Gaul beyong Chutzpah

The very thought of the President of the United States, a country which allegedly fought a war for Peace Freedom and The American Way--in Viet Nam--not, mind you--receiving the Premier of Viet Nam in the White House, but going to Hanoi, is an irony that at best is fathomless. If the mountain will not come to Mohammed, then he will be obliged to go to the mountain.

We fought a war against a tiny country in Southeast Asia. We don't say, "we lost." Oh no. That is too harsh, too gauche, and all too direct. Yuen Tsu, in "The Art of War," says that the true victor is the one who can impose his will upon the enemy and can reach an objective which is moral or which rights a wrong.

Okay, we didn't lose. My military friends sternly correct me, saying that we won every battle. I guess that means we won the war.

Call it what you will. We left, under their terms, and which ultimately was their objective. There are no rules of Goren, Culbertsen or Hoyle. They achieved their objective; we didn't: They drove the invader out of their country. Possibly the fact tht we didn't have an objective might be closer to the truth.

We don't like to talk much about the Viet Nam War. We don't even want to think about it. That's why the Viet Nam Vets were never received, we treated like dogs and worse, Like the Queen's idiot cousin in the back room. Yet at the same time, you don't hear even a whisper, let alone a whimper. The President of the United States' visit to Viet Nam goes virtually unnoticed.

That's because no matter on which side of the issue you come up, it is an embarassement to us all. So why did Bush do it? We know he's not needed here; but why on earth would he even run the risk for such a fractious idea? The reason given is gibberish, and worse: He wants their support for the war in Iraq.

That's like asking the family of a rape-murder victim to contribute to NAMBLA. (North American Man-Boy Association, and I kid you not, Surrah!)

Who better than Bush, for whom no humiliation is too severe, no treachery too intense, no act beyond the pale of morality--to go to Viet Nam without blinking? Yes--but Why?

Because we desperately need Viet Nam and other Asian nations to continue to buy U.S. Treasury securities to abort a crash of the US dollar, which is complettely worthless, as any decent economist--and in particular, Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner and free market capitalist would tell you. They already bailed us out about two months ago, an event which went virtually unnoticed--or at least unreported by the country's sculpatory press and wire services, for whom no shame is too great, nor cowardice, excessive.

For those of us who have been fortunate (?) enough to have lived through the Viet Nam yeaars, this is our private joke, or our private tragedy--or both.