Viet Nam...again?

[Dan Mc Intyre]

I know, I know, this topic is not exactly an original thought. However, I believe it deserves further consideration. Plus, with the recent Bush announcement of an exit strategy, the parallels are becomming more and more apparent as this thing drags on and on and on. Here's why I think there is a parallel:

Viet Nam War - justified by the Gulf of Tonkin "incident." However, many people believe that "incident" was a fabrication. Dark stormy night, no visual sighting of enemy vessels. No damage to US vessels or personnel.

Iraq War - justified by claims of Sadam's participation or collaboration in terror attacks and posession if WMD's. Turns out, no evidence of either. Just wishful thinking on the part of the Bush administration.

Viet Nam War - very unpopular war at home as evidenced by demonstrations by civillians as well as former military personnel.

Iraq War - very unpopular at home as evidenced by a Washington Post Poll Further, if the media had as much access in Iraq as they had in Viet Nam, and more of the truth, and I don't mean Bush's version of the truth, was made public, we'd have the same kind of demonstrations now as in 1970.

Viet Nam War - Fought as a war of attrition. No geographical goals, just search and destroy missions. It was a guerrilla conflict.

Iraq War - No real geographical goals, just search & destroy. Again, a guerrilla conflict.

Viet Nam War - We ended the war through "Vietnamization" of that conflict where we basically bailed out on South Viet Nam and our allies (Hmong, etc.).

Iraq War - Bush is in the process of developing an "Exit Strategy" where the Iraqis take over. What's next in Bagdad, pictures of helicopters leaving with people dangling from the landing skids? No, probably not (no media coverage, remember?), more likely major civil unrest. I believe it ends in a mess for Iraq and we go home. Again, bailing out.

The difference, as I see it, between when we leave Iraq and when we left Viet Nam is Iraq has natural resources we want (need) and Viet Nam didn't. However, the parallel is becoming more clear. The end game has yet to play out, so we'll see what happens.

Finally, one last thought. As peace between Israel and Palestine draws ever closer, it looks like America will be left holding the bag in the Middle East. What could have been a real easing of tensions if Bush had not lied and Israel and Palestine finally come up with a peaceful solution to their conflict, ends with us mired down in Iraq and taking all the heat for the Muslim resentment toward the West. What a shame.


Edit for spelling

[tabs]

I've always saif that we should never have gone into Iraq....that WMD and Terrorism weren't proven and it would be come another quagmire like Vietnam...I think we should get outa the place as quickly as we can save face...those people are never going to be a Democracy...the best we can hope for is that we don't get another Sadam...and the worst is another Afganistan/Somillia.... I think my record stands for itself...

[techweenie]

Good points, Dan. And ther's another parallel here:

We're fighting for the 'hearts and minds' of the people. In most cases, we have no visual means of discerning where their sympathies lie, so we have no choice but to kill all 'possible threats' including Italian diplomats, journalists, innocent Iraqis, etc. Hell, we even had a 'fragging' incident.

But when all is said and done, we'll be gone and what will happen will no doubt appal and disappoint us.

[1967 R50/2]

Here is the key difference:

In Vietnam we were fighting a foe with strongly nationalistic feelings. They had a mission to unite Vietnam into one country. Communism aside, Ho Chi Minh was first and foremost a nationalist.

In Iraq, many insurgents are not native and they are not fighting for a unified country. They are fighters from outside Iraq and old line baathists who want to see the country fractionalized and inflict damage or revenge on their internal foes. These are not good men by any measure. Ever wonder why they attack mostly civilians? Blowing up gas tankers in front of mosques and ramming cars into crowds of children.Don't kid yourself, settling internal scores is more important to these butchers than fighting "the infidel."

The vast majority of Iraqis would like to see them gone.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
The vast majority of Iraqis would like to see them gone.

Apparently those silly Iraqis don't read the Washington Post!

Randy

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by rcecale
Apparently those silly Iraqis don't read the Washington Post!

Randy

It's Iraq. Of course they don't read the Washington Post. Does anyone outside the beltway care about the Orioles/Nationals rivalry? Of course not!

[Dan Mc Intyre]

tech - nice post script

1967 - I agree, we aren't really fighting Iraqis. But, it seems we are fighting foreign insurgents for the most part. But one cannot question their committment. They are willing to strap many pounds of explosives around their waists and wade deep into a crowd. Now, I don't now about you, but I'd have to be d@mn committed to push THAT button.

Randy - I only use that as evidence that it is an unpopular war. I could find many other pieces of evidence. However, what I cannot find it evidence that the majority of Americans support that war.

Frankly, I guess I'm still bitter over being mislead. I was for it until I found out that I was lied to. Now, more than ever, I realize our government cannot be trusted.

[singpilot]

Originally posted by Dan Mc Intyre
tech - nice post script

All of tech's post scripts are always well thought out.

If I didn't know better, I'd say he was righter of center than he is.

[Dan Mc Intyre]

Oh, yea...and Tabs, I resemble those remarks.

[rrpjr]

No, the analogy is false.

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, there could not be a greater difference between a war fought with weapons of indiscriminate slaughter by a conscript Army deployed against a highly evolved revolutionary movement, as Vietnam, and a campaign by all-volunteer Army directed at the overthrow of a hideous and dangerous tyranny, and then taking the form of a drive for free elections and a constitution, as in Iraq.

In Iraq we are pursuing and killing people who really are, unlike the Viet Cong, the common enemies of humanity. These are people who have every intention of carrying forward a war against western civilization, if not in Iraq, at the next available opportunity.

There is another difference. Vietnam was a liberal war, waged by democrats, ended by a republican. Iraq, however, either for good or ill, will be laid at the doorstep of republicans.

For more on this fallacious analogy.

http://www.slate.com/id/2098642

[Dan Mc Intyre]

I have to disagree.

Originally posted by rrpjr
No, the analogy is false.

To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, there could not be a greater difference between a war fought with weapons of indiscriminate slaughter by a conscript Army deployed against a highly evolved revolutionary movement, as Vietnam, and a campaign by all-volunteer Army directed at the overthrow of a hideous and dangerous tyranny, and then taking the form of a drive for free elections and a constitution, as in Iraq.

Analogy - Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar
Using the word analogy to describe my comparision piece validates it further. While I'd agree that both conflicts were fought as you (Hitchens) describe, it is appropriate make the comparison based on the similarities I applied to it.

Originally posted by rrpjr
In Iraq we are pursuing and killing people who really are, unlike the Viet Cong, the common enemies of humanity. These are people who have every intention of carrying forward a war against western civilization, if not in Iraq, at the next available opportunity.

As I recall, none other than Reagan vilified the USSR, and all communists by extension, as "the evil empire." That same thinking was applied to the North Viet Nam communists. The "evil" had to be stopped before other countries fell to the commies like dominos. I recently read in a piece about Westmoreland's death, that he felt that we ultimately won Viet Nam because we stopped the dominos from falling. So, like Sadam and Iraq, the commies were "the common enemies of humanity" of their time. I think we'd all agree North Viet Nam was communist.

Originally posted by rrpjr
There is another difference. Vietnam was a liberal war, waged by democrats, ended by a republican. Iraq, however, either for good or ill, will be laid at the doorstep of republicans.

Gotta disagree once more. Advisors were sent to South Viet Nam in late the 50's under Eishenhower. A Republican IIRC. Futher more, aid to President Diem increased in 1960. I seem to remember that Eisenhower did not leave office until 1/20/61. What we have here, really, is a war that was started by the Republicans and laid, falsely I might add, at the doorstep of the Democrates. Where as Iraq, however, "either for good or ill, will be laid at the doorstep of republicans"...and for good reason, they started it, too.

I'm glad you contributed rrpjr. You served to point out that both wars were started by lying Republicans. One more similarity I didn't think of.


Dan

[rrpjr]

Neverminding your facetious thanks, your last (and least important, really) rejoinder is the most disingenuous. I'm sure we both know that the essential escalation in Vietnam, the fateful decision to turn a smattering of advisors into a crucible of US credibility, took place under Kennedy and Johnson. Though clearly both parties have more than enough to be ashamed over in this matter.

You are comparing Islamicists to communists, not I. If you can't see the difference, or wish to fudge the difference for your specious analogy, I'm sorry. But the differences are profound and pressing and demand attention. The VietCong never attempted, declared or in fact intended to commit large-scale terrorism against the West in the West. Also, Reagan's vilifications of the Soviet in the 1980s (which were correct, incidentally) have nothing to do with this argument, the salient and meaningful likenesses between Vietnam and Iraq.

No, thank you for responding. Your and others punctilious insistence on comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam (I suppose because the latter amounted to a US defeat) complete with such silly sub-comparisons as the Tonkin incident to 11 years of Hussein's UN resolution violations, genocidal deracination of the Kurds with biological weapons of terror, attacks of US and British planes in the no-fly-zone and other assorted criminal acts which incurred the determined outrage of politicians of both parties -- until, that is, one decided to do something about it -- is a perfect procrustean bed of bad reasoning based on wishful thinking. But of course, time will tell. After all, Vietnam went on for more than 10 years, and we're in our second year in Iraq.

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by tabs today
I've always saif that we should never have gone into Iraq....that WMD and Terrorism weren't proven and it would be come another quagmire like Vietnam...I think we should get outa the place as quickly as we can save face...those people are never going to be a Democracy...the best we can hope for is that we don't get another Sadam...and the worst is another Afganistan/Somillia.... I think my record stands for itself...

Originally posted by tabs two years ago
I see those who are oposed to the US actions (in the Middle East it's more a case of damed if you do and damed if you don't) as cutting off their own noses to spite their face..... A course of action had to be taken to stabilize the region....now the French and Germans were selling arms to Ireck in spite of UN Resolutions...that really is a case of them providing Sodamn the gun and ammunition to hold to their own heads..as Europe gets more Ireck oil than the US...

Originally posted by tabs two years ago
The USA is going for the Geo Political throat.....and this goes far beyond just the oil companies....this involves the whole fabric of the world economy, the interests of big businees whether it's USA based or not has global reach....and thats what they are protecting to keep the oil out of the reach of islamic fundamentalism. You no more want to live without electricity than we do and oil is the lubrication of that global economy.

We got the feeling that the Arab regimes were are losing control of their own populations so we are stepping in. In the long run American influence will be a moderating influence in the region...perhaps bring them into at least the 20th century from the 14th century.

Originally posted by tabs two years ago
You boyz continue to say it's "OIL" or "WMD" ...you don't listen.

Duh..look...at...the...map! What countries surround Irak? Saudi, Syria and Iran...hmmmm. Doesn't it appear that Irak is right in the center? Hmmmm...What country is to the east of Iran?...Ahhh Afganistan...Where are US troops deployed again? Irak and Afganistan...oh on both sides of Iran...hmmmm. Do you think maybe that puts a little pressure on Iran?

The USA in Irak sends a very clear message to the Arab/muslim world...if you fk with the USA this is what will happen to you!

Khadifi Duck got the message.

Think GLOBALLY, Think Strategically. Think BIG PICTURE.


The boyz in the WH are now thinking about N Korea, and how they can solve their problem there. Look to 2005 after the election.

Also if your really sharp you shouldn't be distracted by whats going on in Irak....the Great Game (the flash point) is afoot in another place and the dice are being rolled, and there is scant coverage of it here in the states..lets see if any of you know where that is?

GUESSES ANYONE?

What happened tabby? Lost the faith? "always said that we should never have gone into Iraq"??

[beepbeep]

Ohh wait, this one is really good.

Originally posted by tabs here http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?threadid=97330&perpage=20&highlight=invade&pagenumber=3

The French and Germans sold Iraq the fixing for their weapons of Mass Destructions..they are in bed with the Guy. Remember GW said your either with us or agin us. I would tell the French and Germans OK we won't invade Iraq, but if they ever deliver an attack on us...U go with him.....meanig we will turn France and Germany into a big smoking hole in the ground. Hows that for telling our miserable ex allies where to get off.....not that I would do that mind you.....but I'm feeling like Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry at the moment.... or maybe just "Bomb em back to the Stone age" USSAF General Curtis LeMay.

search button is a b***h, isn't it tabby?

[speeder]

It probably would have been more intelligent to re-start the Viet Nam war where we left off than to invade Iraq based on lies and cause the nightmare that is there now. Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz could have looked the American people right in the eye and told us that they were involved in 9/11 and were acquiring nukes as well.

[livi]

The question most of us ROW people ask ourselves is why the USA seems to think they have the liberty to do whatever they like in any other country. The US government cooks up an excuse and the next thing you know some poor country has been invaded.

I know we Nordic men did a lot of pillaging and raving some 1000 years ago, but should we invade someone else today the UN would spank our a$$e$ right back to Sweden over night.

[tabs]

Hey Livi...US history is fraught with invading other peoples territory....Invasion of Canada 1812, Invasion of Florida 1820's, Invasion of Mexico 1845, invasion of Cuba, Philliphines, Puerto Rico 1898, invasion of Panama..then Columbia..early 1900's and on...

And with what is the UN gona spank Sweden with? U Europeans have lived Socialist for too fking long....and are now moral cowards shivering at the thought of any action at all....

[tabs]

I thought U boyz would never catch it.....

On balance was removing a hostile to the USA regime worth it? Sadam if he had the chance would have gotten those WMD's in a heartbeat...at the least he was a saber rattler and as such gave a number of people nightmares...in other words he was a destabilizing influence on the region that is of strategic importance to the US and World and was hostile to the US...

Did the administration make mistakes...YES and BIG ONES THEY ARE...first not enough troops to do the job of providing ground security...But therein the tale is not just about Iraq...it's about Bureaucratic Politics ....who holds the power on military matters....the Military as represented by the Generals or the White House as represented by the Secratary of Defense....the Secratary of Defense won the battle...and the military uses every oportunity to undermine the Secratary...what do U think Abu Grabi was about anyway.....

Furthermore the Neocons agenda since 1991 has been to get rid of Sadam....and they finaly got their day....and it has't panned out like they said it would....and where is Wolfowitz now....Head of the World Bank.....and what did LBJ do with McNamera when he started to opose the war in Viet....off to the World Bank with U....they promote U to get rid of U....

I do think the Administration meaning Neocons who sold the program to GW...miscalculated...they didn't read the history of the country...Iraq was never a country...it was artifical lines drawn on the map by the Brits and Frogs at the end of WW1...3 ethnic groups that don't get along lumped together...kept together by the iron fist of oppression...and when that fist is removed chaos reigns...

So now the administrations stance is to tell the Iraqies...Look we've done what we can for you...stop dithering about and get on with it...cause we ain't gona be here forever to help U out..Our mistake was in letting them try and figure out what they wanted to do instead of telling them....McArthur in Japan is the model....but that is the mamby pamby Liberalism in America...lets try and keep everybody happy..let no ones feelings get hurt.... well Boyz and girlz...this ain't a Mister Rogers Woirld...the reality still is a bullet in the head is better than a ballot in the box...

So in reality what is America faced with in Iraq...a fragmented population that is at odds with each other viaing for political supreamacy....it's gona take decades to sort out....and since the place is of strategic importance to the USA....we will have to keep a number of troops in country to insure that the place doesn't disentegrate into another Somila....

But in reality could it have turned out any other way...if we made some better choich...more troops on the ground, not disbanding the the Iraqie Army, telling the Iraqies this is the framework of your new govt....maybe...but those ethnic differnces would still have to be addresed and who the fk knows...

[livi]

tabs,

Could not agree more with the Socialist part. But for somewhat different reasons. Like my salary for example..

[David Harris]

Originally posted by speeder
It probably would have been more intelligent to re-start the Viet Nam war where we left off than to invade Iraq based on lies and cause the nightmare that is there now. Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz could have looked the American people right in the eye and told us that they were involved in 9/11 and were acquiring nukes as well.

/////////////////////////////Let add more Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz ,
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003