- The Washington Times - Sunday, August 29, 2004

Every serious nation, in the course of history, loses a war here and there. You hope it’s there rather than here — somewhere far away, a small conflict in a distant land, not central to your country’s sense of itself.

During America’s “Vietnam era,” Britain grappled with a number of nasty colonial struggles. Some, such as Malaya, they won. Others, like Aden, they lost — or, at any rate, decided whatever they wanted to achieve no longer worth the cost.

No parallels are exact, but the symbolism of the transfer of power in Aden (on the Arabian coast) is not dissimilar to the fall of Saigon. On Nov. 29, 1967, the Union Jack was lowered over the city, and the high commissioner, his staff and all Her Majesty’s forces left. On Nov. 30, the People’s Republic of South Yemen was proclaimed — the only avowedly Marxist state in Arabia. A couple of years earlier, the penultimate high commissioner, Sir Richard Turnbull, remarked bleakly to British Defense Secretary Denis Healey that the British Empire would be remembered for only two things: “the popularization of Association Football [soccer] and the term ‘[deleted] off.’ ”

Sir Richard was being a little hard on his fellow imperialists, but those two legacies of empire are useful ways of looking at the situation when the natives are restless and you’re a long way from home: faraway disputes you’re stuck in the middle of aren’t played by Association Football rules, and it’s important to know when to “[deleted] off.” Aden had been British since 1839 — 130 years, or 10 times as long as America was mixed up in Vietnam. Yet in the end the British shrugged it off. Just one of those things, old boy. Can’t be helped.

As the last high commissioner inspected his troops at Khormaksar Airport that final day, the Band of the Royal Marines played not “Land Of Home And Glory” or “Rule, Britannia” but a Cockney novelty pop song, “Fings Ain’t Wot They Used T’Be,” a jaunty reflection on the vicissitudes of fate.

So when John McCain sternly warns the Swift boat veterans of “reopening the wounds of Vietnam,” it’s worth asking: Why is Vietnam a “wound” and why won’t it heal? The answer: Not because it was a military or strategic defeat but because it was a national trauma. And whose fault is that?

Well, you can’t pin it all on one person. But if you had to, Lt. John F. Kerry would stand a better shot at the solo trophy than almost anyone. The “wounds” Mr. McCain complains of aren’t from losing Vietnam but from how it was lost.

Today Sen. John F. Kerry says he’s proud of his antiwar activism, but that’s not what it was. Every war has pacifists and conscientious objectors and even disenchanted veterans, but there’s simply no precedent for what Mr. Kerry did. He put his combat credentials in the service of smearing his country’s entire armed forces as rapists, decapitators and baby-killers.

That’s the “wound,” Mr. McCain. That’s why a crummy little war on the other side of the world still festers. That’s why the band didn’t play “Fings Ain’t Wot They Used T’Be” and move to the next business: John Kerry didn’t just call for U.S. withdrawal, he impugned the honor of every man he served with.

In his testimony to Congress in 1971, Mr. Kerry asserted a scale of routine war crimes unparalleled in American history. He said his “band of brothers” (as he now calls them) “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads … razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.” Almost all those claims were unsupported. Indeed, the only specific example of a U.S. war criminal that John Kerry gave was himself.

As he said on “Meet The Press” in April 1971: “Yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I used 50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use.”

Really? And when was that? On your top-secret Christmas Eve mission in Cambodia? If they had taken him at his word, when the senator said, “I’m John Kerry reporting for duty,” the Democratic Convention delegates should have dived for cover.

But they didn’t. So John Kerry now is the first self-confessed war criminal in U.S. history to be nominated for president.

Normally this would be considered an electoral plus only in the more cynical banana republics. But the Democrats seemed to think they could run an antiwar anti-hero as a war hero and nobody would mind. We now know, a lot of people, a lot of veterans , do mind very much. They understand, whether or not he ever mowed down civilians with his 50-caliber machine gun, Mr. Kerry is responsible for many wounds closer to home.

In the usual course of events, Mr. Kerry’s terrible judgment in the 1970s would render him unelectable. Instead, over two decades he morphed into a respectably dull run-of-the-mill pompous senatorial windbag. Had he run for president in the 1990s or 2000, he might even have pulled it off.

But the Democrats turned to him this time because the tortured contradictions of his resume suited an antiwar party that didn’t dare run as such. Ever since the first cries of “quagmire” back in the early days of the 2001 Afghan liberation, the left has been trying to Vietnamize the war on terror. They failed on terror, but they did Vietnamize the election campaign, and that’s turned out just swell, hasn’t it?

Remember that formulation a lot of Democrats used last year? They oppose the war but “of course” they support our troops. John Kerry’s campaign is a walking illustration of that straddle’s deficiencie: When you divorce the heroism of soldiering from the justice of the cause, what’s left but a hollow braggart?

The Vietnamese government used John Kerry’s 1971 testimony as evidence of American war crimes as recently as two months ago. In Aden, “Fings Ain’t Wot They Used T’Be,” but in Hanoi Kerry’s psychodrama-queen performance is a gift that keeps on giving. It would be a shame if they understood him more clearly than the American people do.

Mark Steyn is the senior contributing editor for Hollinger Inc. Publications, senior North American columnist for Britain’s Telegraph Group, North American editor for the Spectator, and a nationally syndicated columnist.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide