence, is that "cut-and-run" is a meaningless soundbyte. If I was a partisan, I would have said, "Ike and Nixon promised to cut-and-run from Korea and Vietnam, and they delivered." Instead, I used neutral wording, and noted the conflicts appeared unresolvable.

Regarding Vietnam, I don't see anything in my post that indicates anything other than that I'm a skeptic of some theories. I have no idea where you appear to have gotten an impression I was a proponent of the "domino theory" or that somehow in trying to defend it I undermined it instead. Rather, re-read the context, because at least as I see it, I believe I was showing a healthy dose of skepticism toward the domino theory and noting that instead of things turning out the way the theory's advocates predicted, things turned out quite differently:

How about folks just recognize a few fundamental facts that are continuously born out by history as it unfolds:

1) Don't put all your money down on rosy predictions. James Baker who is currently leading a group to try to come up with a solution for Iraq "has publicly expressed skepticism about George W. Bush's ambition of transforming Iraq into a democratic beacon of change for the entire Middle East. Speaking at Princeton University, his alma mater, in April, shortly after the study group was formed, Baker said, "We ought not to think we're going to see a flowering of Jeffersonian democracy along the banks of the Euphrates.".
2) While things don't turn out as nicely as optimistic projections would like, they also often don't turn out as poorly. Vietnam was supposed to be the linchpin of domino theory in the Far East. Vietnam has also been all over the news in the last couple weeks. Here are some highlights:
* Intel is expanding investment to $1 Billion for a fabrication plant
* Vietnam is on the brink of attaining WTO membership
* Bush is going to Hanoi for the APEC conference

Regarding the concerns over the semantics of "Recall that not only did Republican presidents promise (and deliver on the promise) to end the unresolvable conflicts in Korea and Vietnam..."

I was primarily using the similar wording of both Eisenhower ("To forego the diversions of politics and to concentrate on the job of ending the Korean war-until that job is honorably done") and Nixon (I pledge to you that the new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific"). Both were careful in their campaign speeches to promise "an end" to the wars they'd inherited, but not to promise victory. "End the war" and "win the peace" were very carefully delineated in Nixon's stump speech, just as Ike very carefully emphasized "peace" throughout his speech after his initial lengthy lead-up to explain the challenges and the context of the whole situation.

Decimate? No wonder why we couldn't win if we only killed every 10th man......

Sorry I couldn't resist. (Yes I'm aware of popular usage)