Avoiding Mistakes in Iraq by Revising "Quagmire Quixote" Histories of Vietnam War

Napoleon Bonaparte once stated that “history is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.” During the Vietnam War, and in the intervening years since, liberal academia, in bed with liberal media, embarked on a joint operation I refer to as “Quagmire-Quixotism,” in which they tilted their collective eggheads against windmills of truth in Vietnam and published news headlines, body counts, and historical textbooks that ultimately convinced a majority of Americans that the Vietnam War was a mistake and the threat of Communism in the region had been exaggerated. American universities, including the one from which I obtained an M.A. in History many years ago, remain under the unyielding (even to facts) liberal rule of professors drunken with the wine of quagmire hysteria to the point that college course on the Vietnam War are anything but exercises in historical research or original thought.

To challenge the Quagmire-Quixotism professors with military facts or to place blame for failure in Vietnam on Congress, the Media, or the anti-war movement was truly a suicidal act for a graduate student, at least if one valued his/her GPA. Under silent protest, I dutifully digested Anti-American apology pieces posing as textbooks, such as America's Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975, The Ugly American, and other quagmire folklore. Liberal academia, of course, did not curb its voracious appetite for debunking and rewriting long-accepted historical records with just the Vietnam War. Not believing any American should be revered, even if doing so might be in the national interest, liberal history professors and eager graduate students set out to discover and publish any and all salacious accounts of presidential behavior. The resulting collection of theses, dissertations, and textbooks provided us with such important “facts” as Jefferson’s alleged sexual encounters with slaves, Lincoln's manic depression and latent homosexuality, and the debunking of the cherished story of Washington chopping down the cherry tree.

The Founding Fathers, under the poison pen of these revisionist historians, went from wise and inspired to white and despised, as historical focus shifted only to their race, their wealth, and their allegedly selfish motives. One of my children once asked, “is it true that Christopher Columbus was an evil man who killed Indians and took them as slaves as gifts for the King of Spain?” That was an interesting dinner conversation, but that was taught as historical fact in our local school. Not content with indoctrinating college age students, academia published texts designed to sow the seeds of liberal anti-Americanism even among the very young.

Fortunately, after decades of indoctrination, serious students of history are ironically using revisionism to debunk the debunkers, and the history of the Vietnam War is fertile ground for rescuing facts that have been slowly drowning in academia’s quagmire. A case in point is Mark Moyar's Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965. Having previously examined sections of the book, I was pleased to see TigerHawk quoting from it to defend the “slow” development of the Iraqi military under U.S. training and supervision. The reminders of General George Washington’s battlefield errors and the pitiful training and organization of American troops in the Revolutionary War should give pause to those who believe that by now Iraq should have assembled a fully functional national military. Our expectations are too high and our patience seems to be shortsightedly wearing thin.

What piqued my interest was TigerHawk’s reference to Moyar’s book as “excellent revisionist history.” That statement caused me to reflect on the idea that while “revisionist history” used to be a pejorative term for works that debunked America’s heroes, history has now been rewritten to such an extent by liberal academics that “revisionist history” today refers to rewriting the rewritten histories and biographies dominating all current textbooks and classrooms. Years ago in graduate school I could scarcely have imagined that I would recommend a “revisionist history” to anyone. Yet when one thinks of today’s alternative media, such as Fox News, conservative radio, and Internet bloggers, it is clear that all of these are in fact current efforts at revisionist history, attempts to assure that liberal-hijacked media and academia cannot provide unchallenged the “version of past [or present] events” people will agree upon in the present or future. There are two sides to every issue, especially depictions of war, lest one focus solely on the horrors of war while neglecting the reality that at times it is a means to a worthy end.

Historical scholarship such as Moyar’s Triumph Forsakenshould be, but is not, welcomed in America’s universities. Spy the News! recommends Triumph Forsaken for anyone who believes Vietnam could have and should have been an American political and military victory. It is also a suggested read for Bush Administration critics who have accepted the oft-repeated mantra that Vietnam and Iraq deserve the quagmire label. The book extensively discusses impatience as perhaps the greatest contributor to America’s disgraceful withdrawal from Vietnam, with that impatience displayed by politicians looking to make names for themselves, the media, and some within the U.S. military itself. Impatience appears once again to be leading the U.S. to potential failure in Iraq, and without proper historical perspective, we may be doomed to repeat previous mistakes. Thankfully through alternative media, unchallenged biased liberal historical perspectives are becoming, ironically, a thing of the past.

Agencies Failing to Protect Agents and Operatives From Physical and Legal Threats

Have you ever risked your life to benefit your employer or the greater good? Intelligence field operatives, military personnel, and law enforcement do so on a daily basis, with little expectation of reward or recognition. Is it unreasonable for personnel who have worked undercover to expect their employers to do everything possible to protect them when foreign operatives or betrayed criminals issue death threats and cash bounties to kill the employee? There is a marked difference between feeling under appreciated and feeling completely abandoned and in constant fear for one’s life. Although the risk of revenge or reprisal from infiltrated governments or criminal organizations is known to undercover operatives or agents before they undertake an assignment, they still reasonably expect their employer to make every effort to protect them once the operation is completed and cover is exposed.

Consider the case of Jay Dobyns. A former football player at the University of Arizona, Dobyns joined the ATF and became an undercover agent . During his first operation in 1987 he was shot in the back by a suspect. The round came within inches of his heart. He recovered and was transferred to Chicago, where he was struck by a vehicle driven by a suspect firing on him with an automatic weapon. He later infiltrated the Calabrese organized crime family and the Hells Angels. Dobyns incredibly faked a murder to be accepted into the Hells Angels. The Hells Angels and Aryan Brotherhood have offered cash contracts to hit men to find and kill the former Arizona receiver. One would assume that an employee who has demonstrated such remarkable courage and effectiveness would be sufficiently valued by an employer to offer him witness protection or similar security measures. Dobyns certainly made that assumption and now faces the reality that protecting its own is apparently not a high priority despite official statements to the contrary.

In a liaison capacity a few years ago, I represented an unnamed government agency at an awards ceremony. The main attraction at that event was Jay Dobyns, who was presented the Law Enforcement Officer of the Year award. While sitting in that large banquet hall listening to harrowing descriptions of Dobyns’ 2 year undercover infiltration of the Hells Angels gang, I was amazed that he had survived the experience and frankly more amazed he was being trotted around the country like a show pony by his agency despite death threats and contracts being offered in prisons nationwide for his murder. It did not appear then, and it appears even less so now, that his employer has any interest in protecting Dobyns, who sacrificed his identity, his family, and any semblance of a normal life for 2 years to effect more than 40 arrests of Hells Angels’ leadership structure.

Dobyns, harboring little hope that the ATF will take action to protect him and his family, now feels forced into bringing attention to his plight through the media, which he hopes will result in public pressure being applied to the ATF to protect him and others in similar danger. This media effort places him at even greater risk as his current appearance is shown on web sites and cable news channels, but Dobyns apparently sees no alternative. In an effort to raise awareness, Dobyns granted an extensive interview to CNN, in which he warned that there are many other agents and officers who have worked undercover for various agencies and were similarly abandoned once they returned to civilian life. All of them had something in common: They faced credible threats of reprisals from those whom they had infiltrated.

After warning the ATF of the death threats and murder contracts, Dobyns was surprised and angered by the ATF’s reaction. According to the CNN report:

In response, Dobyns says, the ATF gave him a routine transfer with no special protection, despite his repeated protests. The ATF could have moved Dobyns and his family under what is known as a "threat policy" -- similar to the kind of protection the government routinely gives witnesses in organized crime cases.

But federal agents who go undercover don't automatically get a high level of protection, according to Dobyns and other ATF agents CNN interviewed.

"In order to save money, I was told it wasn't cost effective," Dobyns says.

Dobyns says he has moved himself and his family several times to elude those who've threatened to kill him. He has filed a claim with the ATF for the emotional stress and financial burden he says he's had to bear as a result.

The acting director of the ATF notified CNN that Dobyns’ grievance claim is under review, which to anyone with government experience signifies that no immediate remedy is being sought by the ATF to protect Dobyns until the outcome of this grievance review is determined.

The report also included the results of interviews with a dozen other former undercover ATF agents who have filed claims similar to Dobyns’. The official ATF response to CNN asserted, “"[T]here is nothing more important to ATF and to me than the safety and protection of our employees and their families. We at ATF understand that we have a solemn responsibility to protect the people whom we charge to investigate and arrest the country's most violent criminals."

The ATF statement was refuted in a CNN interview with a prominent former trainer of undercover agents:

Charlie Fuller is a 23-year retired veteran ATF special agent and a former top trainer of undercover agents, who wrote a manual on undercover work, "The Art of Undercover." He trained Dobyns and many other top ATF undercover agents.

"What happened to Dobyns is not an isolated incident," said Fuller. In many cases, he said, managers don't thoroughly understand the complexity of the undercover work or how to best work with and manage the agents once they're back in the real world.

He said agents are seen as troublemakers or retaliated against if they raise complaints or report problems.

"Threats like what Dobyns faced -- this is the most serious thing an ATF agent can face -- the threats against his family," said Fuller. "How could they ignore something like that?"

Hopefully Dobyns and others facing similar threats can continue to elude death at the hands of enemies they made while in service of the ATF long enough to receive that review decision.

Other agencies within the intelligence and law enforcement communities are likewise guilty of failing to adequately protect valued employees who have lost all possibility of anonymity or quiet family life due to their undercover assignments. The problem of abandonment or insufficient protection is not solely an ATF issue. Employers demonstrating loyalty to employees seems to be the exception rather than the rule. The plight of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean may be an example of this, as new reports have now surfaced that government reports provided to prosecutors contained false information, according to an Inspector General. These reports refute testimony used to convict the two agents in the shooting of a fleeing armed Mexican drug smuggler transporting hundreds of pounds of narcotics into the U.S. The Mexican smuggler, although in the U.S. illegally, filed a lawsuit for damages against the two agents. Additionally, prosecutors convinced the jury that the agents failed to report the incident to supervisors in an effort to cover up their actions, when recently released documents reveal that Agent Compean did in fact report the incident to his supervisor.

While some facts of that case remain in dispute, one fact is all too clear: the U.S. Government, specifically the Border Patrol and its parent department, failed to provide exculpatory evidence that might have protected its employees from a controversial and polarizing prosecution. What motivated that action should be the focus of media and Congressional inquiries. The motivation for the ATF to abandon Dobyns and others should receive similar scrutiny and condemnation. When government fails to protect those who sacrifice their identity and family security in its service, it discourages potential recruits and embitters dedicated personnel who deserved better.

American Muslims Rising in Defense of '24' but Offer No Rival to CAIR

Spy the News! makes a conscious effort to avoid commenting on celebrity news, as in fact I do not consider celebrity behavior to be news. There are more critical matters worthy of reading time and attention than what individual entertainers do or what they think about politics. However, Hollywood's influence on American culture is considerable and thus Hollywood as an institution must be criticized when it distorts truth or attempts to sanitize truth in the name of political correctness. It should also be praised when it bucks the trend of political correctness and presents story lines that unite Americans in a common cause rather than divide us by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or economic status. The Fox program "24" is stirring controversy for its portrayal of terrorists as Arab Muslim terrorists, but it is simultaneously receiving increasing praise for precisely the same reason.

I admit that a few seasons ago I stopped watching the program, mainly due to plots involving wildly exaggerated internal U.S. Government conspiracies in which the main character, Jack Bauer, appeared to be in more danger from our government than from terrorists. It seemed then (and continues to) that Jack's only hope of thwarting terrorists and saving the world was to work completely outside of all government strategy and existing tactics and he spent an inordinate amount of time protecting himself from elements within the U.S. Government bent on murdering him. Fortunately somewhere along the way it appears the producers of "24" have returned to the plots and realities that made the show unique and compelling in its earlier years. The plots once again involve Islamic terrorists working zealously to kill as many Americans as possible through bombings and other attacks, to include a spectacular detonation of a terrorist nuclear device in Los Angeles in this season's plot line.

That depiction of Los Angeles under a mushroom cloud has generated loud objections from CAIR, an organization that wields far too much influence over Islamic sensitivity training programs inexplicably embraced by U.S. Government departments and agencies. CAIR claims that portrayals of terrorists as Muslim will incite violence against Arab-Americans and contributes to stereotypes of all Muslims as terrorists. Of course reality justifies America's fear of Islamic terrorism, but CAIR is not concerned with reality as it sits on the government's shoulder and whispers sweet nothings about Islam into Uncle Sam's ear.

Regular Spy the News! readers routinely scroll the left column for daily news headlines and notable columns, and hopefully followed the link to the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal today, which contained a piece written by Arab-American Emilio Kareem Dabul. In this article, "In Defense of '24'" Dabul expresses what Americans hope is a growing sentiment among Arab-Americans. Particularly welcome was the following statement:

"In the meantime, the next time a journalist decides to report on Arab-American concerns about shows like "24," maybe he could actually talk to someone other than CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and seek out Arab-Americans with a different point of view. We actually do exist."

In a similar but even more blunt assessment of what Arab-Americans should be doing to fight terrorism within their own religion, M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, contributed a wonderful articleto National Review Online last week. Jasser defended the plot line of "24" and declared that Muslims need to unite and defeat the true enemy, which he explicitly identified as Islamism. Jasser, a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, made the following call to arms to fellow American Muslims:

"It’s time for hundreds of thousands of Muslims to be not only private but public in their outrage — and to commit themselves to specific, verbal engagement of the militants and their Islamism. We, as American Muslims, should be training and encouraging our Muslim-community youth to become the future Jack Bauers of America. What better way to dispel stereotypes than to create hundreds of new, real images of Muslims who are publicly leading this war on the battlefield and in the domestic and foreign media against the militant Islamists. Condemnations by press release and vague fatwas are not enough. We need to create organizations — high-profile, well-funded national organizations and think tanks — which are not afraid to identify al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah by name, and by their mission as the enemies of America. If Muslim organizations and the American Muslim leadership were seen publicly as creating a national, generational plan to fight Islamism — rather than searching for reasons to claim victimhood — then the issues and complaints surrounding such TV shows would disappear. The way to fight the realities of 24 is to create a Muslim CTU, a deep Muslim counterterrorism ideology and a national action plan for our security."[emphasis added]

As one who has suffered through CAIR Muslim sensitivity training, I echo Jasser's recommendations and encourage Arab-Americans to establish an organization that, unlike CAIR, has no ties to known terrorists and that promotes Muslim cooperation with terrorist investigations conducted to preserve national security. What troubles many within the intelligence/national security community is the absence of any Arab-American organization to rival CAIR. Occasionally brave dissenters like Dabul and Jasser raise their voices to reassure Americans that our neighbors are not terrorists, but compared to the orchestrated and well-funded machinations of CAIR, such reassurances have only minimal effect on public perception. It is frequently stated that Islamic terrorism can only be eliminated through reform within Islam itself. Well-intentioned reassurances, regardless of frequency, are not reform. Jasser's call for a Muslim CTU is intriguing but currently problematic due to the embarrassingly small number of Arab-Americans and Arabic translators serving within intelligence, law enforcement, and military agencies.

Spy the News! applauds the producers of "24" for not cowering before CAIR. If a War on Terror will ever succeed, it will do so only when enemies are clearly identified, isolated so as to eliminate their ability to recruit, and destroyed. For this to occur, the faithful and courageous assistance of Muslims throughout the world will be necessary. Do they share Dabul and Jasser's desire to reform Islam? That is the question on which the War on Terror hinges.