Out of the Quagmire : Chief Pusher of the Vietnam Syndrome Confronts a Patriot

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has been in the forefront of those proclaiming that America has been healed of the Vietnam Syndrome as a result of its lead role in defeating Saddam Hussein. Indeed, he has been strident in his criticisms of all who did not support the use of force in the Gulf. The following is an imaginary exchange between Gingrich and a leading articulator of the Vietnam Syndrome. GINGRICH: The House All-American subcommittee on Vigilance, Patriotism and Subversion is in session. Will the witness be sworn.(To the witness:) You’ve been before the committee, if I’m not mistaken. I think we know your kind.

HALBERSTAM: No sir, I have not . . .

G: But you were a wimp on Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, long before the Persian Gulf, if I’m not mistaken. Let us start with the easy ones, Grenada and Panama. You did not, and we have considerable proof I might add, write a single patriotic sentence, utter a single patriotic sentence, nor I am afraid--and we have quite definitive proof of this--think a single patriotic thought. You were seen attending a movie on the Grenada invasion starring Clint Eastwood and laughing at the wrong part. Textbook wimpery.

H: I’ve never liked the word “wimp” myself. I didn’t like it when Newsweek magazine did a cover on George Bush and talked about the Wimp Factor. I never thought anyone who flew fighter planes in World War II should be accused of being a wimp.

G: The President, as we all know, is both a hero and a Republican. The committee does not need any outside advisers on this subject. Will the witness address himself to his sniveling, gutless policies on Panama and Grenada and try to explain why he failed to buy even a T-shirt commemorating our victories there.

H: I did not have a policy on either Panama or Grenada, they went by too quickly for me . . .

G: Our files show, in addition, that at a lecture at Stanford, four years ago, you made fun of the famous American hero S. Stallone and referred to Mr. Stallone as someone who had spent the war years teaching at a girls school in Switzerland. You mocked, as our files show, Mr. Stallone’s many medals--medals, I might add, awarded by the Congress of the United States. These files I should remind you, sir, come from Mr. Hoover himself. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, I should add. Did you make these statements?

H: I did. I thought Mr. Hoover was dead.

G: Fortunately, Mr. Hoover’s death does not impact on his capacity to continue to send in files. Mr. Hoover’s death is lamentable, but his capacity to maintain his files after his death is utterly admirable, and remains unimpaired.

H: I see.

G: Now there are a number of charges against you and others of your ilk. First, that you were a pioneer Vietnam War wimp. We have, sir, some fairly conclusive evidence. Eyewitness accounts.

H: Did we meet in Vietnam? You look familiar. Maybe at the Arc en Ciel or La Cigalle? I was there for about two years.

G: The witness is advised that the question is not whether the chairman went to Vietnam. The question is not combat experience . Whether the chairman served in Vietnam is irrelevant and outside the jurisdiction of the committee. The question is loyalty, patriotism--what makes this country great and not soft, strong and not weak, mighty and not cowardly. Let us go to your sniveling liberal position on Vietnam.

H: Sir, I am not sure that it was a liberal position. I always thought the charge that the reporters were liberal was unfair--some were, some weren’t--but the more I thought about Vietnam after I left there, it struck me that what I believed in was essentially a conservative position: That the worst thing that could happen to a democratic society was the continued application of force where force--as in Vietnam--was not applicable. For example, in Vietnam it created an abiding distrust for institutions, and caused a terrible breach between the military and the civilian society. I don’t think we’re talking liberal-conservative here, but wise or unwise.

G: We are not interested in left-leaning fellow travelers claiming long after the fact that they are conservatives. You’re no conservative, sir, I assure you. I’ll let you know if you’re conservative. So try to remember you’re under oath.

Now you are also charged with not merely being soft, but of pushing the Dreaded Vietnam Syndrome, the evil contagious virus of the weak and pusillanimous. And I warn the witness we have proof--books written by you; big, fat, ugly and heavy they are. We are prepared to call witnesses who bought these books and will state that after they read your books, they lost their faith in the American Way and became wary of American involvement in wars in the underdeveloped world.

H: I have feared the worst.

G: (Looks at bill of indictment.) And, in addition, we have evidence that the witness himself flipped and flopped, waffled and whiffled, slid and slipped on the issue of the Persian Gulf, failed on Jan. 23 to tell a committee investigator disguised as a Gallup Poll interviewer that he was 100% behind our great Republican President, announced on one television program that his acceptance of the war was reluctant and on occasion expressed doubts about the use of Republican air power and the ease with which a Republican victory would be achieved by the Republican President.

More, we have conclusive evidence that the witness did not wear either a yellow ribbon or an American flag in his lapel, did not tie a yellow ribbon around the door of his apartment, complained to his wife and friends about the 7-year-old boy who sang to the soldiers during the Super Bowl and that on Saturday, Feb. 23, at 11 a.m., he drove through Grosse Point, Mich., a citadel of Republicanism, I might add, and having seen a yellow ribbon in front of every house, had the temerity to ask how many of these same houses actually had sent soldiers to the Gulf. How do you plead? How does the witness plead?

H: Guilty, guilty, guilty. It is all true. I confess. I was soft on the Persian Gulf War. I never had less certitude about any issue in the last 30 years. I was wary of the long-range political ramifications of using force. Not the military ones. Still am. I preferred sanctions, but the more I thought of Saddam Hussein, the more I began to feel that sanctions would not work. I was very unhappy with 10 years of policy that brought us to what I thought were two unacceptable choices.

But I am aware of the frailty of my own predictions, and I confess to the most terrible sin of all, of being unworthy of being a pundit. Even now my credentials on American Punditry are under review by the Joint Committee on Omniscience in Washington.

G: Finally the truth. And, as long as you are confessing, is there anything else you would like to add about the Vietnam Syndrome, about making our country weak.

H: I never thought we were weak. I promise that. I thought after Vietnam that we could not--and should not--apply our power in a political war like Vietnam. I thought the Communist world was not a monolith. I also thought Vietnam was different from a traditional border-crossing war like the Persian Gulf War, that American technological power was more applicable in the Gulf.

But I confess that I was wrong not about the country’s strength or weakness--I always thought the country was strong. But let me confess my greatest mistake: I was wrong about the country’s hunger for a victory, I had underestimated the psychological need for a victory after Vietnam and the Iran hostage crisis.

G: And, now sir, we have the worst--the ugliest--of the many ugly things you said during the war. You used the phrase about our country, about it being caught up in what you called “no-fault patriotism.” Would you like to take this opportunity to recant?

H: No, not here. Not today, thank you.