KERRY AND CAMBODIA

The sudden emergence of the "issue" of John Kerry's having been, or not been, or not exactly been, or perhaps having been just a bit, but not really, in Cambodia in 1968, is getting lots of play.

I realize there might be, of course, a "credibility concern" here. And that is something to be debated within the normal give and take of a campaign. But on the whole, this "Vietnam and service there" stuff got out of hand, oh, in about 1976 or so. And that's why I haven't said anything about Kerry and Cambodia -- because, frankly, it leads us nowhere.

And it's worse than boring. Consider this. We should care about as much about where John Kerry was in 1968 as we should if it were instead now 1944, and we are all supposed to consider Tom Dewey's presidential leadership credentials as solid, based mostly on his combat experience during the war with Spain in 1898. [By the way, Dewey had had none in that war, for an obvious reason.] There are reasons aplenty to vote for Dewey perhaps, but if we vote for Dewey because of his involvement in a war that had been fought some 46 years previously . . . well, we are nationally in need of psychiatric attention.

But we are being asked to vote for John Kerry in 2004, based largely on his experience of 36 years ago, in a war that began for America "officially" some 40 years ago -- in 1964.

How about what happened 3 years ago? But I digress.

No, actually, I don't.

I had thought for sure that September 11, 2001 would have diminished dramatically our national "Vietnam-syndrome". Yet we are here, in 2004, having to tolerate the "Vietnam generation" (meaning especially those born between about 1940 and, say, 1956) defining the debate -- this time over our national response to those attacks -- in the blinkered way they see fit. After all, by virtue of their ages, they mostly and naturally DO dominate the media, politics and "American public life", so they are able to make such a demand.

My father had told me some years ago that he believed we will never be entirely rid of that war, until everyone from the "Vietnam generation" is finally dead. And here we have still more evidence before us of just that. That generation just can't help itself. "September 11, 2001"? What? Nothing. "Remember the Gulf of Tonkin!"

Given actuarial probabilities, and presuming life expectancy doesn't suddenly shoot up dramatically in the next few decades, the chances are that generation -- given a benchmark of age 18 in 1973, as representing "the end" of that adult generation -- isn't likely to vanish entirely until somewhere around 2065. (Presuming that the Islamists have been prevented from blowing us all up, that is.)

There appears to be no easy escape. So, in a War on Islamist Terror context (as distinct from the Clinton v. Bush one, or the Dole v. Clinton one, or the Bush v. Gore one), we are once again trapped in another irrevelant, dreary, national re-argument over "1968", the Mekong Delta, Cambodia, and on and on, in yet ANOTHER presidential election.

And while we wait impatiently for time to take its inevitable toll, our current enemy is taking our national "crazy aunt in the attic" problem all in . . .

. . . and exploiting it, for their own ends. For while they are evil, they aren't stupid.

UPDATE: Even Mark Steyn has had enough:

. . . I'm Vietnammed out . . .

Yep. And I recall myself being "Vietnammed out" (especially in terms of recent, presidential politics) at least as far back as February, 1992.   ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 11, 2004