GOP has a history of military retreat

[question everything]

chicagotribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0705090967may10,1,2283353.column

COMMENTARY

Where is GOP realism?
Party relies too much on sloganeering and hawkish obstinacy
Steve Chapman

May 10, 2007

We all know that when it comes to war, Republicans are strong and resolute, while Democrats are weak and craven. We know because Republicans tell us so. Those have been the constant GOP themes in the congressional debate over the Iraq war. House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio accused Democrats who want to mandate withdrawal by a certain date of proposing "a timetable for American surrender." They were cheering for "defeat," charged Arizona Sen. John McCain. President Bush vowed that unlike his partisan opponents, he would not "cut and run."

(snip)

No one present was impolite enough to mention that far from spurning retreat in the face of terrorism, the Gipper embraced it. After the 1983 terrorist bombing in Beirut, which killed 241 U.S. military personnel, he recognized the futility of our presence in Lebanon and pulled out. Boehner portrays himself and his colleagues as brave patriots who would never accept anything less than victory in war. But in 1993, when things got tough in Somalia, he voted for withdrawal. John McCain likewise favored "defeat" in that conflict. He opposed a timetable for withdrawal not because he wanted U.S. forces to stay but because it would take too long. Our soldiers, he insisted, should leave "as rapidly and safely as possible." Or, you could say, cut and run. At the same time, Democrats were warning of the dangers of retreat. Among them was a senator from Massachusetts named John Kerry.

(snip)

They (the Republicans) also favored an outcome short of victory in the Kosovo war of 1999, when the GOP-controlled House voted down a resolution supporting the president's air campaign. Most House Republicans also supported a measure calling for the withdrawal of American troops from the Balkans. Back then, House Republican Leader Tom DeLay said, "The bombing was a mistake," and urged President Bill Clinton to "admit it and come to some sort of negotiated end." Can you guess the title of DeLay's new book? "No Retreat, No Surrender."

The truth is, Republican presidents are not known for staying the course in the face of adversity. Dwight Eisenhower ran on a promise to end the Korean war, which he did -- on terms that allowed the communist aggressors to remain in power in the North. Richard Nixon negotiated a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese government, which provided for a U.S. pullout. Gerald Ford presided over the fall of Saigon and the final humiliating American evacuation.

In those instances, the presidents came to grips with the unpleasant truth that sometimes you can't achieve the desired outcome without an excessive sacrifice, if at all. But when it comes to Iraq, Republicans insist we should be ready to pay any price in pursuit of a victory that has eluded us for so long. In their view, weighing the costs against the benefits, or acknowledging that we don't have a formula for success, is tantamount to appeasement.

(snip)

[MADem]

1. Just last week Bill Maher was praising Gipper's 'cut + run' vis a vis Beirut! nt