[Rhodes22-list] I Wish To Change My Vote

[Roger Pihlaja]

Well, after watching the presidential & vice presidential debates, I wish to pull a flip flop & change my vote to Bush/Cheney.  Let me explain my thinking.

As a draftable male college student in the early 1970's, I watched developments in the Vietnam war & the protest movement here at home with great interest.  John Kerry's presidential candidacy has made me reexamine my own attitudes towards Vietnam.  There were a lot of mistakes made in the way the United States conducted the Vietnam war - presidential micromanagement of war strategy at the tactical level, overly restrictive rules of engagement, "pin-prick" strikes vs. the use of overwhelming force, allowing the enemy to reoccupy captured territory thus causing multiple battles over the same sites, over reliance on airpower in a jungle gorilla war, forced adoption of weapons like the M-16 assault rifle that were not yet ready for prime time, etc.  The US military shot its credibility in the foot by publishing inflated enemy "body counts" that had no basis in reality.  This was also the 1st war that played out on American television screens on the news every evening.  The Tet offensive was really the turning point.  You really have to give the VC a lot credit for the way they pulled off Tet.  Seemingly under our very noses, the VC had constructed extensive underground tunnel complexes within striking distance of strategic targets all over South Vietnam.  They had spent years building these tunnel complexes & stocking them with weapons and ammunition.  We were completely surprised when the VC seemingly came out of nowhere in a massive coordinated assault on something like 23 targets all over South Vietnam.  Yet, within a month, we had recaptured all these targets.  We took something like 4000 casualties, the largest US body count of any battle in the Vietnam war.  But, reliable North Vietnamese casualty data indicates we slaughtered them something like 4:1.  Some VC units were completely wiped out & were never again an effective fighting force.  The Tet offensive was pretty much an all out, one time attempt for North Vietnam.  Tactically, the VC got decisively defeated & it set their ability to wage war back by years.  But, by then, the US military had lost nearly all of its credibility.  No one believed the US military published body counts, or accounts of recaptured cities, and the US casualties were all over the nightly news.  The American public was horrified at the carnage on display on their televisions & it changed everything.  Before Tet, most of the American public believed the Vietnam war was winnable.  After Tet, the antiwar movement grew exponentially, the talk changed to "peace with honor" & getting the troops home.  So, even though the Tet offensive was a decisive tactical defeat for North Vietnam, their all or nothing gamble paid off and eventually resulted in total victory.

The lesson the world took away from Vietnam was the United States is a military superpower with no staying power.  We'll spend a fortune on weapon systems and training to enable our military to efficiently kill from a distance.  Our military has learned from the mistakes made in Vietnam & has fixed most of them.  We go into a conflict with overwhelming force and just simply roll over our enemy.  But, anyone that can reduce a conflict to a bloody, protracted battle of attrition, especially when it is played out on the nightly news, will eventually win over American public opinion & defeat us.

So, what kind of a president will John Kerry make?  With Bush, we have 4 years of actual presidential record to examine.  With Kerry, we must look at his life experiences that have prepared him to be president.  As I examine John Kerry's resume, I see a rich, privileged kid that went off to war in Vietnam in what might be called "patriotic fervor".  In Vietnam, he looked the horrible face of war square in the eyes & it scared & sickened him.  Kerry's record since Vietnam indicates he has turned into an appeaser.  His voting record in the US Senate is especially revealing in this regard.  Just like the United State's reputation in the world, Kerry makes a lot of blustering tough statements about fighting terrorism & finishing what we started in Iraq during the campaign.  But, when the rubber hits the road & the body count starts climbing, Kerry wants to fold.  After listening to the debates and considering Kerry's record, there is no doubt in my mind; that, if Kerry is elected, the US will make a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, no matter the side effects.

Some of you may be saying, "So what, we shouldn't have gotten into Iraq in the 1st place!"  Well, that depends upon what you believe the war on terrorism is.  Is it merely a "law enforcement" issue against groups of isolated radical Muslims?  Or, has it become a life & death struggle between ideologies?  I would argue it has become the later.  The presence of stable democracies in Afganistan and Iraq will go a long way towards stabilizing the situation in the Middle East.  Yes, the war is not going well at the moment; but, to quit now will only confirm the world's view of us.  The damage to our credibility with our allies might be irrepairable.  The terrorists realize how big a defeat it would be to have stable democracies in Afganistan and Iraq.  That's why they are fighting so hard.

Originally, I thought a Kerry election would permit other nations to join our coalition in Iraq without losing face.  Since the debate, both France & Germany have been asked that question & both said, "Huh, no way?"  No one will follow Kerry's leadership when his conviction regarding the mission in Iraq is so weak.

I do not expect the Republicans to lose control of congress in this election.  Therefore, Kerry's chances of passing his domestic agenda are slim to none.  So, as much as I dislike the Bush administration's domestic policies, it is a vain hope to think a Kerry administration would have any significant impact.  More likely, nothing would happen.

So what is it that I expect or want from a Federal government?  Well, I guess 1st & foremost I want the country to be as safe as possible from attack.  Terrorists exploding a nuclear weapon or biological weapon in the midst of a large city is a truly frightening proposition.  Bush is clearly a better choice on this issue.

The 2nd thing I want is a stable supply of critical resources.  Keep in mind the United States uses about 50 million barrels of crude oil per day & about 50% of that is imported.  This is a staggering amount of crude oil, a number so big it's hard to come to grips with.  Modern civilization has become so interconnected that interuption of this resource would be simply devastating.  Think about what happened in New York City in July, 2003 during the power outage.  That was from just one day of power interruption to a major metropolitan area!  A few years ago, James Burke did a series of shows that aired on PBS and The Learning Channel.  I think the television series was called "Connections" and he also published a companion book with the same title.  In this series, Mr. Burke documents how interconnected & intrinsically fragile modern civilization has become.  Basically, our civilization has become so specialized and interconnected that we need to start thinking of critical resources like crude oil in the same category as air, water, & food.  Those of you that live in big cities, just remember your entire lifestyle is enabled by a nearly invisible technological life support system that is massively interconnected, intrinsically vulnerable, and totally dependant upon a stable global flow of goods and services.  You should be very nervous.  At the very least, stop saying things like, "No oil for blood!"  Get real people, in modern civilization, oil is blood!  We're in a global competition for scarce resources.  If we lose this competition; then, our population is much too large to be supported without these resources & the consequences will be real bad.  I would argue this is a really good reason to go to war.

Although the outcome is by no means certain with Bush's vision for Iraq, at least there is a chance of a good outcome with this president.  I see little or no chance for a good outcome in Iraq with Kerry.  If we lose the country to a terrorist attack or can't get the resources to sustain our civilization, the domestic issues have to take a lessor priority.  Besides, I don't think Kerry would be able to get his domestic agenda passed anyway because of congress.

That's why I've changed my mind & I'm voting for Bush/Cheney.

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium