Bill Whittle: Losing the Peace in Iraq

hgHistory is written by the victors. But it doesn’t take a lot of digging to reveal that the history of Vietnam — written by the American Left — is not the story of America losing the Vietnam War. America WON the Vietnam War. What America lost was the Vietnam PEACE. In his latest hard-hitting Firewall, Bill Whittle shows how that happened and how the exact same thing is happening in Iraq, as the Left once again tries to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. Watch the view and read the transcript below:



Hi everybody. I’m Bill Whittle and this is the Firewall.

History, it is said, is written by the victors. And We’ve been told, by the victors, that America lost the Vietnam War. But the victors, in this case, were not the people who actually took possession of the battlefield.

No, the victors who have written about how we lost the Vietnam War are the American Left.

But if you dig deep enough – and it turns out you don’t have to dig very deep at all – you will discover that America did not lose the Vietnam War. America won the Vietnam War. What America lost was the Vietnam Peace.

How simple is this to prove? Well, as with the invasion of Korea, and Berlin, and Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, and Poland, and Nicaragua, and Cuba, and Grenada, and El Salvador, the Vietnam War was started by the Left. Communists in North Vietnam invaded the free people of South Vietnam. You can say the South Vietnamese government was corrupt, But that doesn’t mean the South Vietnamese people didn’t deserve to be free. Our government has become largely corrupt and we deserve to be free. All people deserve to be free. This is the idea the Left must destroy.

So the North Vietnamese communists invaded the South. And back and forth, up and down, for about eleven until Richard Nixon decided to not only end, but win the Vietnam War, so he started bombing Hanoi and he didn’t stop bombing Hanoi until the North Vietnamese came to the negotiating table. And there, during the signing of the Paris Peace Accords, The Americans, the South Vietnamese, the Communist North Vietnamese and their insurgent arm, the Viet Cong, signed a peace treaty, the key tenet of which was a guarantee by the United States, not to send more of our men to die but to replace, on a bullet-by-bullet, helicopter-by-helicopter basis, any military hardware expended by the South to repel future incursions.

That peace treaty left Vietnam exactly as it had been before the communist invasion – the communist invasion of South Vietnam had. Completely. Failed.

Our victory lasted for two years.

Then In 1974, Richard Nixon was forced from office due to the Watergate scandal. That scandal gave the anti-war Democrats, who had taken the side of North Vietnam and lost — a landslide victory in the 1974 elections, and in 1975 the 94th Congress voted to defund that Paris Peace Accord agreement. They voted to undo the American victory two years after the war was won. On April 10th, 1975, President Gerald Ford begged congress – literally begged them – to keep our word to our allies. But the anti-war democrats had forked hard – worked for a decade — for their American defeat, and a week later the Genocide began. North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, who demanded and received the surrender of Saigon, said after the War that “When Nixon stepped down after Watergate we knew we would win.” The communist North Vietnamese, and the American Left, lost the Vietnam war. Two years later, they won the peace. Then the slaughter began.

The same thing is happening, right now, as we speak, in Iraq. After winning the war we are losing the peace, in precisely the same way we lost the Peace in Vietnam. Whipped and defeated, the enemy lays low for a while – for years. Then, small nibbles around the edges. Then larger bites. And when America stands paralyzed – not just in Iraq but in Libya and Syria and Iran and Korea and the Crimea – then they move and move fast because they know the Left is holding the cards and the Left is the cavalry that they don’t have. And now the slaughter begins. Again.

You don’t have to like the fact that we went into Iraq; you don’t have to like the fact that we went to Vietnam, either, but like it or not both those wars were won through the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of America’s armed forces. And once again, defeat is being snatched from the jaws of victory by the same people as before. Those people are called Democrats.

It wasn’t always this way. These Democrats fought for Freedom. Foreign-policy-wise, at least, they’d be rock-ribbed Conservatives today.

But, as Iraq falls before our eyes, as the murders accelerate, and as we lose the peace we won due to this President’s inablilty to conclude a simple agreement to keep troops stationed in Iraq – as we did and continue to do to keep the peace in Korea, for almost 65 years now, and Europe, for almost seventy – the man responsible for losing the peace in Iraq will be the same man so responsible for losing the peace in Vietnam – the man who has a plaque in a Hanoi Museum dedicated to his invaluable help in winning for the left the peace in the face of the war they lost.

And finally, let me just say this: Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

So if you say that America should not the be the World’s policeman, believe me: I sympathize. But if you are going to take that position, you need to ask the next question, because the next question is required: if not America, then who? Because if American power is removed from the earth, then what force will rush to fill the vacuum? China? Russia? Or, as we are seeing today: will American power be replaced by Islamists who don’t debate whether or not gays can get married, but rather debate whether it is best to execute them by hanging, stoning or a shot in the back of the head?

This is the world the Left wants – it’s the world they have always wanted through their invasions and their subversions. And for the second time in our lives and to our undying shame, this looks like what they are going to get it.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • claudineabelson

    my classmate’s
    aunt makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for 7 months but
    last month her paycheck was $15495 just working on the computer for a few
    hours. visit the site R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

    • Bill_H2

      claudineabelson, momentary and partial fulfillment of your materialist desires will not fill that gaping hole in your soul. Only God and (the truth you are ignoring on these webpages) can fill that.

  • geneww1938

    I would love to see these snippets of facts provided to our college students who are being brain washed by the liberal left!

    • sundance69

      You should live so long…………….

  • hrwolfe

    Bill ya gotta do one on the anti-war movement and its collusion with North Vietnam this is a big part of the history of the era that gets little attention besides its a good shot at running the bus over Bill Ayers & Company.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Some of you guys need to learn that what is happening in Iraq today has been inevitable since the minute Saddam Hussein was ousted. You also need to understand that GWB’s fantasy based nation-building missions that constituted the ill named so-called “War on Terror” were destined to fail even before they were ever implemented, as all the assumptions made by GWB and his administration were all extremely fantasy based.

    For instance, Islam is not a so-called “religion of peace” being hijacked by so-called “radical Islam”, as there is only one form of Islam because there can only be one form of Islam, and that form of Islam is mainstream orthodox Islam, and the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam is the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude, through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

    Further, Islam is far more a rabid form of totalitarianism that intends to make itself supreme throughout the world than it is a so-called religion. Hence, imposing democracy in the Islamic totalitarian world was and is absolutely impossible.

    Moreover, when you appoint Muslims to be ambassadors, because all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent or non-violent, per the dictates of Islam, they will inevitably wage jihad, and in Iraq and Afghanistan’s case that meant that Sharia (Islamic totalitarian law) was enshrined in both countries’ respective constitutions as the foundation for all laws in each country, thereby ensuring at the same time, that each country would inevitably become Islamic totalitarian Sharia states as exactly they did.

    Additionally, rebuilding Muslim states and lifting up Muslims in essence is lifting up our eternal mortal enemies, and the eternal mortal enemies of all infidels throughout the world. Indeed, it is incredibly counterproductive to our own interests. Not to mention that nation-building is not a form of conservatism. It is liberalism instead.

    Hence, GWB’s two fantasy based nation-building missions inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history, and the sooner some confused people allegedly on the right figure all this out, the sooner we can start defending ourselves from the scourge of Islam and jihad far more rationally.

    • mikegiles

      You can lift Mulims up, but no need to worry they won’t stay up. They always fall back on the same old tribalism and try to recreate the glory days of Islam – the 8th century.

  • Harry_the_Horrible

    Unlike Vietnam, Iraq has potential allies. ISIS ad Al Qaeda are Sunni. Iran and a majority of Iraq are Shia.
    I hate to say it, but best wishes to an Iran/Iraq alliance against ISIS.

  • wildjew

    Is it true Bill Whittle thinks Putin (he is not a good guy) is indistinguishable from Adolf Hitler.

  • Clive

    It would be good to keep a running total of innocents killed by leftist complicity…

  • GSR

    Bill is exactly correct, the US under Nixon won the Vietnam War around 1971-72. South Vietnam was given away, sacrificed to China and North Vietnam.. But since libs/progressives control the media and schools, its been repeated over and over that the U S lost the war. Several recent books have made the case that the US won the war, by decimating the VC and pushing North Vietnam out of the south by ’71-’72.

    The US won the war militarily but lost it (really gave it away politically). See several recent books like see Triumph Forsaken, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War and Unheralded Victory. The major change was replacing Westmoreland with Abraham’s as the top general in mid ’68. Then by about 1970-71, real progress was made.

  • Pericles

    Bill says that we ‘won the war’ but ‘lost the peace’. I think an alternative summation may state that we won the war but ‘lost the narrative’. The narrative then, as today, was controlled by the propaganda stream media, the leftist non-profits, the leftist school system and the leftist student ‘revolutionaries’, and, as Bill stated, the hypocritical and deceitful Democrats.

  • Glenn

    This revisionist history just has to be stopped. We retreated from Vietnam in ’73 under the exact same conditions that were offered by the north in ’68 – which Kissinger and Nixon sabotaged for political advantage. So, how that could be called “victory I don’t know. The South and the North continued aggressive combat operations against each other almost immediately after the cease fire agreement was signed. In fact, the war never ended and there was never any peace – the U.S. just left. While our toothless talk about backing the South was bandied about, the American people were done with war in Vietnam.

    Same thing happened in Iraq. The moment we left the hostilities began to increase. As well, the notion that Obama could have negotiated a SOFA is not at all a certainty. The fact is that Obama’s withdrawal with the SOFA Bush negotiated. If better terms were available, why didn’t Bush negotiate them. As well, the domestic politics in Iraq were such that the continuation of U.S. forces in Iraq with immunity was simply a non-starter. It was a big issue and the Iraqi people did not want U.S. troops there under those conditions. And even then, if there was some force, what, would we be continuing to fight skirmishes with terrorists? Even if we left 15k, we couldn’t defeat ISIS.

    So yeah, take this idiotic, hateful and ahistorical line of BS and shove it.

    • Americana

      Thanx for stepping in and calling this what it is, Glenn. Whittle never seems to be honest about stringing all his historical facts together. He may adhere to one or two, then he adds another dozen that aren’t accurate at all to bolster his perspective.

      • PhilByler

        Wrong, Americana. Bill Whittle has it essentially right. Bill Whittle is especially right about the part where he says that our brave American men and women in uniform won both in Vietnam and Iraq. That is as true as true can be. The Democrats are losers; that’s all.

        • Americana

          If we’d “won” the **real battle** in those countries, they would still be havens of democracy. We could win battles and win the wars in those countries but we lost when it came to maintaining the peace and teaching these nations to manage their divineness. How many Vietnam veterans do you know and what were their roles in the war? If you speak w/any soldier or Marine who was involved w/the pacification program at the village level and they always felt we could have won; speak w/anyone higher up in the intelligence community and they’ll always say we would never have won.

          • PhilByler

            You are correct that the Marines and soldiers who did the actual fighting and pacification work typically believe that we could have won on a lasting basis. (Suggested book on the Commandant’s List for you to read: Bing West’s “The Village.”) Where you are going wrong is in not facing up to what reversed what we had accomplished: North Vietnam’s massive invasion in 1975 of South Vietnam when there was no American assistance. In 1972, South Vietnam, with American assistance, successfully defeated the North’s large scale invasion. But not in 1975 when congressional Democrats voted to cut off all aid to the South Vietnamese notwithstanding our treaty obligation.

    • PhilByler

      Glenn, you are a less than candid revisionist at work. Bill Whittle has it essentially right.

      What was in the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 was not what the North offered in 1968; that is outrageously false. The 1973 peace treaty was signed only after: (1) South Vietnam, with American air power and naval gun power, repelled a huge invasion by North Vietnam in the Spring of 1972; and (2) Nixon relentlessly bombed Hanoi and Haiphong, North Vietnam. On paper, the 1973 peace treaty was a victory. But it required continued American support which the congressional Democrats elected in 1974 stopped. It was North Vietnam that was the aggressor after the 1973 peace treaty was signed; South Vietnam merely responded to the North’s attacks.

      Obama did not want the SOFA under any conditions. To say that the Iraqi people did not want U.S. troops with immunity is nonsense. Obama wanted out completely, and that is what Obama effected. Vietnam War vet McCain would have as GW Bush’s successor successfully concluded a SOFA, knowing acutely well the importance of continued American support so that the peace would not be lost. The fact is that so long as there was an American presence, sectarian Iraqi politics were kept in check.

  • Jobethian

    I’m spoiled to Bill Whittle giving us optimistic and uplifting talks. this one is a downer. What he said is true, but to acknowledge that it is GOING to happen again in the Middle East? Why must it be so?

  • Americana

    Not sure why Bill Whittle is so sure the U.S. should remain the world’s policeman for the foreseeable future given the enormous unfunded investment the U.S. made in trying to install a democratic, secular Iraq which failed because the Iraqis wouldn’t permit American forces to remain in their country. Whittle claims that was a simple agreement but that’s not the case since the Iraqis turned the U.S. down many times while refusing to consider different scenarios for American bases/forces. Never once does Whittle mention the cost of what the U.S. role in policing the current Muslim jihadist putsch for Caliphates might be expected to be nor how he expects the U.S. to pay for its policing role, nor does he examine what role the U.S. should play across numerous jihadist battle fronts. He wears a suit well though…