"After nearly four years of ineffectual war-fighting, after the collapse of domestic support for President Bush and his policies, after the expenditure of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, it no longer seems possible to avoid the grim conclusion: For the United States, Iraq has become another Vietnam," wrote Robert G. Kaiser, an associate editor of the Washington Post who covered the Vietnam War in 1969 and 1970.
Some of the similarities, according to Kaiser: "We twice took a huge risk in the hope that we could predict and dominate events in a nation whose history we did not know, whose language few of us spoke, whose rivalries we didn’t understand, whose expectations for life, politics and economics were all foreign to many Americans. Both times, we put our fate in the hands of local politicians who would not follow U.S. orders, who did not see their country’s fate the way we did, and who could not muster the support of enough of their countrymen to produce the outcome Washington wanted."
Meanwhile, Carl Hiaasen made a similar Vietnam comparison in a column on Wednesday’s Opinion pages. He wrote: "Bush has been well-coached by the ghosts of LBJ and Tricky Dick to stoke fear, invoke patriotism and selectively skirt the facts."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- charleskhyter on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Politico on Moore has had enough of House
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
85 Comments
YES
A lot of similarities. Enough where it brings a lot of deja vu.
There wasn’t any religious conflict compared to that of Iraq, but there were ideological conflicts within South Vietnam.
The Viet Cong modeled after the Chinese Viet Minh (spelling?) were generally quite adept at infiltrating, disguising and causing great mayhem in South Vietnam.
Although the Shiites and Sunnis are opposing factions, they seem to use similar tactics, hiding among the people, using anti-personal bombs and etc.
The Russia in Iraq’s case is Iran.
Also, Al Queda appears to have a strong force in Iraq and goes virtually undetected blending into the population.
It becomes a case of who can you trust. As many GI’s found out in South Vietnam where innocent children and women were used to set booby traps or lead GI’s into traps. This appears more and more to be the case in Iraq, where no one knows who to trust.
These were all written well before our present situation:
Robert McNamara’s 11 lessons from Vietnam• We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.• We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.• We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.• Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.• We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…• We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.• We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.• After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.• We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people’s or country’s best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.• We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.• We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.• Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
McNamara’s additional ten lessons1. The human race will not eliminate war in this century but we can reduce war, the level of killing, by adhering to the principles of a just war, in particular of proportionality.2. The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations.3. We are the most powerful nation in the world — economically, politically, and militarily — and we are likely to remain so for decades ahead. But we are not omniscient. If we cannot persuade other nations with similar interests and similar values of the merits of the proposed use of that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely requirement to defend the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii.4. Moral principles are often ambiguous guides to foreign policy and defense policy, but surely we can agree that we should establish as a major goal of U.S. foreign policy and, indeed, of foreign policy across the globe : the avoidance in this century of the carnage — 160 million dead — caused by conflict in the 20th century.5. We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility to our own poor and to the disadvantaged across the world to help them advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy, health, and employment.6. Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between a soft heart and a hard head. Of course, they have responsibilities to their employees, their customers and to society as a whole.7. President Kennedy believed a primary responsibility of a president — indeed “the” primary responsibility of a president — is to keep the nation out of war, if at all possible.8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court — that the U.S. has refused to support — which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity.9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy — I don’t mean “sympathy” but rather “understanding” to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.10. One of the greatest dangers we face today is the risk of mass destruction as a result of the breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Regime. We — the U.S. — are contributing to that breakdown.
The only difference I see in Iraq and Vietnam is the Vietnam War dragged on through several presidents and George W. Bush has managed to keep this war all unto himself. Of course, he will drag it on for his last two years and then let the next president do the hard work of getting us out with a shred of dignity.
Ditto–George Bush has done major damage to my country’s good name in the world- to the extent I don’t think I’ll live long enought to see that tragedy rectified!
That will affect our dealings in the world community drastically ,in a negative way.
Actually JM, there was also a religious element in Nam. Most of the rulers were Catholic from the French colonial days. Most of the country is Buddhist.
I was lent the book “Lotus in a Sea of Fire” way back in about 67 by a refugee.
hummer,I remember vividly the pictures of the Buddhist priests performing ritual self-immoliations in protest of the war.Now that’s a Saint.Not a suicide bomber killing innocents.
The Iraq situation is much worse than Vietnam. All sides are much more sophisticated now. The prize is much bigger, the largest oil reserve in the world is in the middle east. Chinese technicians are already moving into Africa and are poised, waiting to see how the Iraq situation winds down.
No!
And with the US being a debtor to China does not put us in a very good light does it? So Bush got us into the thick of this Iraq War to stir everything up, got us into further debt to finance the war and then we are going to be the stupid losers in the end.
Those that refuse to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.
Even though we have the mightiest war machine in history….our economic policies have sucked.
Why fight us when you OWN us?
While there are many growing analogies between the two situations, the situation in Iraq is much more complex, with many more probabilities for serious consequences world wide notwithstanding the eventual outcome of the current one.
Very true VT … it’s too bad Bush deliberately created this mess.
Agree with Jwink
Far FAR worse than Vietnam.
bush has removed the stabilizing force for the entire mideast region that just happens to control a large portion of the worlds oil. This could very easily snowball into a general regional or even a world war.
I think we still have time to lose this. If we can get the full support of the Dems and the media it could transpire just as VN did.
After reading some of the the recently released Soviet archives and the VC Generals account that they were about to surrender after Tet we need to get the media to move as quick as possible before any good can happen.
Just got back from wading through the Democratic Underground site and they have stated that the US can not be allowed to win this one. If we won, there is no telling what harm the US would then be up to. The US would likely try to subvert all those other wonderful societies out there, No. Kor., Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al.
Those wonderful societies that would strongly support Im sure all the ideals of the US Left. Womens rights, gay rights, liberal education et al.
mrbill – since you only needed “months not years” nearly 4 years ago I would think we would be in good shape today.
“After reading some of the the recently released Soviet archives and the VC Generals account that they were about to surrender after Tet . . . ”
This is what makes the CONservatives so dangerous to America. When the facts run counter to their “faith based” conclusions, they just re-write the facts.
And then “catapult the propaganda” far and wide with their right-wing hate radio.
The NVA (North Vietnamese Army) was never going to surrender. We pounded N. Vietnam with more tonnage of bombs than were dropped in WW2, and they refused to surrender.
You get your facts from historical revisionists like this one:
Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America’s resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi’s grasp.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/18/192250.shtml
(Strangely, that same writer has decided now that the Iraq war was a mistake–http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070111-084552-7143r.htm)
Here’s the truth–
According to WashingtonDispatch.com columnist Greg Lewis , who researched the alleged quotation, “no such volume exists.” http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_8268.shtml
Lewis wrote, ” A few weeks ago in a column about Kerry, I referred to what has turned out to be an “urban legend.” Specifically, based on a “news” item that appeared on NewsMax.com, I repeated a reference to a volume of memoirs supposedly published by North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap in 1985 as the source of an assertion by Colonel Oliver North. After a reader requested a reference to Giap’s 1985 “Memoirs,” I did research that convinced me no such volume exists. For that matter, I haven’t been able to verify through Fox News that Colonel North actually made the comments he is said to have made and which I repeated.”
The bogus Giap quote has been repeated as gospel in numerous articles, blogs, commentaries and pseudo-news reports criticizing John Kerry. In the past General Giap is also alleged to have made similar statements about Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite, though there is no evidence that he did.
The fact is, there is no credible evidence that General Giap ever considered surrender an option during the Vietnam war.
The fact is that ten years and 58,000 American soldiers’ deaths couldn’t achieve victory Vietnam.
Thirty years later, the right-wing lie factory wants to blame John Kerry and Jane Fonda.
Sorry, we lived through it. The United States won the war but couldn’t hold the peace.
It was a combination of
1. hate toward a foreign invader,
2. fighting for corporatism and empire instead of democracy, and
3. rewarding our puppet “allies” no matter how corrupt versus the true leaders no matter how honorable.
Let’s see, in Iraq, it’s
1. ditto.
2. ditto.
3. ditto.
I agree with Stephen Biddle’s analysis: “The debate in Washington is Vietnam redux, (but) the war in Iraq is not.” Vietnam was a Maoist people’s war, fought on universalist, class-based principles; it was ideological, based on concepts of good governance. Iraq is a communal civil war, fought on sectarian and ethnic lines; it is about the survival of competing subnational groups. Unsurmountable difference there.
JM–
The Viet Minh was an organization started by Ho Chi Minh to oppose French and Japanese occupation.
A major part of that organization was its army which morphed into the Vietnam People’s Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_People%27s_Army
But don’t let your ignorance of the facts or your rejection of research stop you from making drawing your ubiquitous conclusions.
JM–
The Viet Minh was an organization started by Ho Chi Minh to oppose French and Japanese occupation.
A major part of that organization was its army which morphed into the Vietnam People’s Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_People%27s_Army
But don’t let your ignorance of the facts or your rejection of research stop you from making drawing your ubiquitous conclusions.
JM–
The Viet Minh was an organization started by Ho Chi Minh to oppose French and Japanese occupation.
A major part of that organization was its army which morphed into the Vietnam People’s Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_People%27s_Army
But don’t let your ignorance of the facts or your rejection of research stop you from making drawing your ubiquitous conclusions.
Capn,
I said the Viet Cong were modeled after the Viet Minh.
Don’t let your lack of reading comprehension get in the way of drawing erroneous conclusions about me.
Regardless of the ideological differences between Vietnam and Iraq, the fact is that neither war was truly winnable from the beginning. The South Vietnamese were not adequate partners with the US, and the government was corrupt and focused only on their own agenda.
The same is true with Iraq, except that there is not a definable North-South division. The government (?) of Iraq is certainly corrupt and is certainly focused on their own (Shi’ite) agenda.
The government of South Vietnam had little interest is seeing the war through to a victory, and neither does the government of al Maliki.
To suggest that in any timely manner that the government of Iraq is going to miraculous become non-ethically centered and step up to end the civil war is ridiculous. The country was only held together for the last thirty years by the brutal Ba’athist Party and Saddam Hussein.
Absent another brutal dictator, Iraq will continue in civil war until one tribal faction, supported by either Saudi Arabia or Iran, emerges as the dominate force.
Without or without the Surge, the American effort in Iraq is doomed. Democracy cannot be forced at the point of a gun. The Iraqi’s apparently have little interest in peaceful coexistence with their tribal cousins.
The question is not really a matter of what will happen when the US pulls out of Iraq – whatever is going to happen will happen regardless of whether the date is tomorrow or ten years from now.
The only question is how many more troops is America willing to lose?
My answer is that we have lost enough now and it is time to leave.
“A free and stable Iraq capable of defending itself and being an ally in the war on terror”
THAT is how bush defines victory.
Can ANYONE say that that is a realistic expectation? And if so, please cite your reasoning.
The Viet Cong didn’t “infiltrate” the South because they already lived in the South.
Also the Viet Minh weren’t Chinese. The Viet Minh were organized in 1941 and the Maoists didn’t even take over the Chinese gov’t until 1949.
What a maroon . . .
An interesting article…..
The most dangerous George Bush is one who feels weak, powerless and under attack. Those perceptions are intolerable for him and I doubt there are many limits, if there are any, on what he would be willing to do in order to restore a feeling of power and to rid himself of the sensations of his own weakness and defeat.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/collapse-of-bush-presidency-poses.html
Yup, Clark,
Only now do reports in the news media come trickling out that Bush was the kind of kid that if you were shooting baskets to 11 and he was behind, he’d always go to 15 etc.
Too bad we couldn’t have gotten a little more of that and a little less of the blatent lie that Gore “invented the internet.”
Capn
obviously I left out the word Chinese trained.
If you weren’t so busy trying to discredit people on the blog, maybe I would give you more respect.
But you don’t because of the type of person you are and that has nothing to do with politics.
You’re probably belittle every person you meet and to those you fear, you belittle them behind your back.
You’re about as sociable as a dog with rabies.
their not your
When Ho Chi Minh read the VietNamese declaration of independence in Hanoi shortly after driving the Japanese out a US plane flew overhead. The crowd cheered the aircraft from their ally – at the time. The Viet Minh had been allied with the US against Japan. And, by the way JM, that was BEFORE there was a “Red China”
Capn’ – You’re about as sociable as a BIG UGLY dog with rabies.
And a toothache.
Keep up the good work.
Another interesting article from, those liberals at the NY Times….
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The premise of the article is that the final cost of Bush War on Iraq will be $1.2 trillion. The original Bush estimate of the cost of the war was $50 billion.
I wonder if the warmongers and current supporters of the war remember that estimate.
It was only going to cost the American taxpayer %50 billion and would only last at the most, for six months.
Right now, we are just six weeks short of FOUR YEARS with absolutely no end in sight.
Don’t forget – it would only take “months not years” to finish with victory. And we would be greeted with flowers.
%50 billion……… or $50 billion.
YES
Don’t be so verbose, Leave, get to the point.
NOt yet Iraq is not quite there.
In Viet Nam it was a Democratic controlled Congress and the Democratically held WHite house that decided that wars needed to be micro managed from the houses of Congress. So, we are not there yet, but will be there in about 6 months.
The last five years of the Vietnam War where under a Republican president, Richard Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 with a so-called secret plan to end the war.
Furthermore, Congress did not “micro-manage” the war until 1973 when they finally cut off funding for the war over Nixon’s objection.
Nixon promised to end the war, but instead, escalated the conflict assisted by the first Neocon, Henry Kissinger.
Nixon rode the dissatisfaction with Johnson and the sad political hack Humbert Humphrey into the White House in ‘68. Had RFK lived, he would have kicked Nixon all the way back to San Clemente and the war would have ended 25,000 deaths earlier.
Had the Democratically controlled Congress NOT cut off funding in 1968, Nixon and his military-industrial complex crew would have extended the war until Nixon left office and beyond.
The only way this thing will end is if Congress cuts off funding and they have to do it before GW gets the troops over there. If they don’t get on the ball and stop cussing and discussing this it will be too late. We all need to write, e-mail, and call our congressmen and let them know we expect them to get off their duff and move.
I’ve heard that if you don’t learn the lessons of history, then you’re bound to repeat it.Some argue that if funding is cut off, our soldiers who are already there won’t have what they need to be safe.
No, Vietnam and Iraq are not really comparable. Just another talking point. There are some similarities and and a lot of profound differences. Enough said.
I remember after Carter took office how the supply chain in the military turned to pure crap.
We had to scavenge parts to keep F-15s flying and had restricted fuel and energy days where we had to walk around dark offices or not drive vehicles at all. All admin types they could not keep supplies in their desk. Meaning if you were caught with more than one pen and one pencil in your desk, you were subject to reprimand.
They reduced the firing range qualification times and the number of rounds one could fire. Clothing allowances which were largely furnished by the government now turned into an annual stipend which was about one tenth the cost of your total uniform costs including maintence.
They sacked most all of the mil-air flights and forced the expense on the military person to fly commercial even on official duty.
Then they started with the benefit cutting, which I won’t go into here, but it was massive.
We had lower enlisted with families that were eligible to get food stamps, because the pay was not raised.
Even when you went to the clinic if you were sick, the Physician would not write a script for often used medicines as the pharmancy had smaller budgets and they feared running out of necessary supplies for emergencies.
And of course, if you cut off funding, the military has a tendency to scavenge funds from other programs. Usually research first, which means programs get cancelled, then it is transfer of assignments, then it gets to special services which supply services for family members.
It can get very ugly quickly and is a morale killer.
I see it as the same as living with a family member that keeps borrowing money from you to support his drug habit. The truth is the troops have not had what they needed since this war began. The national guard troops that went to Iraq went with the old outdated equipment they had. Those that were active service had the most adequate equipment. My son is lucky because he is attached to an active service regiment. Otherwise he’d be dead now because he’s been hit by IED twice and a mortar once. That’s why he tells me I shouldn’t worry.
It’s funny serving with a guard unit, you see all shapes and sizes. heh
Usually what happens is the guard unit doesn’t have the latest equipment, mostly likely outdated on average by 10 years.
And of course, they don’t get the frequency of training that active duty does.
Everytime we had guard unit people assigned to our unit, it was like training raw recruits, but they quickly regained their forgotten skills.
It was also funny to see someone twenty years older than you with a rank of lower enlisted, but we still called them ‘pops’ for terms of parental affection. heh
Well, to be fair, we must look at the differences between the two with the similarities.
It appears as if most everyone here, no offense, is on the similarities side of the house and not looking at some obvious differences.
-Our involvement in Vietnam was to help stop North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam while they were backed by Russia and China.
-Our involvement in Iraq was to remove Saddam from power and to provide support to Iraq until they could resume control for themselves.
-We were fighting whole divisions and brigades of forces from North Vietnam invading the South.
-We are fighting small groups of terrorists and insurgents in Iraq
-We lost over 50,000 American forces in Vietnam.
-We have barely lost more than 3,000 forces in Iraq and won’t come close to 50,000 at this rate.
-President Bush is letting his Generals dictate most of the levels of strategy while he develops overall missions.
-President Johnson was micromanaging many of the decisions in Vietnam
These are just a few of the glaring differences in the war.
JM,
The guard today is much different. They have great quipment, most of the time better than what active duty Marines have.
I see these guys out here all the time. They have laser sights, ACOG’s, Rail systems, all the latest Black Hawk tactical gear, and the dude probably works in an office…
Oh, and for you history revisionists…
Nixon was the one who forced North Vietnam to the peace table with his excalation of force.
Did you ever learn about the Paris Peace Accords?
Well, I seem to remember that we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMD and was planning to use them against the United States.
In fact, I remember Condoleeza Rice saying that we had to invade or the smoking gun of WMD would come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
I also remember that Saddam had unmanned drones that could deliver WMD against the American mainland.
I also remember that it was claimed that Saddam could launch WMD in forty five minutes.
I don’t remember anything about starting a war with Iraq to support a new government or to establish democracy.
In fact, I remember that George W Bush said during the 2000 Presidential debates that he would NOT engage in nation building.
In fact, GWB said that we would never deploy American troops without a clearly defined goal and a clear exit strategy.
I am positive of these points.
So, why the hell are we in Iraq?
BTW – Nathan, the Vietnam War lasted basically ten years and five of those years were under Richard Nixon who campaigned in ‘68 on a platform of a secret plan to end the war.
You may remember that American combat operatopns did not end until 1973 when the Democratic Congress cut off funding.
And Bush has fired the Generals that did not agree with the Surge and Puke plan that he “developed” after November 7, 2006.
And we are not fighting a “small” group of insurgents.
We are stuck in the middle of a civil war in a nation of 25 million.
Ben,
We were greated with flowers and candy.
My friends came back with pictures of them with people cheering and celebrating.
However, we didn’t anticipate the level of violence which would ensue after Saddams demise.
So you are half right. We were wrong on how long it would take.
Either way, if you start a project in your little world Ben, do you stop because it ends up taking longer than you expected?
Where would science be today if everyone simply stopped researching because it exceded their projected times?
Yes, Things are not going according to the original time scale, the solution is not to up and quit.
You may also remember, Nathan, that the Paris Peace talks were a complete failure.
WSClark,
I said small groups of terrorists and insurgents compared to divisions and brigades in Vietnam.
Either way, all the reasons you listed for invasion of Iraq is different than Vietnam. I was not so specific.
American combat operations ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords.
I suggest you recheck your history.
The cut off of funding is what stopped Nixon from honoring the threats made if North Vietnam violated the Paris Peace Accords.
WSClark,
The Paris Peace Accords were a failure because the democrats refused to allow Nixon to back up his threats.
WSClark,
I don’t know where you are stuck at, but I am here.
If all 25 million people were in this civil war it would be much worse.
It is a cycle of violence and retribution killings fueled by both terrorists and Iran and Syria.
God bless you, Nathan.It’s too bad a vocal minority has politicized this war. They will be the first to blame Bush if Iraq implodes because they prevented him from finishing the mission.That is the biggest similarity to Viet Nam, but, they refuse to see it.
Bush could cure cancer, and they would still bitch.
Sanford:
Re: “It’s too bad a vocal minority has politicized this war.”
You don’t seem to understand the minority your refer to is a majority of middle-of-the-road Americans that have come to the conclusion that Bush was, and still is wrong!
Just because they don’t sing your song doesn’t make them wrong or somehow un-American- it is their right to diagree.
Aren’t you allowed that right also?
Don’t waste your breath, Clark.
Nathan and Sanford know the “truth”–the Vietnam War could have been won if not for those commie Democrats that cut off the funding.
The fact that no historian in the world believes this bothers them not a whit.
They think the world is only 8,000 years old and that global warming is junk science.
When you a capable of this level of dissocative reasoning, argumentation based on fact has no chance.
You have to at some point understand that there’s a sizeable minority of Americans that cannot be reached through fact-based logic.
These are the people who are staunch CONservatives. They’re the die-hard 30 percent that still approve of Bush.
gster-The vocal minority has been crying and screaming about our involvement since day one. They trumpet every single thing that happens over there as a travesty, and America is evil.It is this continual barrage from the vocal minority that has swayed so many against the war.I don’t deny that many, many are against the war, I do contend that they have been led there by the Left.
Capn-You’re inane name-calling adds nothing to any meaningful discourse.If you are only capable of tossing invectives, not ideas, please get lost.
Sanford- “They” have been led there by the headlines and common sense! Can’t you see that?
People started out with open minds and being supportive. Over time, the reality of the situation challenged that support.
The situation is not stable, but is getting worse day by day- listen to the commanders on the ground!
We are now going into a Civil War we helped create. That is a lose-lose, no matter what spin you choose!
The New York Times was one of the big cheer-leaders for Bush leading up to the invasion.
CapnAmerica,
Simply saying that “no historian in the world believes this” makes you the one who can’t be reached by fact or logic.
To say something like that is simply wrong.
No one answered the basic question at the heart of this so I re- post
“”A free and stable Iraq capable of defending itself and being an ally in the war on terror”THAT is how bush defines victory.Can ANYONE say that that is a realistic expectation? And if so, please cite your reasoning.
Oh and a time frame would be appreciated as well.
JR,
Iraq is now free.
Stability will hopefully come sooner with more training of Iraq Forces, This increas in American Forces, and more assumption of control by the Iraqi forces.
You could argue Iraq is already our ally in the war on terror too.
Time frame?
Well, I would be willing to say that it would take up to 1-2 more years to completley hand over control to the Iraqi people.
It would probably take up to 5 years of actively playing a supporting role with advisors and air power while keeping forces at some level to ward of Iran or Turkey or Syria.
Then it could take up to another 5 years of some form of American Presence in the middle east on at least an air wing or two scale with carrier presence and at least division size ground force element to provide regional stability.
Those would be my rough estimates.
“The cut off of funding is what stopped Nixon from honoring the threats made if North Vietnam violated the Paris Peace Accords.”
Basically, all the Paris Peace accord did was release Amercian POW’s, provide for South Vietnamese self-determination and the withdrawl of American troops within sixty days. It was almost a completely one sided agreement favoring the North Vietnamese.
And it wasn’t the Democrats cutting off funding that kept Nixon from responding to resumption of military action by the North – the crooked bastard resigned the presidency in August of 1974.
And as for the initital 10,000 casualty figure? Bush said that we would have ZERO casualties!
Thank you for your considered and thoughtful answer Nathan.
But I think you must admit that you are more honest than the rheroric we get out of the current administration.
My take? Iraq is SO fractured. Worse, the fractures are being institutionalized into the new government.
I would say that for the Iraq bush envisions we are looking at at least 2 generations. By that I mean 40 to 50 years. And THAT would be in a vacuum. Which of course Iraq is not in.
Frankly, I don’t see bush’s vision as ever attainable. And I am sorry to say that he probably knew that going in. There is great profit for some in war.
That does not reflect on you Nathan. You just do the job you were sent to do.
“You could argue Iraq is already our ally in the war on terror too.”
Sorry Nathan, but with all due respect, you must be one of the few people on Earth that thinks.
If Bush knew he and the generals in Iraq underestimated the troops needed when first invaded, then why has it taken 3+ years to correct the situation? I know the military moves slow but come on fellas. The majority of the American people were with George W. Bush when he first announced the invasion of Iraq. But since then, through the multiple half-truths and total mismanagment of the Iraq war, that support has been long gone.
Now we are faced with a situation that has turned into a religious war between warring sects in Iraq. It doesn’t help the situation when we have these Christian Conservatives here in America praising God for victory in Iraq. This is just another religious sect that has been added to the mix.
A Holy War is never won and to make it a war between differing religions will only make it drag on and on with no more resolution than we have at this moment.
I say we give Malaki a set time to get his country in order and then pull out. Let the chips fall where they may. I still don’t trust Malaki – I think he is playing both sides of the fence. And if that’s true, then why prolong the loss of our troops. What will happen is going to happen.
Sanford,
“I don’t deny that many, many are against the war, I do contend that they have been led there by the Left.”
“Led”?? Please check the facts. They’ve been FORCED there, because the predictions of those who opposed the war are now a very GRIM reality.
btw: In 2003, most of the world opposed the ill-planned, foolish, pre-emptive attack/invasion.
Nathan–
Saying I am simply wrong is simply wrong.
You need to provide evidence. To do that you need to do research.
And doing research leads people to fact based conclusions.
So of course you’re not going to provide evidence . . .
They will continue to provide us with lip service as long as we continue to fuel their civil war.They are going to tell Bush whatever he wants to hear, as long as the money keeps flowing into their corrupt hands, for their own agenda, not ours.
Yep, those Democrats cost us Vietnam and they’re going to cost us Iraq in about six months (see ASBESTOS post).
HHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
These statements are so stupid that they literally burn my eyes.
I agree with an earlier poster who stated that these people cannot be reasoned with. They know the ‘facts’ (ie whatever makes the Republican Party and W look good) so reality be damned. How pathetic that these people care more about their disgusting political party and failed ‘ideology’ (if hate can really be termed as such) than about the lives of our nation’s troops or even reality.
Its people like Nathan, ASBESTOS, and Sanford (ie the radical right that still supports Bush and his war in Iraq) that will ensure that the Republican Party will continue to lose elections.
You are correct, ddub. Good post.
Al Maliki said on the radio this morning that if BushCo. would simply provide them with arms, they could police themselves.
BushCo isn’t going to do that. Al Maliki isn’t Halliburton or Blackwater or some other right-wing crony that scratches Bush’s back so he can scratch his.
Bush has never wanted a free and independent Iraq–he wants them weak and dependent so we get what we want: oil and war profiteering.
Mission accomplished.
CapnAmerica,
As soon as you provide evidence to back up your assertion that no historian agrees with me, I will provide evidence to show you that you are wrong.
Of course you already know you are wrong, so why bother…
CapnAmerica,
Are you serious?
Last time we provided them arms they were going to the terrorists.
And you know what? The liberals jumped all over Bush for it.
All you do is complain, complain, complain.
Nothing will ever be right, everything will always be wrong.
Don’t worry, Nathan, the dems don’t have the stones to cut off funding for the war.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History.
Richard Hofstadter
Robert Mann, A Grand Delusion: America’s Descent into Vietnam
Marilyn Young, The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990
Christian Appy, Working Class War: American Combat Soldiers in Vietnam
H. Bruce Franklin, Vietnam and Other American Fantasies
Neil Sheehan, A Bright Shining Lie
Francis FitzGerald, Fire in the Lake
Howard Zinn
Barbara Tuchman, The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam
Robert F. MacNamera, Argument without End: In Search of Answers to the American Tragedy
Truong Nhu Tang, A Viet Cong Memoir
We can’t give weapons to Maliki’s troops because they’re terrorists?
Okay . . . well, look’s like Mission Accomplished so far.
CapnAmerica,
Are those ALL of the historians?
Your comment was that all historians disagree with me.
Which is an unprovable argument.
I thought you would have gotten the point by now.
CapnAmerica,
I never said the Iraqi troops were terrorists.
When we first gave weapons to the Iraqis they were ending up in the hands of terrorists which the liberals immediately began to attack the administration on.
We are now being much more cautious with the control of our weaponry to ensure it goes into the right hands.
As uaual, you are short on reasoning and quick on the attack.
Yeah . . . we can all see how much better things are going now.
That’s why the American public voted overwhelming for Republicans last time in . . . oh, wait, no, they repudiated the Republicans like no party has been repudiated since the Wilson administration.
Glad that the Americans have figured out how to keep our weapons out of the hands of terrorists . . . finally.
Doesn’t seem to have cut down on the violence much, has it?
By the way, how are housing prices holding up these days with millions of people fleeing the country?
I’m looking for a warm place to retire . . .
Nathan,
“We are now being much more cautious with the control of our weaponry to ensure it goes into the right hands.”
Is this inaccurate?
‘How ghost soldiers are bleeding the Iraqi army of guns and money’http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2554802,00.html