Iraq and Comparisons to Vietnam...

[Rashak Mani]

I noticed that everytime a comparison to Vietnam was mentioned in this board that even anti-Bush americans tended to dismiss it outright. I thought it was strange since the similarities were growing... Of course the comparison can hardly be direct. Different times, countries, people and politics. Still the same bad mix of politics, cold war mentality and military quagmire seem to be coming together.

This BBC article seems very worthwhile reading: Spectre of Vietnam BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3237171.stm)

So do dopers think some comparisons to Vietnam are valid ?
(Or the Philipines as the article quickly puts it at the end ?)

Why do you think its not valid or why is it different ?

[XT]

I honestly don't see the comparison, except that there is fighting going on, people are dieing, and the US is involved. Also, Vietnam has an I in it and so does Iraq. After that, you are reaching IMO.

Differences off the top of my head:

1) We never really invaded the North, or put real troops on the ground there. We basically tried to contain the situation and fought mostly (as far as the main ground war goes) in South Vietnam.

2) The fighting in Vietnam we did were mostly from VC and from the North Vietnam regular army. In Iraq, I'd say that, asside from some 'foriegn fighters', mostly its home grown resistance. I think for the most part, the South Vietnamese were either against the North Vietnamese or appathetic, but thats just my general impression.

3) Resources. One of the big reasons the North was able to even fight as long as it did was the constant influx of material from outside sourcse (USSR and China) of high tech weapons and advisors and such. Everything from the anti-aircraft missile systems to weapons, ammo, money, etc. In Iraq, I think that the resistance is basically using the scattered toys left behind when the main army folded. I seriously doubt any major power is going to stick out its neck and pony up either money or additional weapons to the Iraqi resistance.

4) Lets face it...in comparison to the daily firefights with the VC and regular NVA, the Iraqi resistance so far has been fairly weak. Sure, we've lose some men almost daily, but the RATE we are losing them (the exception being the destruction of the helicopter killing 15 I think) has been pretty small. If that rate holds, even for a decade, we won't lose nearly as many troops as we did in Vietnam...not even close. And thats not likely to happen anyway (i.e. that the Iraqis will hold out for a decade at even their current level of resistance) unless the Iraqis get some serious outside assistance...they simply CAN'T maintain anything but a low level conflict for an extended period of time. The North Vietnamese on the other hand, as a nation in its own right, with a vast pool of man power, and outside assistance, COULD keep up a fairly high level of conflict for a long period of time.

5) UN approval. From what I remember, the US was requested by the UN to assist in South Vietnam (I could be wrong here....Vietnam isn't an area I'm even more than passingly familiar with). Certainly the US did NOT have even that for its Iraq adventure.

6) The US never really thought that Vietnam was essential, strategically speaking (i.e. they had no product or resource we really HAD to have, to the best of my knowledge). It was just a place to make a stand and stop the dominos from falling, or whatever they were deluding themselves about. But we never REALLY committed to the fight there. More like we backed in slowly, gradually getting more and more enmeshed as we got in deeper and deeper. Iraq though IS stategically vital not only to the US but to the world, as it has a resource thats vital.

7) Central figure and ideal. Afaik, there is no central figure or ideal motivating the Iraqi resistance. No great leader, no ideal of a better way of life after the struggle...its simply resistance to an invader and probably a healthy dose of anger, resentment and out and out hatred of the US. Until and unless there is some kind of binding theme to their resistance, it will remain a sore spot to the US...but nothing more. If a great leader and central ideal ever DOES manifest itself, then things might heat up for a time, but again without some kind of outside assistance, I doubt the Iraqis really have much of a chance. The North Vietnamese though, WITH all those things, actually won in the end.

Anyway, those are the key differences that spring to my mind, off the top of my head. I'm no expert on the Vietnam war, or even really deeply knowledgable about it to be honest, but it seems that there really isn't much comparison between the two conflicts. I know that some of our really knowledgable posters will chime in and give some better details and such.

-XT

[XT]

Oh, just thought of something else. The US military. In Vietnam it was a conscription army, poorly equiped, trained and lead (IMO). They were still using the questionable doctorine of stategic air power, the Navy's role had been reduced due to infighting between the Air Force and Navy, armored forces weren't deployed in any kinds of numbers, and I think that tactics used were still being developed for things like air cav and such...it was definitely a learning process, and a painful one. The troops themselves were not what you would call highly motivated either, and I think moral was always fairly low (this is just speculation on my part though).

The modern US military is all volunteer, highly trained, fairly well motivated, equiped with the best weapons systems in the world, and (for the most part) well lead. There is no comparison between todays US military and the military that was deployed in Vietnam. In addition, I don't think there is much comparison between the battle hardened and totally committed fighters of North Vietnam who had fought (and beat) the Japanese, French, etc, and what we just saw in Iraq.

-XT

[John Mace]

I think XT provided a good summary. Actually, the BBC article doesn't provide any substative basis for the comparison. Seems more like an attention grabbing headline than anything else.

One other difference: The Vietnam war was begun under a Democratic administration. Since it was ended (if you can call it an ending) under the Republicans, let's hope the parallel is not a shameful defeat and retreat under the Democrats.

Ironically, McCain is on the Leher report as I write talking about how the Vietnam/Iraq comparison is a weak one. He should know.

[Master Wang-Ka]

........well led?

By a politician?

I must beg to differ.

We are fighting two wars at once, here. Any military man will tell you this is NOT a good idea, no matter HOW big and powerful you are.

...but the people in charge are politicians, not military. We're spread thinner than the REAL soldiers would like, but no one is asking them, or listening.

We are mired in at least ONE war that the American people are starting to question rather heavily, a war that no one asked US if we wanted, or thought was a good idea.

I personally see quite a FEW parallels, although I'll freely admit they ain't the same war.

[Apos]

I think for the most part, the South Vietnamese were either against the North Vietnamese or appathetic, but thats just my general impression.

It's more complex than that. Many many SV people deeply hated the colonialists whose side we were, ostensibly, on. Sometimes this translated into hatred of us, sometimes not, but the fact was, it wasn't like we were liberating the SV from the threat of dictators. We were defending the dictators we liked so that dictators we didn't like wouldn't take over.

Given that we already control Iraq, and there are no major miltary engagements going on, I can't see how the situations could be LESS useful as comparisons. The only really meaningful comparison is simply the issue of whether Americans will long put up with a mounting US death toll. But even there, this is a very different situation. The mission in Iraq seems a great deal more worthwhile than Vietnam ever could have, even if you did buy the domino theory.

[Dissonance]

I’m American and anti-Bush, largely because of Iraq. I think drawing any real parallels between Iraq and Vietnam at this point is seriously stretching it. The opposition in Iraq would have to become greater by many orders of magnitude before a fair comparison could be drawn. From the first days of US involvement, it was fighting battalion and regimental sized guerilla units in Vietnam, something that doesn’t exist in Iraq. xtisme summed it up pretty well. There are only two things that I’d disagree with. One is that there was a good deal of support for the Viet Cong in the South, prior to the Tet Offensive in 1968 the majority of the NLF forces in the south were Viet Cong. After the losses in Tet, the majority shifted to being NVA. The other is that the US military that went into Vietnam in 1965 was well equipped, highly motivated and well lead; it was the 8 years of fighting a seemingly unending war with public support dropping that caused the corrosion of morale and motivation.

A comparison to the Philippines is a bit more apt, though in the Philippines the US goal was to overtly make the islands a colonial possession with some talk of independence at some indeterminate date in the future.

[Vezer]

Whats a fundamental necessity of any conflict you wish to fight? Answer: Objective. In South Vietnam the objectives constantly changed, and the rules applying were also dynamic. From Kennedy to Nixon, from advising against an invasion to fighting insurrectionists.

We aren't fighting a limb of an enemy and pretending it is not part of the vast Communist enterprise (as in Vietnam). We are fighting a war on terror and instability. Toppling the criminals and people that prevent the safe sleep and work of our citizens. This is all-out war, and has been acheived with a phenominally paltry amount of time and lack of support from "allies".

There are no left-wing procrasinators (LBJ). We aren't lying to ourselves about the vastness of the enemy. There are only hawks, doing the best job they can and are trained to do.

Those who stand in our way are our enemies...I guess you isolationist history haters can just stand aside and sleep soundly, warm and safe, and declare your hate in the morning.

[elucidator]

The Vietnamese didn't pick a fight with the USA. They had no reason to like us, but the only reason they were fighting us is because we were there.

The same is true of Iraq. Saddam Hussein had not threatened the USA. He had not the means to threaten the USA, even if he had wished to. However tyrannical he may have been, he was no more tyrannical than any of a number of tin pot dictators we have supported in the past. Our liberationist virtue is freshly minted, you can still smell the wet paint.

In both instances, we could have avoided conflict by the simple expedient of leaving them the fuck alone.

[John Mace]

'Luci wrote:
In both instances, we could have avoided conflict by the simple expedient of leaving them the fuck alone.

I agree. But I think the point of the OP is to compare the two situations during the war stage, not before. The fact is, we are in Iraq and it would be foolish to leave. The question is: how similar is this to Vietnam? The answer seems to be: not very.

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by John Mace
I agree. But I think the point of the OP is to compare the two situations during the war stage, not before. The fact is, we are in Iraq and it would be foolish to leave. The question is: how similar is this to Vietnam? The answer seems to be: not very. Why would it be foolish to leave?

I suppose the answer to that would be: "because then the whole Iraq venture will just have been an expensive and embarrassing fuck-up that achieved no useful purpose, didn't make things better, and quite possibly made things worse".

But that's already the current situation.

There's an implicit assumption that some miracle is going to occur in the future that'll fix things, or that if you try hard enough, things are bound to work out for the best.

It's almost like you'd told everyone you were going to become a millionaire playing slots at the casino. You've lost your initial stake, and more besides. Would it be foolish to go home? Not really. Sure, you're convinced that the winning pull is coming up soon, but other people are looking at you, shaking their heads.

[John Mace]

Des:

Bad analogy. When you leave the slots you know exactly what your losses are. Not so in Iraq.

I'm not all that hopefull for a longterm democracy in Iraq. But you can sure as hell bet there wouldn't be one if we pulled out now.

[Desmostylus]

No analogy's perfect, but this one's still got legs:

There wasn't a democracy in Iraq before, there isn't one now, and if you pulled out tomorrow, there still wouldn't be one.

You weren't a millionaire before you went into the casino, you're further away from the goal now, but you're hoping that you're gonna get lucky.

[John Mace]

Well, I certainly hope, for the sake of the Iraqi people, that their chance for a better life and a better government (with our assistance) is greater than my chance of hitting the jackpot.:)

[Desmostylus]

I hope so, too. But given the track record and the absence of any kind of coherent plan, the US admin looks like a bunch of underpants gnomes. You'll be forever stuck in the "collect underpants" phase.

[Rashak Mani]

What about similarities then ? Are there none ? Xtisme focused on the differences...

One I think is valid is a civilian government with mostly political objectives in mind and the military without militarily accomplishable tasks taking the toll.

Second is a population with mixed feelings... Iraqis say they like america and then they hide or don't rat on resistance fighters. This contradictory state of affairs seems to be happening. You don't know which "gooks" are for or against you.

Third could be lack of civilian synch with reality on the ground. Nice words are used... reality is denied and over optimistic reports given credit.

Naturally troop morale and quality are different... thou Iraqi fighters are no pushover and have a strong sense of nationality. The media and the US populace are way more interested in this debacle than they ever were with vietnam.

Xtisme... as for casualty rates... vietnam era rates are totally unacceptable today... but that doesn't mean a man a day is acceptable. The army today is more trained and better equipped. The current rates are lower in part due to this. The one a day casualty doesnt look rosy because Vietnam had higher casualties... politically its relevant nowdays. Volunteers and reservists getting killed is worse in many ways than poor whitesh and blacks getting killed back then.

[esquimalt]

I Don't think we have any idea exactly how many people are fighting back in Iraq. From what I have read most of the attacks are roadside bombs or missle/mortar attacks that can be carried out by very small groups of people. At a height of even 33 attacks per day the kind of attacks so far indicate small numbers of resistance fighters. If we start seeing headlines like "200 iraqi resistance fighters overun village of ?" then I think the comparison to Vietnam will be valid. The VC & NVA had a seemingly endless number of fighters they were willing to commit to the fight. The US lost 50k soldiers in Vietnam. The NVA lost over a million.

[Rashak Mani]

The problem is that Iraq doesn't lend itself for the movement of big groups. 200 people together = big target. So people fight anyway they can... they aren't stupid to present a viable target to US troops.

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by esquimalt
If we start seeing headlines like "200 iraqi resistance fighters overun village of ?" then I think the comparison to Vietnam will be valid. WTF? The situation is that the 200 Iraqi "resistance fighters" don't need to overrun the village. That's where they already live. It's their village.

Same with the resistance fighters in the next village, and the one after that. They ain't overrunning anything.

[esquimalt]

I agree & I think for the reason you stated it will make it harder for this to turn into a Vietnam type conflict. The resistance will continue to do some damage but if they cannot rachet things up more it will be more difficult. I do not think time is on their side.

[esquimalt]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
WTF? The situation is that the 200 Iraqi "resistance fighters" don't need to overrun the village. That's where they already live. It's their village.

Same with the resistance fighters in the next village, and the one after that. They ain't overrunning anything.

Most of the villages do not not appear to be fighting then.

[Olentzero]

I think there are quite a few parallels, myself. I'll try to make a short list.

1. US intervention in the country before the war actually starts. In Vietnam, the US worked to prevent an election that would likely have resulted in the unification of Vietnam under the Vietminh, propping up an unpopular dictator who represented their interests. And who was assassinated once he became too much of a burden.
In Iraq, the US worked to prevent the oilfields from being nationalized, eventually propping up a murderous dictator who represented their interests. (Rumsfeld/Hussein handshake, anyone?) And who was deposed by force when he became too much of a burden. But not before the country he ruled was literally starved into submission by international action.

2. Popular resistance. The invasion was almost immediately marked by protests from the Iraqi populace - I remember seeing signs saying "Get out from our country" and "Sooner or later, US Killers, we'll kick you out" very early on in the war. True, the casualty rate is nothing close to what it was at the peak of the Vietnam conflict, but remember also that it took several years for the casualty rate to get that high.

3. Domestic opposition. In many respects, the anti-war movement today is miles ahead of where the anti-war movement around Vietnam was at the same point in its lifespan. The demonstration in Washington on Oct 25th was led by organizations of military veterans, and families of servicemen and -women in Iraq. It took years for the domestic anti-war movement around Vietnam to link up with soldiers' and military families' organizations. Which leads us to...

4. Opposition within the military. Everyone who was old enough to remember the Vietnam war probably has at least heard stories of soldiers questioning orders, refusing to obey orders, or taking a number of other measures, both moderate and extreme, to keep themselves out of combat while at the front. This was a result of extremely low morale, which sprang from several sources, including questioning why the hell they'd been sent over there in the first place. What about troops in Iraq? This Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32521-2003Oct15?language=printer), quoting a study from Stars and Stripes, speaks volumes. Were the dissatisfaction rates among the troops in Vietnam that high less than a year after the war started?

In short, the US has involved itself in a war in a country it's been messing with for years, but which has provoked popular resistance and opposition domestically and within the military. I'd say there are some strong parallels.

[XT]

From Rashak Mani
One I think is valid is a civilian government with mostly political objectives in mind and the military without militarily accomplishable tasks taking the toll.

I don't see this. From the militaries perspective, the initial goals couldn't have been clearer in the Iraq conflict. Go in, destroy the Iraqi army with as few civilian deaths as possible, kill or capture Saddam if possible, destroy his government. Whats unclear? The war plans, as far as I know, were pretty much left in the hands of the military. Contrast that to Johnson's micromanagement of the Vietnam war....picking targets, deciding on what intellegence the military would recieve, etc. There WERE no goals in Vietnam, except some nebulous defensive strategy and a gradual ratchetting up of stategic air bombing over the North.

Even the post war there are real goals. That doesnt mean that the plan has been a good one, or that it worked correctly or AS planned...for one thing we didn't deploy enough troops initially IMO to really do the job right. I suppose you could make the comparison to the gradual escalation of troops deployed to Vietnam, but IMO you'd still be reaching. I just don't see how this conflict compares.

From Rashak Mani
Second is a population with mixed feelings... Iraqis say they like america and then they hide or don't rat on resistance fighters. This contradictory state of affairs seems to be happening. You don't know which "gooks" are for or against you.

Well sure...but this is the case with ANY conflict where you have resistance coming from a native population to an outside invader. I suppose its valid, but its a bit broad for a comparison isn't it?

From Rashak Mani
Third could be lack of civilian synch with reality on the ground. Nice words are used... reality is denied and over optimistic reports given credit.

Well, again, thats probably fairly true of any conflict the US is involved in, including post WWII. However the key difference is that Vietnam was never really VITAL to the US...while Iraq really is. The US HAS to make this work, and from what I remember reading they have already begun re-evaluating what they are doing there and determining what to do differently to 'fix' the fuckups. This is vastly different than what I remember in Vietnam, where the only 'fix' was to gradually ramp up the level of conflict...AFTER the Vietnamese had ramped up THEIR levels (i.e. lets bomb Hanoi AFTER they put in an advanced SAM defense system). Again, I'm no expert on Vietnam, so correct me if I blunder here please.

From Rashak Mani
Xtisme... as for casualty rates... vietnam era rates are totally unacceptable today... but that doesn't mean a man a day is acceptable. The army today is more trained and better equipped. The current rates are lower in part due to this. The one a day casualty doesnt look rosy because Vietnam had higher casualties... politically its relevant nowdays. Volunteers and reservists getting killed is worse in many ways than poor whitesh and blacks getting killed back then.

What I was trying to portray is that the level of conflict here is literally an order of magnitude different....both from the military casualty perspective as well as a civilian casualty perspective, as well as from a raw 'Iraqi resistance fighters in the field' perspective. In addition, I was trying to show that, at least IMO, we won't SEE an escalation of more violence OR more Iraqi fighters in the field (though I suppose its possible we see less in time....not holding out much hope, but it IS possible). The situation is too different from Vietnam. The tactical environment is different (jungle vs desert), the level of conflict is different (a very small number of Iraqis in the field, as opposed to literally regiments of VC and NVA in the field at any given time), the capabilities of the Iraqi resistance is different (what they have as far as arms go they have without much prospect IMO of getting more or better)...its just, well, different.

As to todays military being composed solely of 'poor whites(h) and blacks' I kind of resent that. I have several family members over there...and they certainly aren't 'poor' NOR 'white or black'. There are a lot of hispanics in the military...and many of them are there because they love their country. Many of the kids in my cousins units are basically somewhere in the middle class range (from the low to middle of the middle class range I'd guess) and while this isn't exactly a representative sample (and its anacdotal to boot!) it at least showed ME that not all our troops are po' white and black boyz over de'r just 'cause de'y needed da money.

-XT

[John Mace]

Olentzero:

Your list of similarities are pretty much what one would see in any war. Of course there are going to be some similarities. But what are those similarities unique to these two situtations?

[ammo52]

Very basic point, relating to the OP, being missed here:

There exists no motive for comparing the current conflict in Iraq with the Vietnam war, short of using it as a "smear" against America's efforts there.

It's simply a "hot button" a critic can push, an attempt to characterize the Iraq situation as a "quagmire" (can't talk about Vietnam without the Q word, ya know) in an effort to create the same kind of feeling about Iraq as exists regarding Vietnam-- a deep, national embarrassment for the most part.

For Christ's sake, the thing isn't even over yet and you amateur historians want to lump it in with the failure of Vietnam. You might want to let the ink dry in your ongoing history books for a second, there... If, as is possible, we leave Iraq a year or two from now as a flourishing (more or less) democratically elected government using its oil resources to raise the standard of living for all Iraqis, you're gonna need to go back and scratch out your "Quagmire Chapter."

You can selectivley pick out common themes between any two conflicts in history, depending on how tenuous a link you want to try to establish between them. How 'bout the stunning similarities between the Russo-Japanese War and the War of 1812? The mind boggles.

It's like the comparisons people try to make between Bush and Hitler. Hitler gets stuck into the comparison not because of any actual relevance, but because he's a useful hot button. Bush could just as easily (and mistakenly) be compared to Churchill, Mao-Tse Tung, Napoleon, or DeGaulle-- but that wouldn't have the emotive power of the "link" intended by the critic. Labelling the Iraq situation as "another Vietnam" is more about a thinly veiled attempt to create an unpleasant association than it is about any sort of scholarly, historical perspective.

Suffice it to say that the differences between the campaign in Iraq and the Vietnam war FAR and substantively outweigh any superficial similarities that may exist. Of course, that won't stop those with an agenda from jumping up and down, pointing at Iraq, and screeching, " Look! Look! A quagmire!"
:rolleyes:

[elucidator]

Oh, my heavens! I had no idea we had been so shrill and hysterical over such a calm and sedate issue as pointless, needless and aggressive war. Allow me to personally make amends by stating, as quietly and unemotionally as I might:

"Iraq is very likely a quagmire. On the other hand, there is comparatively little sand in Viet Nam, and no camels at all to speak of."

There now. Happy?

[Algernon]

If it looks like a quagmire, walks like a quagmire, and quacks like a quagmire... then I'm gonna hafta call it a quagmire. YMMV.

[ammo52]

elucidator:

The point was, and is, that no more credible "similarities" exist between the current situation in Iraq ( which, since it hasn't even played out yet, would seem to beg for the passage of a wee bit more time until the harsh lens of history looks "back" at it) and the Vietnam war than would exist between just about any two conflicts somebody could pull out of their ass at random... and probably less.

The corollary of that point is that Vietnam, in particular, was plucked out of history not because of it's stunning relevance to the current operation, but specifically because it was an embarrassing FAILURE. And, again-- those with an agenda are eager to hold up the spectre of Vietnam not because the parallels, such as they are, are so compelling-- but rather because it's a negative connotation they can make that carries with it some emotive power.

To date, your list of startling similarities consists of this gem:
Originally posted by elucidator
The Vietnamese didn't pick a fight with the USA. They had no reason to like us, but the only reason they were fighting us is because we were there.

The same is true of Iraq. ...

In both instances, we could have avoided conflict by the simple expedient of leaving them the fuck alone.

Using that logic, we certainly could have left Germany "the fuck alone" in 1941. That "simple expedient" would have perhaps kept us off the beaches of Normandy. Harder to ignore would have been the Japanese strike at Pearl Harbor, but again.. rather than wage an "aggressive war" (to borrow another one of your brilliant terms) against them we could have simply watched them roll over the Pacific, unimpeded. For that matter, every single armed conflict in history could have been avoided had one party simply left the other one alone-- so I guess the obvious conclusion is that Iraq is just like every other war in history.

Are there lessons learned from the Vietnam experience which we would be foolhardy to dismiss in Iraq? Sure. Collectively, lessons from ALL of our previous conflicts shape and re-shape our warfighting doctrine. The current war was conducted using the hindsight of many of them.

Quagmire, schmagmire... call it what you will. It bears no more meaningful relationship to Vietnam than it does to the French and Indian Wars-- but then, THAT doesn't look quite as sexy on a protester's placard, does it? ;)

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by John Mace
Olentzero:

Your list of similarities are pretty much what one would see in any war. Of course there are going to be some similarities. But what are those similarities unique to these two situtations? Well, from my point of view, the overriding unique similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is US imperialism. Vietnamese unification under a Communist Party was unacceptable to the US, period. So the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations sent in "advisers", then soldiers, to make sure that didn't happen.

Iraq, on the other hand, has a seriously large reserve of a very economically valuable commodity. No matter who uses it (and it's quite clear more Iraqi oil goes to Europe and Japan than the US), controlling its extraction and distribution is a very profitable enterprise. So the US first interfered to keep the Iraqi government from completely nationalizing the oilfields, then supported a dictator that both a) kept his own population quiet and b) kept other hostile powers in the area (namely Iran) in check. When he proved to be too much of a hassle, the two Bush and Clinton administrations starved and bombed the country to try to get Hussein to toe the line and then finally took him out under the transparently false veneer of the "war on terror". Now Halliburton and Bechtel are in there, beneficiaries of no-bid contracts, and are the companies controlling the distribution of oil to US economic rivals who are heavily dependent on it.

In both cases (and these are not, of course, the only ones), the US has intervened both politically and militarily in other countries' affairs to ensure that its interests, generally at the expense of the interests of the local population as a whole, are being served to its satisfaction.

As regards the debate about whether or not Iraq is a quagmire - it may not be yet, but the factors that led to Vietnam being one are already well in evidence. See points 2 and 4 of my last post.

[John Mace]

Olentzero:

The processes of US intervention in the two wars are actually quite different. The US entered Vietnam with the consent of, and at the request of IIRC, the S.V. gov't. As for Iraq, the whole process started when that country invaded Kuwait. No Vientman parallel there. Before Kuwiat, Iraq was a nominal ally of the US (nominal in the sense that we supported them in the Iran Iraq war).

The US has the bad habbit of intervening in the internal affairs of so many countries, that to draw a parallel here is rather meaningless.

I'm not sure what you mean "at the expense of the local population as whole" unlless it is that the local population would have been better served by having SH remain in power. I don't think the poll info of Iraqi's supports that conclusion.

[John Mace]

Brain fart-- sorry. For "poll info of Iraqi's" read "Iraqi poll results on the subject"

[ElvisL1ves]

Don't believe what Cheney says that poll says, or anything else he says for that matter. Read Kristof: (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/opinion/05KRIS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists)Mr. Cheney has cited a Zogby International poll to back his claim that there is "very positive news" in Iraq. But the pollster, John Zogby, told me, "I was floored to see the spin that was put on it; some of the numbers were not my numbers at all."

Mr. Cheney claimed that Iraqis chose the U.S. as their model for democracy "hands down," and he and other officials say that a majority want American troops to stay at least another year. In fact, Mr. Zogby said, only 23 percent favor the U.S. democratic model, and 65 percent want the U.S. to leave in a year or less.

"I am not willing to say they lied," Mr. Zogby said. "But they used a very tight process of selective screening, and when they didn't get what they wanted they were willing to manufacture some results. . . . There was almost nothing in that poll to give them comfort."Zogby's reputation is "The Republicans' Favorite Pollster", mind you.

As for the Vietnam comparison, sure, any analogy breaks down if you press it too far, and the more obtuse can claim that invalidates it, but you can still be enlightened by thinking about one. The key broader similarities exist here:

1. US is an occupying power that was not welcomed by the people both broadly and warmly.

2. No strategy or even clear, realistically achievable goals were set beforehand, despite some attempt to define them after the fact, making their sincerity dubious. That includes exit strategies.

3. No sincere attempt to level with the people, even of the US, about the situation exists either. A pattern of self-delusion, filtration of facts, and simple lying about the facts exists, though.

4. Our good, young people are getting attacked and killed and maimed almost daily. Some half-hearted attempts to blame outside insurgents exists, but not based on real facts.

5. Attempts to win the locals' hearts and minds are haphazard, and mixed with actions that can only alienate them.

6. The Administration and its cheerleaders blame setbacks on peaceniks and, worse, Democrats back home who dare to question them, but never themselves.

That enough of a definition of "quagmire" for you, gang? Now go read Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly. I can't stress that enough.

[Rashak Mani]

Just saying Vietnam was ages ago and in the jungle... vs Iraq in the desert isn't an argument in this thread. Parallels can be made between the two... I want to know if these comparisons are minor and irrelevant to analysis of the current quagmire.

If the same "things" that made vietnam into a lose lose situation are starting to show up in the Iraq situation I think its relevant. Naturally many things are different... history doesn't repeat itself perfectly. Still the same US govt structures are there... the two Parties... even some of the same people too. (Different positions like Powell)

Also I didn't come defending the comparison in military terms... but more in political aspects in fact. That is where I see similarities.

Well I will respond to xtisme points:

When I said military objectives I was talking of the CURRENT situation. The invasion was nice and fun.... quick and well done. I was talking of the military situation now. Do you think the military have a clear objective and means to accomplish them ?

Ok natives dubious loyalties can be for any conflict... but still the fact that many Iraqi have two faces seemed eerily similar. "invisible enemies".

ok... again I agree... official Bull shit is a tradition... but the US now has the vietnam experience and they know what happens when government puts sugarcoating on reports and sucesses.

My final point about poor whites and blacks was in vietnam... not the current army. (You read it fast didn't you ?) Which is exactly my point. Soldiers now are valued specialists and aren't seen as disposable as they were in vietnam. (Though of course many see the high latino percentages as the blacks of former armies.) The high number of reservists means even more political costs for dead soldiers.

From what I read the soldiers that will be sent to Iraq to substitute the current garrison are even more heavily Nat.Guard and Reservists than the troops now in Iraq. Bush is certainly going to pay a political price on that...

Overall I do agree with your points... militarily the situations arent comparable... what about politically ?

[XT]

From ElvisL1ves
1. US is an occupying power that was not welcomed by the people both broadly and warmly.

2. No strategy or even clear, realistically achievable goals were set beforehand, despite some attempt to define them after the fact, making their sincerity dubious. That includes exit strategies.

3. No sincere attempt to level with the people, even of the US, about the situation exists either. A pattern of self-delusion, filtration of facts, and simple lying about the facts exists, though.

4. Our good, young people are getting attacked and killed and maimed almost daily. Some half-hearted attempts to blame outside insurgents exists, but not based on real facts.

5. Attempts to win the locals' hearts and minds are haphazard, and mixed with actions that can only alienate them.

6. The Administration and its cheerleaders blame setbacks on peaceniks and, worse, Democrats back home who dare to question them, but never themselves.


1. Are you claiming the US was an 'occupying power' during the Vietnam conflict?? I dinna think that word means what you think it means if you are. If you ARE really saying that, after passing me the drugs you are using, can you back that up perhaps? My own (admittedly limited) memories of the conflict seemed to say that we were invited there. Now, I'm sure the government at the time WAS a dictatorship, and possible not everyone was exactly thrilled to see us there, but are you REALLY saying that the same level antipathy towards the US was shown by the South Vietnamese people as by those in Iraq?

2. No strategy was set? Funny we managed to win, no? Maybe we just lucked into it. Oh, maybe you mean POST war. Well, I'd STILL beg to differ (though you guys are certainly trying very hard to forget the actual military phase...where we basically crushed the Iraqi military. Where's the comparibly analogy to THAT in Vietnam???)...there WAS a strategy for post war too. That it didn't work, was ill considered, pie in the sky, and full of wholes does not negate the fact we had one. Now, afaik, we did NOT have anything even resembling a stategy in Vietnam. To me, you guys are comparing apples to oranges in your reach to make these two things match. In Vietnam we never won....so there WAS no 'occupation', etc...the conflict was on going. In Iraq, we definitely defeated the Iraqi military. Yes, there is still some resistance going on. But its nothing like the full blown conflict that was Vietnam, even in its early days.

You would have more firm ground to stand on IF the US had of actually won in Vietnam, had of invaded the North and conquered the main field army, deposed the government, and REALLY been an 'occupying power'. I have zero doubt that the resistance THEN would have made Iraq seem like a church social, but it would then be a better analogy than what happend in real history.

3. I'll agree with you here. I think the government thought the people were too stupid or too weak to give the REAL reasons for the war in Iraq...and I think the government during Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) did very similar things. You shoot, you score!!

4. The conflict goes on. But the comparison to the death toll in Vietnam is not even close. Also the underlying assumption that this conflict will drag on and on is, frankly, pure speculation on your part. At this point we have no idea, but I'll go out on a limb and say that even this modest level of resistance we are seeing atm is not sustainable without outside assistance. Weapons and ammo don't make themselves, and if they REALLY want to hit at the Americans, they will need plenty of both. They will need things like the shoulder launched SAMs they used against the helecopters, and that kind of thing doesn't exactly grow on trees. Where do you suppose they will get such things, say, next year? The year after? After that? After all, if we catch some country aiding the rebels, it won't go well for them (especially if your name is Iran, Syria, SA, etc...).

5. Again, I agree with you. Thats a good analogy. Only time will tell if we straighten up on this account, but at this point I'm not exactly overflowing with optimism.

6. Well, this is one that all administrations do. I think its a bit broad for a comparison between the two conflicts.

From ElvisL1ves
That enough of a definition of "quagmire" for you, gang? Now go read Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly. I can't stress that enough.

If the situation is the same or worse in 5 years time, then I'll agree with you that its a 'quagmire'...and I'll also start to maybe see some parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. I think its a bit early in the game to be screaming 'quagmire' right now thought, personally.

-XT

[XT]

/aside
I think I'm going to start a thread entitled "Is the SDMB REALLY powered by hamsters, or is there something else that makes it so painful to try and access it sometimes??" I've never been on a board that was at once so interesting and so painful to use...
/aside

From Rashak Mani
Just saying Vietnam was ages ago and in the jungle... vs Iraq in the desert isn't an argument in this thread. Parallels can be made between the two... I want to know if these comparisons are minor and irrelevant to analysis of the current quagmire.

Well, my point was that the TACTICAL environment is worlds different. It makes a HUGE difference, as you yourself pointed out. There won't BE regimental or brigade level rebel groups massing...there isn't any where for them to hide. If they were ever stupid enough to mass together somewhere, they would be very dead very fast. I think this is one of the critical differences to be honest.

As to the whole 'quagmire' thing....again, IMO its simply too soon to tell. We aren't even done with the FIRST year yet. Start a thread this time two years from now if the situation is either the same or worse, and I'll be willing to begin siding more fully with ya. At this time, I believe its too early to tell how its going to work out.

From Rashak Mani
If the same "things" that made vietnam into a lose lose situation are starting to show up in the Iraq situation I think its relevant. Naturally many things are different... history doesn't repeat itself perfectly. Still the same US govt structures are there... the two Parties... even some of the same people too. (Different positions like Powell)

But thats my point...the same things AREN'T showing up, at least on the military side. There isn't a major power out there supporting the Iraqi's with money, arms, training and advisors. There AREN'T vast jungles for them to hide out in. There ISN'T a 'home base' of a nation state like North Vietnam for them to hide out in, rest, re-equip, eat, etc. In short, its completely different IMO...the few parallels I've seen brought up are the same ones you could bring up in comparison to ANY conflict the US was ever in -vs- Iraq.

From Rashak Mani
When I said military objectives I was talking of the CURRENT situation. The invasion was nice and fun.... quick and well done. I was talking of the military situation now. Do you think the military have a clear objective and means to accomplish them ?

I know you are...but its hard to just forget that part. It WAS part of this mess after all, and there are zero parallels to it in the Vietnam conflict that I'm aware of.

As to the rest, do I think there is a clear objective? Sure there is. The clear objective is to pacify Iraq, restore order, restore services, get the oil flowing again, etc. Those are DEFINITELY the OBJECTIVES. Now, do I think they have the means to accomplish them? Thats tougher. I think the CAN do it, though its in my mind that they are attempting to do it on the cheap....regime change and democratic stability on a budget. I think that their initial reading of what the post war period would be like was definitely rose colored, and they have made a multitude of mistakes. In the end though, I do think that it will work out....simply because America NEEDS it to work out. We could basically afford to fail in Vietnam when all was said and done...they didn't really have anything vital to the US. We can't afford to fail in Iraq.

From Rashak Mani
Ok natives dubious loyalties can be for any conflict... but still the fact that many Iraqi have two faces seemed eerily similar. "invisible enemies".

Well, thats true...and you already answered yourself. Its true of any conflict of this type. Its too broad a brush to allow for a comparison. You could just as easily compare the Iraq war to myriad conflicts the British were involved in. You could compare it to the Revolutionary War in the US for that matter. There are similarities to the post war period following the Civil War. You could compare it favorably to the British wars in Wales and Scottland. Why Vietnam?

From Rashak Mani
My final point about poor whites and blacks was in vietnam... not the current army. (You read it fast didn't you ?) Which is exactly my point. Soldiers now are valued specialists and aren't seen as disposable as they were in vietnam. (Though of course many see the high latino percentages as the blacks of former armies.) The high number of reservists means even more political costs for dead soldiers.

lol, ya...I read it fast. I'm a bit sensitive about such things. The white and black boys aren't the ONLY ones here, etc etc. I like to think of 'my' people as pulling their own weight here too, and I definitely misconstrued what you were saying. My appologies. :)

You are right...they are specialists now. THats one of the reasons I used it as a contrast...they definitely aren't seen as 'disposable' now, at least not like they were then. They are all volunteer, though I expect that the reserve soldiers especially are thinking that it might have been better to pass on that. :) Its a different army with a different attitude now. I can't speak for all of them, but I know my cousins are still pretty upbeat about being in the Army anyway. I also remember from my time in the Navy that folks were always bitching about being in and about leaving.

I think that, for the time being, the current rate of loss is reasonably acceptable to the America people. Its only if this thing drags on and on that you will see REAL opposition to all this. If thats the case, I'll be one of those that DOES oppose the continued presence there as well. You have to look at the loses in perspective though. Its tragic that those boys and girls have lost their lives and my heart goes out to their families...but the death toll for the entire conflict to date isn't even 300, with what, another 2000 or so wounded? As for the Iraqi dead and wounded, again, my heart goes out to them and to their families, but again their loses are what? 10,000 dead, maybe twice that wounded? In terms of Vietnam thats not even a drop in the bucket. Granted, Vietnam dragged on for a decade and this conflict hasn't even lasted a single year yet...but thats my point. Unless you ASSUME that it WILL drag on that long, its too early to make that comparison.

From From Rashak Mani
From what I read the soldiers that will be sent to Iraq to substitute the current garrison are even more heavily Nat.Guard and Reservists than the troops now in Iraq. Bush is certainly going to pay a political price on that...

Agreed. Bush is going to pay several political prices for this mess, and its my hope it costs him the election next year. And I don't disagree with you guys who are saying that the post war planning could and SHOULD have been a lot fucking better, either.

Politically? I think that there really is no comparison between Bush's actions and Kennedy's, though I have an open mind and can be convinced. I think that their reasons are vastly different for why they did what they did, and their methods were certainly different. On the military side, I think GW pretty much tured the military lose, where as Kennedy and Johnson didn't. To be honest, in the fighting stage, this was the best thing to do (IF you are going to fight at all, fucking fight to win and get it over with). I'd rather have Kennedy or Johnson for the post war period though.

I'm not sure I'm addressing this point properly though...could you expand some on what you think the parrallels are politically? If you did earlier and I've forgotten I appologize. I've been going nuts just trying to bring up the threads and attempt to post, and haven't read back through this one but only read the new posts (when I can get the damn things to load).

-XT

[Ravenman]

I saw a thoughtful op-ed the other day in the paper (which now I can't find on google, dammit) that rejected the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam, and instead argued that Iraq is more like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

A few similarities that pop to mind: Both invaders based their action on that the subject was falling under the influence of a belligerent power (ie, Afghanistan to Iran, the West, China, and just about anyone else the Soviets disliked; Iraq to Al Qaeda) which would give rise to a direct threat. Both wars were met with broad international opposition. Both wars were an attempt to remake the political culture of the invaded country.

More importantly, both wars mobilized opposition movements funded by foreign elements using terrorist/guerrila tactics (depending on your pov). In both cases, a very rapid military victory turned into a costly occupation, and the future of each conflict was based more upon the tolerance of the folks back home for casualties rather than the situation on the ground in the occupied country.

It's also worth noting that Soviet losses were at a significantly lower rate in Afghanistan than US losses in Vietnam: approx 20,000 over ten years, as opposed to 57,000 over eight in Vietnam.

Food for thought.

[XT]

But again, in Afghanistan there was a major foreign power funding the resistance...namely the US. We gave them money, weapons, as well as CIA 'advisors'. Its the thing that kept them afloat basically...I seriously doubt they could have maintained such a high level of resistance without all those goodies and money, reguardless of how nasty of fighters they were (and they WERE...they have a tradition of being extremely nasty resistance fighters. Ask the British).

I do see more similarities between the Afghan war and Iraq than I do between Vietnam and Iraq though...but I don't see the sustainability of the resistance at this point, and if thats the case, the comparison completely falls appart...IMO at least. Again, I guess time will tell.

At our present casualty rate, I'd estimate aproximately 3000 combat deaths for US forces in a 10 year period (figuring aproximately 300 deaths a year)....IF they are able to sustain their present resistance levels for 10 years, which I highly doubt. I pulled that number from my bum btw...just based on an extrapolation of current deaths.

-XT

[sailor]

I am sure there will be no shortage of funding and supplying for the resistance. Enemies and competitors of the USA can get a lot of bang for their buck. For every dollar you give the resistance you are making the US spend hundreds of thousands. It will be done secretly but it will be done. Countries who proclaim they are neutral will be giving money under the table. Having the USA bogged down in Iraq for a decade or more is a worthy objective for many countries. Rather than let the US enjoy the oil, let them spend a fortune trying to stay afloat. China, Russia and other countries may not say it openly but you can see how they salivate.

Time is on who's side? The Iraqi's live there. The US has to spend a fortune sending people and equipment there. Iraqis can wait for the right moment to attack. I do not think time is on the side of the USA. I think there was a window and it is closing fast. if the USA cannot assert itself, cannont ensure tranquility, cannot rebuild the economy, then time is definitely against it. All the Iraqis have to do is sit by their front doors and wait to see the next humvee being taken out by an rpg. An rpg which costs little and which will be gladly donated by a major competing power near you can take out soldiers and equipment which costs millions to put in place. The USA will be supplying targets at a tremedous cost for no visible gain. Time is not on the sie of the USA.

[XT]

I conceed, you could be right Sailor...time will tell. Personally I think it takes more to fund a true resistance than you think it does. Right now the Iraqi's are still operating at the annoyance level, and still able to use all those toys scattered about. To say it another way, they are a tactical threat, but they aren't even close to being a stategic threat. To ramp it up to a full scale resistance a la Vietnam or Afghanistan when the Russians were there would take more than a few dollars slipped covertly under the table. Sometime next year, the resistance will start running dry of the toys on hand. I'm sure they have plenty of guns and RPGs atm, but they can't have vast caches of the things...and even if they do, we discover them all the time. Sometime or other, the well will start to run dry...and they don't have exactly the best logistics scenerio, even IF someone is willing to pony up the cash and amunition to keep them rolling at their current levels.

Its also gona take more than RPG's and AK47's to throw us out at this point, its gona take SAMs and TOWs (or some more powerful anti tank weapons at any rate) and other more advanced weapons systems to do the job right (i.e. to hit us where it REALLY hurts, down our air craft, take out our M1A1's and Bradleys and such)...and those cost real money. After all, thats what helped the Afghani's throw out the Russians...and what the VC/NVA used against the US. IMO, we can sustain (both militarily and politically, though thats more dicy) the current casualty rate for several years, and can even sustain the monetary costs (gulp) as long as the American people perceive that there is some light at the end of the tunnel..and that its not a train coming the other way. At this time, that perception is still there that this thing is do-able...at least thats my take on the mood of the country atm. How long it lasts is anyones guess, but I'd say if things don't get worse any time soon, the situation here at home won't change radically either....not any time soon anyway.

In addition to the materials of war, its gona take lots of training IMO ('advisors' and such). No? Then why did the US send 'advisors' to Afghanistan? Why did Russia and China do the same in Vietnam? And honestly, the Iraqi's NEED that training, more than the VC/NVA or Afghani's ever did. Sure, a lot of the resistance guys are probably former Iraqi army troops, but they weren't trained to exactly a high level...and they collectively just got their ass's kicked twice in a row, not to mention a long an bloody stalemate with Iran before that. I'm sure their confidence isn't exactly peak atm.

Money, training, advanced weapons...those kinds of things would tip the hand of anyone trying to play it fast and loose under the table I'd think...something no one wants to risk with the US right now. I can certainly see someone like Russia or China (or more likely Syria, Egypt or SA) slipping a million here or a million there under the table (very carefully)...and that could keep this conflict going at this level for a while. But its not going to throw us out of there on its own. At that level, only the American people can throw us out, if they become dissatisfied to the level where we pull out.

Still, you might be right, and I might be wrong...I certainly see your points and even agree with them, if certain circumstances happen. Ask me a year or so from now, and I might have a totally different take on whats happening as I learn more and see what the trends are.

Certainly the relative costs of an RPG (what, $50 US?) vs even a hummer staggers the mind. And I'm sure there won't be a shortage any time soon of volunteers to take that RPG out there and die for the cause. If the resistance drags on for several years, it could certainly hurt the US in many different ways, and REALLY start costing us some serious dollars (as if it hasn't already).

But whats your thoughts on the OP? Do YOU see a clear comparison between this conflict and Vietnam?

-XT

[Dissonance]

Originally posted by sailor
Time is on who's side? The Iraqi's live there. The US has to spend a fortune sending people and equipment there. Iraqis can wait for the right moment to attack. I do not think time is on the side of the USA. I think there was a window and it is closing fast. if the USA cannot assert itself, cannont ensure tranquility, cannot rebuild the economy, then time is definitely against it. All the Iraqis have to do is sit by their front doors and wait to see the next humvee being taken out by an rpg. An rpg which costs little and which will be gladly donated by a major competing power near you can take out soldiers and equipment which costs millions to put in place. The USA will be supplying targets at a tremedous cost for no visible gain. Time is not on the sie of the USA. I generally agree with this assessment, and my biggest fear in the conflict is that the window might already have closed. It is a very different paradigm than Vietnam, though – Afghanistan may be closer, or in some ways the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Raising the specter of the Vietnam experience for the US is a bit out of place regarding Iraq at the moment though – it generally implies an intractable quagmire with no way out and heavy casualties, neither of which has happened yet, though they may in the future. The Philippines was itself a quagmire, but the US was ultimately able to win out in the end.

Disclaimer: I in no way feel that the invasion of Iraq was justified.

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by John Mace
The processes of US intervention in the two wars are actually quite different. The US entered Vietnam with the consent of, and at the request of IIRC, the S.V. gov't.A government which was the result of direct US involvement in Vietnamese political affairs almost from the day the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, if not from the end of the Second World War. The division of Vietnam into North and South dates from agreements in 1945 as to which armies would accept the surrender of the Japanese, and was cemented after the Korean War by the Geneva Accords - with the provision that there would be a general election within the next two years around unification and who would run the country. That election never happened because the US knew full well the Vietminh under Ho Chi Minh would win handily. Instead they engineered the selection of Ngo Dinh Diem, whose conservative Catholic regime alienated pretty much everybody and whose attempts at rapprochement with the Vietminh in 1963 to save his own skin got him assassinated. As for Iraq, the whole process started when that country invaded Kuwait. No Vientman parallel there. Before Kuwiat, Iraq was a nominal ally of the US (nominal in the sense that we supported them in the Iran Iraq war).All well and good, but I'm not trying to compare the events which precipitated the wars.The US has the bad habbit of intervening in the internal affairs of so many countries, that to draw a parallel here is rather meaningless.I fail to understand your logic here. Why should an arguably common thread between two events separated by time and distance be rejected on the basis of its being the common thread?I'm not sure what you mean "at the expense of the local population as whole" unlless it is that the local population would have been better served by having SH remain in power. I don't think the poll info of Iraqi's supports that conclusion. Read that line again, John. I said the interests of the local population as a whole. And given that I've argued that Saddam Hussein's regime was the result of direct US intervention into Iraqi domestic politics in order to assure that the money made from drilling and exporting oil didn't actually stay in Iraq, I fail to see how you could think I'm arguing for his regime to have remained.

[Rashak Mani]

Sailor's "Time in against the US" is eerily very correct... I think it more or less sums up a situation that even if it doesn't get worse... will produce less and less positive results for the future. Even if resistance petters out.... that window of opportunity might have passed. Willingness to colaborate or work within a US framework gone.

Xtisme you have kept your analysis quite on the military aspect... and I don't think the resistance will run out of material so fast. You're going to finish their supplies by just plain taking the shots and rockets ? Even if it is a low level of aggression its taking enough US and Iraqi lives to be a political liability of high cost. In the end a few RPGs and a lot of ammunition can keep the "resistance" going for years. I don't know about you... but I have a feeling that much of this guerrila style war was planned and stores hidden away. Its one thing to have a AK47 handy... but RPGs are much harder to hide. Eventually some contraband can help supply the fighters too... the point being that since its not military size units... you don't need big supplies to keep 'em going.

One political aspect I think valid is that the Vietnam war was never winnable militarily.... and Iraq seems to me the same thing. Your simply not going to shoot enough resistance people to stop this whole mess. The US has tech and hardware advantage... and we don't see many results from that. This is not the kind of fighting armoured troops or even marines are best at. Its the "hearts and minds" phrase that harks back clearly to vietnam. How do you win "hearts and minds" with a heavy military occupation ? It's never happened that I know...

One has only to see Africa has no terrorist movements... yet they suffered the same interferences, poverty and colonial disregard. Naturally a lack of oil meant less western conflicts. Still africans aren't blowing up people outside their countries. This means that Arabs/Middle Easterns have something beyond poverty that motivates fighting the foreigners. We could call it sense of regional identity... religious identity... but it basically sums up to a notion of pride and militancy unknown in other parts. This means that all of these countries around Iraq do feel kinship or a hurt pride in the US invasion. This isn't only about pacification of Iraq.... their is a festering wound in regional feelings that will only fuel more resistance. The tendency is to work against US presence ever more... in the long run this means Iraq will never work with a US presence in it. Not with the meager planning and money. Time is way more against the US than what most think. More soldiers won't solve this...

In the end the problem is that the US invaded irresponsibly and mostly alone. Casualties no matter how big or small... were avoidable to a good degree. This won't change no matter how sucessful the enterprise in the long run.

[RedFury]

Here's an article making a case for the similarities:

Vietnam and Iraq compared (http://www.uexpress.com/georgieannegeyer/?uc_full_date=20031104)

Despite the myriad voices in the press insisting, "Iraq is not a Vietnam!" the indisputable fact is that, if you consider the passions and principles applied there, it really IS another Vietnam. Among the causes for the war are obscurantist theories about foreign threats that have little basis in reality; civilians at the top who play with the soldiers they have never been; and the underlying lies that give credence to special interests (the Bay of Tonkin pretense in Vietnam, the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq).

In Vietnam, we were following the bizarre notion of the "domino theory," the idea that a communist Vietnam would mean that all of Southeast Asia would fall to communism. The Johnson administration refused to realize that it was a colonial war, and that in colonial wars, people fight forever.

With Iraq, the second Bush administration accepted the idea, perfervidly pushed by civilian neoconservatives, that Iraq was the center of terrorism, the cause of 9/11 and an immediate threat, ignoring the Greek chorus of voices warning against such intellectual, military and moral folly.

Curiosly, in both cases it was civilian ideological fanatics in the Pentagon, enamored of American technology and with no knowledge of history or culture, and not the U.S. military, who pressed for the wars. (It was Robert McNamara and his "whiz kids" then; now it's Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and others.)

Personally, I see the Russian occupation in Afghanistan as a more valid comparison for what is actually happening on the ground -- however, from a political POV, I think the policies that led to this conflict, are as misguided/obtuse as they were in 'Nam. Which is the main case put forth in the article.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by Ravenman
I saw a thoughtful op-ed the other day in the paper (which now I can't find on google, dammit) that rejected the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam, and instead argued that Iraq is more like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.


That’s been mine all along, Collounsbury thought it pre-emptive but I don’t see how the comparison can be avoided now.

Fwiw, I can’t see the Vietnam analogy in military terms at all. Maybe you could draw some comparisons with the impact within the US, the way it’s sucking in manpower and dominating the domestic agenda but militarily, it’s far more like Afghanistan circa 1980, imho.

Also, while the opposition isn’t being supplied by the CIA (as it was then), one assumes, the ‘cause’ is once again sucking in radicalised youth from all over the Muslim world. Which is how ObL got to be in Afghanistan and learn all about opposing occupying forces when he was a young man; different generation, different enemy, same cause.

The difference here might be that a significant portion of this population are sympathetic, imho, to some of the aims of the occupying power – that wasn’t the case in Afghanistan. Still, the arrogance of a super-power kept the youth of the USSR dying on foreign soil in a lost cause for nearly a decade.

Btw, while a bit of fun I don’t think these comparisons work terribly well and I’m not sure what they’re intended to achieve; learn the lessons of history, sure, but we're reading from the wrong book here. YMMV.

[esquimalt]

Originally posted by sailor
I am sure there will be no shortage of funding and supplying for the resistance. Enemies and competitors of the USA can get a lot of bang for their buck. For every dollar you give the resistance you are making the US spend hundreds of thousands. It will be done secretly but it will be done. Countries who proclaim they are neutral will be giving money under the table. Having the USA bogged down in Iraq for a decade or more is a worthy objective for many countries. Rather than let the US enjoy the oil, let them spend a fortune trying to stay afloat. China, Russia and other countries may not say it openly but you can see how they salivate.

Time is on who's side? The Iraqi's live there. The US has to spend a fortune sending people and equipment there. Iraqis can wait for the right moment to attack. I do not think time is on the side of the USA. I think there was a window and it is closing fast. if the USA cannot assert itself, cannont ensure tranquility, cannot rebuild the economy, then time is definitely against it. All the Iraqis have to do is sit by their front doors and wait to see the next humvee being taken out by an rpg. An rpg which costs little and which will be gladly donated by a major competing power near you can take out soldiers and equipment which costs millions to put in place. The USA will be supplying targets at a tremedous cost for no visible gain. Time is not on the sie of the USA.


I agree that as long as the US is there, resistance to some degree will continue in some areas. But in the context of comparing the current situation and Vietnam militarily I still believe that the resistance which is coming from one major area inside Iraq will need to ratchet up attacks throughout the country before any Vietnam analogies can be made. Can they still do this? Yes. I also believe it will get harder as time goes on because the areas to the south are not showing signs of resistance or very little as evident on the amount of attacks on British troops. Is this because the British are doing such a great job or are things getting better for the average person in those areas & they are getting on with their lives. I don't know the answer.Can the resistance that is largely coming from the Sunni triangle convince the Shiites that this is a strictly Anti - American occupation resistance or is it a resistance that will get Saddam back in power? If the will of the majority of Iraqis is to see the US leave and Saddam restored to power then there will be no way for the US to continue this.

[Rashak Mani]

Thanks Redfury... great article.

This part sounds so true:
Curiosly, in both cases it was civilian ideological fanatics in the Pentagon, enamored of American technology and with no knowledge of history or culture, and not the U.S. military, who pressed for the wars. (It was Robert McNamara and his "whiz kids" then; now it's Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and others.)

[Feistymongol]

I don't believe i've seen a single post address the foreign jihad fighters pouring into Iraq at an unknown rate. Syria, Iran, and several other middle eastern countries can sneak in covert fighters to harass U.S. military forces indefinitely. How is this different than the "non combat" zones that the U.S. faced in vietnam? The answer there is no difference there are clear zones that the U.S. can't touch in this war either without expanding the conflict to involve peripheral countries.

Leaving the occupation and day to day infrastructure to local Iraqis won't work for a number of years. No clear domestic Iraqi leaders have emerged out of this. We have a number of puppets like Chalabi but noone that can actually move the people towards this "democratic" state. Add in the factional divisions within Iraqi society and there's a huge longterm problem.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by Feistymongol
I don't believe i've seen a single post address the foreign jihad fighters pouring into Iraq at an unknown rate. Syria, Iran, and several other middle eastern countries can sneak in covert fighters to harass U.S. military forces indefinitely.

You could always read the post three up.

[XT]

Just re-reading through the posts and had another thought. I don't know the answer to this one, but I'll toss it out and see if anyone else has some thoughts on it.

Commitment. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese were basically willing to do whatever it took to win. Loses meant nothing to them. The costs meant nothing to them. Millions of them died, but they kept coming...until they won. Now, does anyone know if the Iraqis are willing to do the same? On an individual basis there are certainly folks willing to kill themselves to cause harm...no doubt there. But collectively are they, as a people, willing to do what it would take to toss America out. In Afghanistan they were willing to sacrifice millions again to toss out the Russians. So far I've yet to see that kind of commitment from the masses in Iraq. From the evidence I've seen, it seems to be a fairly small number of folks (probably only a few thousand) who are doing the majority of the fighting.

If someone could make a good case for this, that could be a point of comparison I suppose.

From Rashak Mani
Xtisme you have kept your analysis quite on the military aspect... and I don't think the resistance will run out of material so fast. You're going to finish their supplies by just plain taking the shots and rockets ? Even if it is a low level of aggression its taking enough US and Iraqi lives to be a political liability of high cost. In the end a few RPGs and a lot of ammunition can keep the "resistance" going for years. I don't know about you... but I have a feeling that much of this guerrila style war was planned and stores hidden away. Its one thing to have a AK47 handy... but RPGs are much harder to hide. Eventually some contraband can help supply the fighters too... the point being that since its not military size units... you don't need big supplies to keep 'em going.

I've stuck to mostly the military aspects because to me thats the weakest part of the analogy. I just don't see any connection between these two conflicts from a military perspective...yet. I've said that if things drag on I will modify my position, but to my mind its just too early to draw more than the broadest comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq...or Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter, though the comparisons are a bit better there.

Personally I DON'T think the current levels of casualties have got people all riled up here...yet. Just my take on the mood of the country, but I think that most of the people howling atm are the people that were howling before anyway. The vast unwashed masses are still fairly comfortable with things...though I see the unease spreading slowly. It would take a serious ramping up of the resistance though to really push things now...you'd have to see more episodes like the downing of that helecopter repeated weekly to REALLY start having a political down side for Bush and Co.

For myself, based on my own reading of the situation, I DON'T think its a quagmire....yet. I don't see how the Iraqi's can sustain even their current levels of resistance for more than a year or so. Sure, they have foreign fighters coming into the country, but sooner or later those holes will be plugged more throughly. No, they will never eliminate them completely, but if you just curtail the entrance of foreign fighters a bit, it will put a huge damper on their abilities to sustain the resistance. Unless things change radically, and the Iraqi people themselves join the resistence en mass, I don't see it. Anyone have any hard figures on the resistances casualties atm? From what little I've read they are losing more folks in most of their raids than we are...and how are they caring for their wounded that they take from the field? Logistics logistics logistics! In this kind of attrition war, the US has the advantage...there simply AREN'T millions of resistance fighters willing to die for the cause...yet. Thats why I said that, as things stand NOW, this is my view, Rashak Mani.

I agree with you btw...I also think vast stores are cached throughout the country. Not sure if SH really planned for this phase of the conflict (I'm still of the opinion he never thought it would come to this, but thats another story) or if he was just a paranoid asshole, but I think there are huge stores of AK's, RPG's, ammo, etc, burried out there in the desert...goodies waiting to be picked up, or already picked up by the resistance. Thats why I expect the resistance to fight on at this level for a few years (without those goodies, we wouldn't even see the resistance we are seeing now, as light as it is). Of course, caches are static and can be discovered, destroyed, used up, etc...however its a valid point. Its another difference though...the Vietnamese and Afghani's were being constantly supplied from external sources, and its really what kept their war machine going.

The current caches, no matter how vast they maybe, can only keep the resistance going for so long at its current level...and don't really provide any chance of ramping up the conflict to the level where it really penetrates the American radar to the point where you have popular protests HERE...and thats the key. At their current levels, IMO anyway, the Iraqi resistance don't really have a chance to win on any level, either by out and out victory, though attrition, or politically (by setting off the kind of protests that hit America during Vietnam...or Russia during Afghanistan?)...just kill, cost money, and set back the Americans. To be like Vietnam (or Afghanistan) from a MILITARY standpoint, the Iraqi's would need to have broadbased support...military support that is...from the general population. They'd need to be committed to the fight just like the Vietnamese and Afghani's were (i.e. willing to sacrifice literally millions...do whatever it takes...to get rid of us). They'd need outside funding and outside logistical support to get them weapons that could REALLY hurt the Americans.

I'll leave the political discussion to you. I asked you before, and maybe I missed it, but could you lay out what you think are the parallels in the political situation. I read Redfury's cite, but what are your thoughts (if you layed them out already I appologize for asking again...I missed it).

BTW, I'm NOT a supporter of the war at this point. I think it was an unnecessary thing to do, and stupid to boot. The fact that the government was either wrong or lied is a heavy stroke against as far as Im concerned. The money we are pouring into Iraq could be better spent elsewhere, and the deaths could have been avoided. My main pet peeve is, our military is now tied up indefinitely, and what happens now if we need it. Can you say North Korea? There was no compelling reason I've heard for us to HAVE to go there now, and do what we did.

Afghanistan I could see, and to my mind we should have done that and then poured money and effort into that country to make IT a model democracy in the area. As distastful as it may be, the war happened. Its in the past. The situation is what it is. People are dieing over there daily, there is no doubt.

But lets not blow it all out of proportions, folks. We are talking about a resistance that is most likely less than 10,000 fighters 'in the field' atm...probably considerably less than that (my own WAG would put it in the 1-2000 range). Thats just a guess on my part, based on what I'm seeing, so please don't ask for a cite. We are seeing casualties of about 1 dead per day (average) with maybe 4 wounded per day (average...this might be high or low...its basically a WAG). Its NOTHING like either the loses we faced in Vietnam or that the Russians faced in Afghanistan. And look how long the US and USSR stuck in those two places before finally calling it quits.

I'm NOT unsympathetic to the families of those who are losing folks over there (and I'll be devistated if either of my cousins is either wounded or killed), but thats not exactly a heavy toll atm. As I said, even if this conflict goes on for 10 years at its current rate (god help us if it does), thats only 3-4000 American dead, and maybe 20-30,000 wounded. Again, its sad, but I think that it would be acceptable loses to the American public...IF progress is being made (or perceived to be being made). I think we are a lot better able to handle those kinds of loses than people think we are....IF we think progress is being made.

The money thing though...THAT might be a bit harder for us to swallow if this thing drags on and on than the casualties to be honest (I know it sounds cold, but I think that its the case here). If there is an popular uprising in this country against the war, I think THIS will be the key aspect this time. If that happens, then you might just get your link to the Vietnam conflict after all.

-XT

[esquimalt]

I believe the Russian Afghanistan war is a better comparison also

This is a good article for anyone interested -
http://www.vfw.org/magazine/mar02/soviets.htm

One paragraph jumped out at me as amazing.

"About 620,000 Soviets served in Afghanistan, with officers doing a two-year tour and enlisted men putting in 18 months.

Official Soviet casualties total 14,453 dead: 9,511 killed in action; 2,386 died of wounds; and 2,556 lost from disease and accidents.

Some 53,753 were wounded. An incredible 415,932 men were hospitalized for a serious disease during their tour of duty"

415,932 hospitalized for a serious disease. Has anyone heard of any such thing happening to US forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

[XT]

Wonder what the 'serious disease' was for them. My god, thats nearly half a million men. No, I haven't heard of vast numbers of US soldiers hospitalized for any diseases...in those numbers, not since maybe the first world war or the Civil War.

-XT

[Dissonance]

Originally posted by Feistymongol
I don't believe i've seen a single post address the foreign jihad fighters pouring into Iraq at an unknown rate. Syria, Iran, and several other middle eastern countries can sneak in covert fighters to harass U.S. military forces indefinitely. How is this different than the "non combat" zones that the U.S. faced in vietnam? The answer there is no difference there are clear zones that the U.S. can't touch in this war either without expanding the conflict to involve peripheral countries.There’s a big difference. In Vietnam, the NLF set up supply lines in the form of the Ho Chi Minh Trail running through Laos and Cambodia. Laos and Cambodia were formally neutral in the conflict, but major combat formations of the NVA and VC were based in these countries, and frequently used them as sanctuaries from which to launch raids across the border and into South Vietnam, as well as a relatively safe haven which they could retreat to. They were only relatively safe because the US was bombing Laos and Cambodia throughout the war. There were also a couple of incursions into Cambodia and Laos by US and ARVN ground forces. Syria and Iran haven’t allowed their soil to be used in such a manner, and probably won’t – it would provide a ready made excuse for the US to take action against them. They are, after all, part of Bush’s infamous ‘Axis of Evil.’

A better comparison would be with Pakistan during the Soviet’s time in Afghanistan or Northern Iraq during the early days of Turkey’s fight with Kurdish separatists. The borders were porous enough to allow foreign troops and supplies to flow through to some extent, but the territories weren’t being heavily used as military sanctuaries because the host governments wouldn’t allow it and unlike Laos and Cambodia, they are able to prevent it.

[Milum]

From an American perspective there is no comparison.

U.S. War Dead

Protecting Vietnam _________ 53,000 killed
Freeing Iraq _________________ 500 killed

But in some ways Iraq resembled Rwanda. Genocide!

Iraqi Government (Saddam Hussein )_____ 300,000 murdered
Rwanda Hutu elite ___________________ 800,000 murdered


Both regimes attempted to erase an entire people from the face of the Earth while the United Nations and France held whimpy committee meetings and sat on their respective multi-cultural and decadent-cultural butts.

In 1994 in Rwandaian Tutsis were murdered by the Hutuses at the rate of 333 1/3 Tutsis per hour for one hundred days running.
The time frame of Saddam's mass murders were more whimsical and periodic.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by esquimalt I agree that as long as the US is there, resistance to some degree will continue in some areas. But in the context of comparing the current situation and Vietnam militarily I still believe that the resistance which is coming from one major area inside Iraq will need to ratchet up attacks throughout the country before any Vietnam analogies can be made.I assume you're referring to the so-called "Sunni Triangle"? If so, are you aware that it constitutes the majority of Iraq's population? The "one major area" vs. "throughout the country" comparison is Bush spin, which has been gratefully seized on by the, um, cockeyed optimists.If the will of the majority of Iraqis is to see the US leave and Saddam restored to power then there will be no way for the US to continue this. You got that right, even without the Saddam part.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by xtisme
1. Are you claiming the US was an 'occupying power' during the Vietnam conflict??In essence, yes. The Thieu government "controlled" much of the country, but the US controlled Thieu, and the locals doubtlessly understood that.

My own (admittedly limited) memories of the conflict seemed to say that we were invited there. And Najibullah "invited" the USSR into Afghanistan. The full story is a little more complicated, but the views of Nguyen van Nguyen out in his rice paddy didn't have any influence on the matter.

are you REALLY saying that the same level antipathy towards the US was shown by the South Vietnamese people as by those in Iraq?Tough to quantify that, at different stages of the war, but much of the Viet Cong and even less-formal opposition came from the South.

2. No strategy was set? Funny we managed to win, no?We did? When? Tell the families of the good people whose lives are wasted every week there about that, kiddo.

That it didn't work, was ill considered, pie in the sky, and full of wholes does not negate the fact we had one.That's a refutation?

3. I'll agree with you here. I think the government thought the people were too stupid or too weak to give the REAL reasons for the war in Iraq...and I think the government during Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) did very similar things. You shoot, you score!!Well, thank you. I suppose. But note that most of the rest of the problems, in both cases, stem from that one.

4. The conflict goes on. But the comparison to the death toll in Vietnam is not even close.It's on a par with the same duration into the war, perhaps exceeding it. Also the underlying assumption that this conflict will drag on and on is, frankly, pure speculation on your part.Not entirely - it's an extrapolation from what we see on the ground, and the most apt historical comparisons, of which Vietnam is aptest. But the assumption that it will end soon is at least as pure on the speculation scale, innit?

Weapons and ammo don't make themselves, and if they REALLY want to hit at the Americans, they will need plenty of both.They don't need to hit that hard militarily; they just need to make the occupation seem not worthwhile, and they're succeeding. They don't need that much conventional weaponry to do it, and there's been a thriving market in that stuff for quite a long time.

5. Again, I agree with you. Thats a good analogy. Only time will tell if we straighten up on this account, but at this point I'm not exactly overflowing with optimism.Thanks for agreeing again, but I hope you also agree that it's the entire point of the operation (at least in public). Without winning over the people's hearts and minds there, what's the point?

6. Well, this is one that all administrations do. I think its a bit broad for a comparison between the two conflicts.It does vary depending on the situation, but the key is not to get into a position where defeats and losses even exist to blame anyone for, huh?

If the situation is the same or worse in 5 years time, then I'll agree with you that its a 'quagmire'...and I'll also start to maybe see some parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. I think its a bit early in the game to be screaming 'quagmire' right now thought, personally. That's some of the value of studying history and considering comparisons. It lets you recognize mistakes earlier when they're being made again.

[esquimalt]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
I assume you're referring to the so-called "Sunni Triangle"? If so, are you aware that it constitutes the majority of Iraq's population? The "one major area" vs. "throughout the country" comparison is Bush spin, which has been gratefully seized on by the, um, cockeyed optimists. You got that right, even without the Saddam part.


Really? Please explain. I just checked 3 different websites that pu t the Sunni population at 30-37% of the total.

[ElvisL1ves]

Where did you get the idea that only Sunnis live in the "Sunni Triangle"? Or even the idea that only the particular branch of Islam that an Iraqi adheres to is a significant factor in his opinions? They're the local majority in that area, but not by that much - another example of how the name is simple spin. The "Sunni Triangle" includes Baghdad, which alone has a quarter of the country's population, and they're certainly not all Sunnis.

Quickie map (http://www.csmonitor.com/lib/backgrounders/iraqmap/iraq101_ethnic.html) linked to from this Christian Science Monitor story (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0924/p01s02-woiq.html) by a reporter who wasn't content to be led around by US Army guides.

[XT]

Um...I really don't have a dog in this fight but....er, ElvisL1ves, where does it say in either of your links the population distribution? Am I missing something here? I read the article and saw this:

From CSMonitor article
More often, though, US forces find Iraqis they detain pose little threat. Since June, troops have seized thousands of Iraqis in aggressive sweeps in the "Sunni Triangle," the 100-mile swath from Baghdad north to Tikrit where 80 percent of guerrilla attacks occur. The bulk of people apprehended - 86 percent of the nearly 700 captives in two operations - are quickly freed.

Your map is also interesting...but again, it doesn't give population densities (that I could see anyway)...just ethnic areas. Am I missing something here? If so, could you quote the paragraph you meant as well as give the link?? I'm not claiming you are wrong, mind you, just that I don't see the information you are citing in your cites.

-XT

[XT]

Never mind...I misunderheard you. I didn't see you guys were talking about ethnic areas...I thought you were talking about population densities. My bad.

-XT

[Dissonance]

Originally posted by Milum
From an American perspective there is no comparison.

U.S. War Dead

Protecting Vietnam _________ 53,000 killed
Freeing Iraq _________________ 500 killed
If you’re going to post pop-con porn, at least get your numbers straight, they aren’t very hard to find. US losses in Vietnam were 58,202 dead. US losses in Iraq as of 11/7/2003 stand at 394 dead.

[esquimalt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
[B]Where did you get the idea that only Sunnis live in the "Sunni Triangle"? Or even the idea that only the particular branch of Islam that an Iraqi adheres to is a significant factor in his opinions? They're the local majority in that area, but not by that much - another example of how the name is simple spin. The "Sunni Triangle" includes Baghdad, which alone has a quarter of the country's population, and they're certainly not all Sunnis.

Ok, by your reasoning the majority of the population of Iraq resides in the Sunni Triangle which includes Baghdad. The majority of the Sunni Triangle reside in Baghdad. Therefore the majority of attacks on coalition forces are in Baghdad. Yes?

And Yes the particular branch of Islam you adhered to was very significant in Saddam Iraq.

[London_Calling]

I'm getting into the vocab of this occupation, now.

Anyone else think of The Kinks:

'Lazing in a Sunni Tri-an-gle' ?

[Desmostylus]

Bush's taken all my dough,
And left me in my stately home,
Lazing in a Sunni triangle.
And I can’t sail my yacht,
He’s taken everything I’ve got,
All I’ve got’s this Sunni triangle. :)

[Beagle]

"pop-con porn" Ann Coulter with Monica Crowley in hot girl-on-girl action?

Comparisons to Vietnam: frequent. I'd expect high rhetoric with chance of further metaphors. Things brighten in the long term forecast. Lots of baby boomers just don't want to let go. "But, when we smoked pot it really meant something."

I'm feeling evil (pinkie to lip) about thinking "Sunni Triangle" sounds dirty.

And the government in North Vietnam (http://www.vietquoc.com/under-frame.htm) ruled through brutality and as a military proxy of the Soviet Union and China. Soviet pilots flew in Vietnam, and Soviet spies questioned prisoners. What a peach, eh? Vietnamese put all this stuff together. I guess having a vested interest makes you sharp. (http://www.vietquoc.com/under-frame.htm)The wonderful paradise of a Vietnam free from the evil imperialist Amerikans. Just one of many articles showing that social justice has triumphed over the capitalist imperial aggressors! :Human rights is something almost unknown to jailers in the Vietnamese Communist regime. The guardians always said that they have the right to persecute the criminals because those prisoners don't have civil rights. It seems that sadism is promoted for the sake of the Party. The term that a prisoner has to serve begins when his document is completed, usually from 3 to 12 months after he arrived in the camp. At the end of the term, the process to release him is started at the Prison Camps Management Directorate in Hanoi. He will be released only if the Public Security of his district agrees to have him back, otherwise he will stay in the camp forever until some other place accepts him.

Under such system and red tape, a prisoner might have to serve a 3-year term in at least 4 years and more. A 3-year warrant might become a life sentence. Moreover, a camp has its full authority to decide when a prisoner is let free, a week, a month or a year after the date given in the release order signed by Hanoi - sometimes even to ignore it.

[Dissonance]

Friend Beagle! Don't suppose you'd like to resurrect your defense of supporting Saddam as a secular socialist alternative to the Mullah's in Iran? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4161825#post4161825). My problem with pop-con porn as exemplified by Milum is a distortion of facts in order to take gratuitous pot-shots at Europe and in particular, France. Freedom fries and all that.

[Beagle]

Jimmy Carter apparently thought he was. I think his soft spot for leftist oppression is well-documented. Yet, he was the "HR President," and I think he was sincere. Baathists were socialists. What am I missing?

As far as I can tell Carter made no comment about Saddam cementing his power through assassination. He had no Iraq policy that I'm aware of. We didn't like Iran (I think I explained that pretty well from the average guy standpoint). Saddam sounded like a useful "secular socialist alternative" to the Mullahs in Iran, to the extent anyone knew anything about him at all.

The whole thread was about information, and the twisting thereof. I could do a reading if requested and well compensated. What most people knew about Saddam Hussein when he took power was nothing. There was no internet news. :eek: Home computers were just starting to get a foothold.

Some things never change though. The darn Iranians chant that "Death to America." The big anniversary just passed. That, as I noted, got a LOT of media attention back then. You do see why a "secular socialist alternative" is a fair statement of the facts -- as they were known at the time by most people? I screwed up the date I think. The hostages were taken in 1979. Saddam comes into power. Big war.

Somehow history starts when Reagan enters the picture. Personally, I think that the media bias against reporting atrocities under so-called "leftists" would be an interesting topic itself. I guess I don't see much substantive difference between Hitler and Stalin myself. Hindsight being 20/40. Sometimes better with correction.

[Lemur866]

Here's how I see the syllogism:

1. If we lost in Iraq, it would show everyone how awful George Bush is.
2. We lost in Vietnam.
3. Therefore, Iraq is like Vietnam.


Makes sense to me.

[Desmostylus]

Lemur866, do you anything to contribute beyond:

1. I like Bush.
2. Therefore, Bush will win in Iraq.
3. Therefore, Iraq is not like Vietnam.

[Lemur866]

I like these numbered lists, let's continue.

1. I have no particular like for Bush, he is a decidedly sub-par political figure.
2. We may or may not win in Iraq.
3. If we win in Iraq would that make it less like Vietnam than if we lose in Iraq?

What is the purpose of comparing Iraq to Vietnam? Well, we lost in Vietnam, so therefore the point must be that we are going to lose in Iraq. Why can't Iraq be like Korea? Or WWII? Or Grenada? Or Nicaraqua? Or Somalia? Or the Mexican-American war? Or the War of 1812? Or the Spanish-American war? Or the Hundred Years war? Of the Falklands war? Or the Russo-Japanese war? Or the Boer war? Or the War of Jenkin's Ear?

If we wanted to we could make a list of the similarities and differences between the Iraq war and all the other wars. It doesn't seem to me that a comparison with the Vietnam war would be significantly more apt than a comparison with any other randomly selected war.

The main use for comparing Iraq to Vietnam is polemical: we lost in Vietnam, so if Iraq is similar to Vietnam we will lose in Iraq. But the conclusion doesn't follow.

[Desmostylus]

Much better. :)

[elucidator]

Viet Nam was a vast, damp, festering swamp, bubbling with vermin and arcane skin diseases. Iraq is a quagmire. Very important distinctions, to be sure. Rather like the clear distinction between a "desperate, urgent, immediate" threat and an "imminent" one.

[Rashak Mani]

Xtisme... I agree the Iraqi NOW aren't in the "throwing thousands of lives" into the fight. Any perceived US extra brutality might change that. Not likely of course. Though the danger in Iraq is more a sort of outright shootout amongst themselves... in this they might be willing to take casualties. (Civil War).

I haven't seen figures for Resistance casualties. We only hear about the attacks... 1 dead US... 3-5 wounded. Stop. Have there really been that many ? I had the impression that the US troops were more willing just to fire back than to pursue and that resistance casualties were minor. Hit and run tactics.

Xtisme your analysis about the "endurance" of the resistance isn't wrong. They can only go so far with what they got now and current numbers. But do you really think more won't join them ? Contraband will ressupply them easily. Seems the borders are too porous and the US wants to reduce troop numbers... not increase. Like its been said before... TIME is not on the US side. Your assumptions put a US "victory" of sorts over the resistance in a mid to long term. Do you think the US can afford the TIME and the CASUALTIES ? In both aspects politically the US can't.

Then there is the where is the US going with all this ? What is the clear and definite objective ? You said you were against the invasion.. but certainly to have some victory you need to acheive something afterwards. In a year or two will Iraq be substantially better ? Security ? Economics ? This situation isn't sustainable anyway you look at it. Things aren't getting good enough in other areas that might indicate a better security situation... that means the soldiers stay there... the soldiers staying there means more conflict and resentment and therefore more power to the resistance.

Should the US kill off the resistance... how many troops will be necessary to enforce "peace" ? To guarantee borders and national security of the new Iraqi colony ? All things point to a long term US military presence and with that all the problems that this creates.

You said the US can take those casualties... but only if something clear is to be gained from having 1 a day killed. Otherwise I doubt even the common folk will appreciate 1 a day casualties.

I think the article RedFury linked points some of the analogies to the vietnam war I beleive are relevant.

[Milum]

Dissonance said : If you’re going to post pop-con porn, at least get your numbers straight, they aren’t very hard to find. US losses in Vietnam were 58,202 dead. US losses in Iraq as of 11/7/2003 stand at 394 dead.
----------------------------------------------------------
Uh, Dissonance, pal. War dead numbers are never exact. Too many variables. Besides, I rounded off and underestimated the numbers so as to keep the nit-picking of the board's ample crew of pedants from straying from the salient points - the mass murders.

It didn't work - you nit-picked the numbers and no one else wanted to comment on the discriminate slaughter of over one million of their own citizens that unite Iraq and Rwanda together as two of the modern faces of evil.

At this time it seems that discussing genocide is not the vogue on the Straight Dope Message Board.

Bashing President Bush is. Shame.

By-the-way what is post pop corn porn?

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by Milum
It didn't work - you nit-picked the numbers and no one else wanted to comment on the discriminate slaughter of over one million of their own citizens that unite Iraq and Rwanda together as two of the modern faces of evil.

At this time it seems that discussing genocide is not the vogue on the Straight Dope Message Board.

Bashing President Bush is. Shame.I'll comment Milum...

So Rwanda is a modern face of evil? Not an "axis of evil" kinda evil, mind you? Just a "face of evil?" Coz, you know, these sorts of mindless war-crys are very important to distinguish on the world stage you know.

So Rwanda is a "face of evil" huh? Like some sort of gorilla infested jungle-covered Stalinist force of "world conquest evil"? Come on Milum... if you're going to walk down that particular disingenuous greasy slope of logic, why not include Cambodia and Pol Pot's regime as well?

Why leave out the Ivory Coast or the Congo? All of them fit your definition - and yet, as of 10 minutes ago I haven't seen massive forces assembling to invade any of THOSE countries, have I? So I'll gladly step up to the plate and give my assessment of President Bush...

He is a man so innately inept on the World Stage that it confirms singularly the greatest flaw in US modern politics - that is, the foolish persuit of the perfect 'candidate' results in nothing so sad as the lowest common denominator. He's a man who exemplifies in one fell swoop, how inherently skewed the modern US political landscape is towards 15 second sound bites and photogenic television appearances. He's a man who represents the modern bland shopping mall compared to Tiffany's in Manhattan. All gloss, lots of bright lights - and zero history or charm or sense of tradition.

IF President Bush is the best that the United States has to offer this world of ours, then the United States is fucked beyond repair in my opinion. I point blank refuse to believe that in the entire huge myriad of US politics that there isn't a more intelligent, more worldly, more insightful and articulate person than George W. Bush. If there isn't, then you American's should feel shame for cursing the rest of the world with a such bumbling, fumbling fool with so much power and influence.

And by the way President Bush - the word is pronounced nu-clee-ar, okay? Capiche?

Defend him as much as you want Milum. Mark my words however, if he doesn't get re-elected the rest of the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief - not because the United States itself is a bad nation - far from it - but merely because President Bush is like the blind car driver on the world stage who is attempting to learn to drive by using the Braille technique. The rest of us are the one's who are getting fucked around.

[Dissonance]

Originally posted by Milum
Uh, Dissonance, pal. War dead numbers are never exact. Too many variables. Besides, I rounded off and underestimated the numbers so as to keep the nit-picking of the board's ample crew of pedants from straying from the salient points - the mass murders.You could, of course check official sources for US casualties in Vietnam (http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html) and Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/). They re quite exact.

It didn't work - you nit-picked the numbers and no one else wanted to comment on the discriminate slaughter of over one million of their own citizens that unite Iraq and Rwanda together as two of the modern faces of evil. I’d have thought that this one was obvious. Your claim that Both regimes attempted to erase an entire people from the face of the Earth while the United Nations and France held whimpy committee meetings and sat on their respective multi-cultural and decadent-cultural butts.is ludicuous. The US was content along with the rest of the world and the French and ignore Saddam’s bad habits during the 80s. The US even provided intelligence information (http://www.mideastfacts.com/iraq_latimes.html) on Iranian troop deployments to Iraq, despite having the knowledge that the Iraqis used chemicals against the Iranians on a regular basis. Regarding Rwanda (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/rwanda8.htm), you might recall that the US sat on its hands while the genocide happened, just like the UN and France.

As to any of this has to do with an actual examination of the validity of making comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam… I’m still trying to figure that one out.

[Milum]

Damn Boo Boo, ouch! Such vitriol! Such venom! Such anger! Remind me stay on your good side.

But if you stop and think about it, it becomes understandable.

You; having lived all these years in a PC world of bureaucratic control with no hope of excape from the smothering benoveloence of your socialist government. Your long suppressed desire to throw up must have become unbearable.

And then along comes Bush. Straight talking Bush. A man without pretense, a man with honor and with an honest concern for the plight of all the people of this world and the courage to advance upon tyrants.

No wonder you threw you. All the vile serpents and toxic lizards of socialism inside you were expelled when you wrote that therapeutic tirade against President Bush. That's the first step...a cleansing.

Good luck Boo, you have the makings of a good Republican.
--------------------------------------------------------------

And Dissonance: Ludicrous, you say? This whole discussion was ludicrous from the onset. Vietnam is to Iraq as a Krispy Kream Donut is to a Sherman Tank. The transparent motive of Rashak Mani, the Brazilian, in invoking this discussion was to encourage others to inveigh against Bush.

Where was the United States while 800,000 Tutsis were murdered in Rwanda in 1994, you ask?

Well, "Slick Willie" Clinton was President back then and he was otherwise occupied. So there.

[ElvisL1ves]

xtisme, you could try a little Googling yourself. And read this column by an Islamist (http://www.proislam.com/column_sunni_triangle.htm) about the spin aspects of the name.

I take it the broader similarities to, and lessons to be drawn from, recent history are now accepted by the non-Milum's of the world?

[sailor]

Milum, you would do well to restrict yourself to addressing arguments and to not attack posters personally because you know by now what the entire board thinks of you and your stupid non-arguments. Or should we go back to that thread in the pit?

As to how things are going in Iraq, the security situation is deteriorating rapidly to the point where the Red Cross and other foreign governments and organizations are pulling out. In the meanwhile the USA is at odds with the puppet government it implemented in Iraq and is considering replacing it. It looks like a mess to me. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20192-2003Nov9.html

Iraq's interim foreign minister, Hoshyar Zubari, said Sunday that a further deterioration in the security situation in Iraq might prevent the U.S.-appointed Governing Council from meeting timetables it will set for writing a constitution and holding elections, despite American pressure for action toward both goals.

Under a U.N. resolution, the Governing Council has a month to set its schedules. But Zubari told reporters that "those timetables depend on the security situation, and if the security deteriorates, we will not adhere to such commitments."

The comments form part of a delicate joust between the council and the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. administrators of Iraq. U.S. officials here have complained that the Governing Council has been laggard in moving the political process forward, and officials in Washington have said they were considering creating an alternative Iraqi assembly. Council members complain that failure to give them greater authority in running Iraq's affairs, particularly in security, makes it difficult to put down a rebellion in the central part of the country.
. . . .
The council, dominated by Shiite Muslims and Kurds, is proposing expanding its membership beyond 25 to give Sunni Muslims a greater voice. Sunnis formed the bulk of support for Hussein during his three-decade rule. Sunnis largely populate the unruly central region of the country.

The council has been hobbled by infighting, particularly over the role of Islam in a new Iraq, and the means of holding elections. Shiites, the country's majority, want a one-person, one-vote system put in place immediately, while minority Sunnis and Kurds are seeking to forge a system that would protect minority rights.

Occupation authority officials complain that council members are frequently absent from meetings or send delegates to sit in while leaders travel or stay at home. In Washington, U.S. officials voiced complaints last week that council members are overly concerned about their own political and economic interests at the expense of acting decisively. The Bush administration is considering replacing the U.S.-appointed body with a large, representative assembly specifically tasked to move the constitutional and elections process forward. These are the people supposed to be on the side of the USA. Then you have those who are against.

[Rashak Mani]

Well Milum most of us have been discussing the comparison... you're just defending your redneck choices.

"... courage to advance upon tyrants." Oh god... I thought the problem was terrorists... not tyrants. Especially the friendly tyrants.

I second sailor's comments above.

Boo Boo Foo... please do repost your comment on the "Do you think Bush is stupid thread"... will look much better there. :) Pretty good I thought.

[Milum]

Sailor said: Milum, you would do well to restrict yourself to addressing arguments and to not attack posters personally because you know by now what the entire board thinks of you and your stupid non-arguments. Or should we go back to that thread in the pit?
-------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Sailor , on the other hand you do well speaking for the rest of the entire board, in fact you speak so well that I think I'll report you to the board authorities for attacking me personally by saying that the entire board thinks badly of me, and then, worst of all, you threatened me with the pit.

I know for a fact that I am liked by a few.
(Well maybe not a few but at least one or two.)

And hey Rashak Mani, don't worry it's Ok to call my opinions "redneck". May I call your opinions leftneck? kiss! :)

[PatriotX]

I've seen more detailed pop density maps of Iraq than this one (http://www.1uptravel.com/worldmaps/iraq29.html).
However, I'm lacking access right now.

If I remember, I'll post a link to a much more detailed .pdf map.

[Mehitabel]

I seem to be Link Girl today, but here's a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/weekinreview/09WHIT.html) from yesterday about this very topic. The point of it seems to be, according to people such as John McCain, that debate about this war is so fierce because Vietnam was so debated, despite the facts that:

Iraq is not Vietnam, and 2003 is not 1975 or 1968. Saddam Hussein was driven out of power and his regime collapsed last spring. There is no independent sanctuary named "North Iraq" for his Baath Party henchmen to fight from, no Soviet Union to keep them supplied with arms and fuel, no equivalent of Laos or Cambodia in the Middle East for whole divisions of his loyalists to hide in, no Ho Chi Minh Trail that suicide bombers can use to drive to Baghdad. Nor is there an allied Iraqi government yet, elected or otherwise.

So, not another Vietnam, exactly; I'm pretty sure when Saddam dies, most of the resistance will die with him. But it's touching some of the same chords in the country.

[XT]

Mehitabel, other than those few 'minor' things that Mr. John McCain says, it looks exactly the same. :D

I wish I had of read that article before I started posting here...he's saying exactly what I wanted to say, but doing it much better of course.

ElvisL1ves, I just misunderstood what you guys were debating. I had already seen a population distribution map (I DO use google, but thanks for the head up :)), and the one you posted wasn't showing what I thought you were trying to cite. Again, I appologize for misunderstanding you before.

-XT

[Algernon]

Well of course it is not Vietnam exactly. I think what people are trying to say is that there are disturbing similarities.

For example, I believe Iraq has parallels to Vietnam based on these three things:
it is a conflict which has very divisive effects that are polarizing our country; it is emotionally draining and alienating to fight about whether what we're doing is right or wrong.
it is sucking money that we can ill afford to spend; and I believe it will continue to be a money pit for a long time.
it was difficult to extricate ourselves from Vietnam, and I believe it will be difficult to extricate ourselves from Iraq; this forms the core of my "quagmire" characterization.
So, emotionally, financially, and politically there are similarities. Similarities that are not necessarily common to all armed conflicts.

By the way, I also concur that the Soviets in Afghanistan is a better parallel.

(I also hope I'm wrong.)

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by SimonX
url=http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iraq/maps/034_A4_color_Landscan_population.pdf]
If I remember, I'll post a link to a much more detailed .pdf map (http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iraq/maps/034_A4_color_Landscan_population.pdf).

[RedFury]

Alright, I give. It is nothing like 'nam.

How does that change anything that's happening on the ground?

[Beagle]

France didn't ignore Saddam's bad habits, it supplied them. US intelligence information + French and Soviet hardware = dead Iranians. That's a point people always forget when they jump to attack the US: France being Iraq's second biggest arms supplier during the first 10 years of Saddam's reign. They sold him advanced missiles and advanced attack planes.

Another LAT article that picks up the story with Reagan in power. Saddam already was there and the Iran - Iraq war was underway. Somehow, it's all his fault.

The US was trying to play Iraq and Iran off against one another so that neither nation would win. France went one step beyond and openly supplied Iraq with substantial advanced weaponry. The French wanted the Iraqis to win. Not a big deal really: arms sales, military assistance. But, since every US citizen has to go over modern history to engage in debate, I think it is only fair to bring up our biggest detractors on the world stage when their actions were more substantial.

[Rashak Mani]

Might I add that the French supplied Exocet missile info during Gulf War I in order to protect US ships ? That the US didn't say anything about French supplying stuff or Iraq killing Kurds...

Christ... I can't open those links...

I am less convinced now of the paralleles between Vietnam and Iraq... at least the situation now. Certainly militarily its very different.

Redfury... why compare ? We should always be trying to get some lessons from history to avoid repeating certain mistakes. If Iraq were Pretty similar to vietnam something could be learned from it and some stuff avoided. It could certainly speak of a need to reform how wars are decided upon and engaged.

[BrainGlutton]

I think it's too soon to tell yet.

The Viet Cong were supplied, via the Ho Chi Minh Trail, by the North Vietnamese government, which was supplied and funding by (at various times) China and the Soviet Union.

The Iraqi partisans have no such outside source of supply. Yet. No Islamic state will openly support the resistance. But there are a lot of sympathizers on the ground, in practically every Islamic country. It is not hard to envision some foreign Muslims sneaking into Iraq to serve as volunteer guerillas. (Indeed, during the war some Muslims snuck in to volunteer for Hussein's army -- and not, I am sure, because they had any respect for him.) And it is just possible they might establish some clandestine supply routes, via Iran or Saudi Arabia. A border that long is very hard to control, even when the terrain is desert and not jungle.

[PatriotX]

Aren't there still 100 some odd large, unsecured weapon sites in Iraq? How long until the stashes of weapons run out?
Then we're left with a palestinian type of resistance but with more opportunities for assistance than the P have.

[BrainGlutton]

One other thing the Iraq war/occupation has in common with Vietnam (and with WWII, and the Civil War, but not many other American conflicts): We can expect that Hollywood will be mining it for decades!

[sailor]

Prospects do not look good for the USA. CIA: Iraq security to get worse (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/11/sprj.irq.cia/index.html)

Bremer meets with White House advisers to discuss situation

A recent CIA assessment of Iraq warns the security situation will worsen across the country, not just in Baghdad but in the north and south as well, a senior administration source told CNN Tuesday.

The report is a much more dire and ominous assessment of the situation than has previously been forwarded through official channels

The source said the memo notes that:

• More Iraqis are "flooding to the ranks of the guerrillas." Many of these Iraqis are Sunnis who had previously been "on the sidelines" but now believe they can "inflict bodily harm" on the Americans.

• Ammunition is "readily available," making it much easier to mount attacks. The American government can blame whoever it wants but the fact is that it cannot keep order in Iraq which is making reconstruction impossible. It is failing in its primary responsibility to Iraq and to the world.

[Rashak Mani]

Guys do remember that Iraq has a huge army compared to its population... and people have lots of ammo and weapons stashed away...

To think the US just needs to sit tight and hope their ammo runs out before the US runs out of patience isn't my idea of a feasible plan.

[sailor]

Bremer is under orders now to expedite the "transfer of power" to the "Iraqi people" which I take it tio mean "Iraqi people who are friendly to the USA because we put them in place". I do not thjink this "Vietnamization" is going to achieve much of anything. The Iraqis want to kill Americans so the Americans will leave and then the Iraqis can go on to killing each other. I am afraid Iraq has been destabilized and will remain destabilized for years to come, whether the USA stays or leaves. It does not seem easy for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to get along. Partitioning the country is not an option and getting them all to get along is going to be damn near impossible. The USA has taken on an impossible task.

[ElvisL1ves]

Why do you think partitioning is not an option? In effect, that's already in place, and possibly inevitably - the Kurds have been running their piece of Iraq themselves for a number of years now, the Shiites in the South have their own sense of identity and aren't going to be easily convinced to be ruled by Baghdad again anyway. It was always a patchwork country without a real sense of national unity; how is that going to be imposed?

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Why do you think partitioning is not an option? In effect, that's already in place, and possibly inevitably - the Kurds have been running their piece of Iraq themselves for a number of years now, the Shiites in the South have their own sense of identity and aren't going to be easily convinced to be ruled by Baghdad again anyway. It was always a patchwork country without a real sense of national unity; how is that going to be imposed?

I’m also starting to wonder if this erstwhile unrealistic option might now be back on the chalkboard. I just can’t see how the US maintains control of the oil – as it must – and regains control of the streets without doing something radical.

Strategically speaking (on behalf of the US), if you parcel Iraq up a little, maybe they’ll fight amongst themselves more, in terms of internal feuding and against each other . . . the US has just got to ease the pressure on its forces. Doesn't have to be much more than distinct 'Administrative Regions' for now . . . I guess its classically 'divide and conquer' stuff and I doubt they'd fall for it, but . . .


Just looking quite desperate from the administration pov, and the clock is moving fast . . . all I can see at the moment is a drowning man

[sailor]

>> Why do you think partitioning is not an option?

Partition means all hell breaks loose in the region. The same day an independent Iraqi-Kurdish state is procalimed, Turkey invades it. there is no way in hell Turkey is going to allow an independent Kurdish state. A few hours later you have Iran participating in the south under color of protecting the shiite minority. Other countries in the region then come to the aid of whatever faction they favor. And you have the hughest mess you can imagine.

It is not going to happen. If there is one thing the USA is committed to (at least for now) is to keep Iraq as a single country.

[XT]

Um, wouldn't at the very least Turkey object...to put it mildly...having an independant Kurdish area? I'd think that when/if such a partition happened, you'd have Turkish troops pouring in...and god knows what would happen after that.


I don't see partitioning happening to be honest. Too many complications. If you ever tried, the troubles we are having now would look like a dance party in comparison to what the Iraqis would do.

-XT

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Lemur866
It doesn't seem to me that a comparison with the Vietnam war would be significantly more apt than a comparison with any other randomly selected war. Try a few and show us, then. There are a number of detailed similarities already in this thread. Can you show a better comparison with another "randomly selected" war, as you assert?

In fairness, there's a pretty good historical comparison with the US occupation/subjugation of the Philippines as well.


As to the partitioning discussion, I was trying to point out that it's the de facto situation already, and has been for some time. Consider that before dismissing its formalization.

Further, look at Yugoslavia - one can argue that simply separating the ethnic groups is what really ended the killings there. Partitioning India in 1948 also arguably stopped more killings than it created. (Certainly that's debatable) If there's a real fear that an Iraqi civil insurrection or outright war might break out if control were simply handed over to a feckless "central" authority, shouldn't partitioning, with some serious international protection guarantees that might include UN-patrolled buffer zones as in so many other locations, at least be considered as the least bloody way ahead?

[Milum]

"...the clock is moving fast . . . all I can see at the moment is a drowning man."

" It was always a patchwork country without a real sense of national unity."

" It (the US) is failing in its primary responsibility to Iraq and to the world."

------------------------------------------------------------

Oh my, you boys seem to have forgotten that your armchair constructions of future events becomes a mere parlour game when elsewhere real men play out real events. Two things...

* The Iraqi people are not stupid. They have tasted freedom and found it good.

* George W Bush is a man of great resolve.

___________>>>RESOLVE <<<_________

That's it! That's what Iraq and Vietnam have in common. In the Vietnam War the people of the United States sacrificed 54,000 of her most worthwhile people to keep Communist aggression at bay. But to demostrate the same amount resolve against terrorism in Iraq would require an occupation of Iraq for a hundred years. Not to worry, the success of our mission in Iraq will be manifested by next spring.

________ May God Bless Our Troops_____

[elucidator]

Stunning.

[Merijeek]

Wow, that make anyone else's brain hurt?

You forgot to point out how this time we've got God on our side.

Oh, sorry, G o d .

-Joe, who will never understand fanaticism....

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by Milum

Not to worry, the success of our mission in Iraq will be manifested by next spring.


Just to be specific, you mean spring 2004, right?
And by spring you mean before the beginning of July, but after then end of February?
And how will we recognize this manifestation? What will it consist of, and how will we recognize it?
Can you answer these?:confused:

[sailor]

Originally posted by Merijeek
You forgot to point out how this time we've got God on our side. If we are to judge by the way things are going I wouldn't be so sure. That or God has been losing power lately. Maybe the motto should be changed from "In God We Trust" to "God Trusts the USA".

I believe partitioning Iraq would lead to a huge regional instability and to the extension of the war to neighboring countries, not to mention massacres of minorities unlucky enough to be living in the wrong neighborhood.

Pulling out of Iraq is not an option as it would lead to civil war and, probably, an extension of the conflict.

Maintaining iraq together is going to be one tough cookie to chew for the USA. Saddam did it by sheer ruthlessness and the USA may find there is no other way.

In the end, one thing this conflict will probably have in common with Vietnam is that the USA will come out of it wounded. It will have doubts about itself and its power. For two decades after Vietnam America had a serious self-esteem problem and I believe this conflict may lead to very similar consequences. I believe this shot had been better saved for a better ocassion. If the USA is being worn down in Iraq for the next five years, this will weaken the USA in its capacity to act and it will weaken the political resolve of Americans to intervene abroad. This will enbolden China and other powers. Right now China has to be relishing the thought that the USA will be bogged down in Iraq for 5 or 10 years and I have no doubt that the Iraqi resistance will have no shortage of explosives and ammunition.

[Algernon]

In the end, one thing this conflict will probably have in common with Vietnam is that the USA will come out of it wounded. It will have doubts about itself and its power. For two decades after Vietnam America had a serious self-esteem problem and I believe this conflict may lead to very similar consequences.sailor, I wish I'd have said that. I think this could be a very real consequence. I hope we are wrong about this possibility.

[Boo Boo Foo]

The scariest thing for me, as an Aussie friend and ally of my American friends, is that there seems to be a growing cry within the USA to "simply pull out now". And if I may, I'd really like to emphasise the "simple" bit in that sentence because, quite frankly, even our good man Elucidator probably agrees, we're in there now and to pull out would be like undoing the bolts on a jet airliner wing while you're in flight - a really, really catastrophic thing to do.

What scares me is this - there seem to be so many Americans, so many, many Americans (but thankfully very few of them are here on this messageboard) who foolishly believe that the USA could easily slip back into some utterly isolationist philosophy somewhat similar to the USA in the late 1800's - and anyone who knows anything about the USA's trading position, and her need to keep the world's Oil Supplys nice and steady, nice and steady - well, it's just plain fantasy that the USA could pull out of Iraq and pretend that it never happened and then, no further incidents would come to visit the USA on her home soil as a result.

I'm wondering how this will pan out in the next Presidential Election race. Will the Democrats offer a Candidate who has an openly isolationist electoral policy based on "Pull Out Now?" - if that were to happen, that would be a real shame for mine. The signals it would send to the world would be so utterly contradictory and equivocational that well, quite frankly the only solution for the USA after that to save any face whatsoever would be to move to another planet.

Now, as for Milum? The Iraqi's have tasted freedom and they like it? They like it? Iraq is a shithole. It didn't used to be. It was once the wealthiest nation per capita in the entire region. For 13 years the USA has done every single thing in the world (short of invading the country) to make life so unpleasant for Iraqi citizens that they would somehow choose to overthrow Saddam Hussein in protest - and they didn't - so their lives got worse so the USA invaded - and now it's even worse. Freedom? The average Iraqi is held hostage by forces way, way beyond their control and their lives are filled with killings, and explosions, and crime, and violence. Freedom?

And worse yet, your comment earlier about the USA getting involved in Vietnam to ward off Communist aggression - far out man. Far out. What parallel universe is this?

I ask this simple question... what percentage of American adults actually believe such rubbish to be true? That America simply decided one day in 1964 to go send a shitload of troops to the jungles of South East Asia?

Is no-one being taught the truth anymore? Does no-one know about all the CIA meddling in the mid 1950's? About all the supplying by the CIA of plastic explosives and munitions during that time to fight the Independance movements of Ho Chi Minh? About how the French conveniently hand-balled the problem into the USA's laps - knowing full well that it was a Colony which had become "former" in every sense of the word?

Communist aggression my arse. It was cultural imperialism and nothing else - mixed with epic random button pushing and trial and error by the CIA.

[elucidator]

...even our good man Elucidator probably agrees, we're in there now and to pull out would be like undoing the bolts on a jet airliner wing while you're in flight - a really, really catastrophic thing to do....

Just so. Which brings up a really awkward stance, politically. Recently, the Bushiviks look a lot like they're beginning to panic. The concept of a "federal" Iraq, that is, an Iraq as a unified country is crucial. But I fear that the only way this can be realized is by sheer force....the same way that Saddam held it together.

A "Balkanized" Iraq is a recipe for disaster. I don't see any way to keep the Kurds and the Turks from leaping at each others throats at the earlist opportunity.

So the "federal" Iraq is the only rational alternative. And it seems to be the solution the Bushiviks are stumbling towards. They will reconstitute the Iraq army, there isn't any alternative. That Iraq army will be led by Iraqi officers, again, no alternative. And those Iraqi officers are of precisely the same ethnic and religious derivation that has formed the Iraqi "elite" for loathe, these many years. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Saddam himself will be gone. But that's about it.

By a lucky coincidence, their political enemies are, to a large degree, ours. So we can safely sic 'em on our enemies, and "security" will result. But if they move to entrench thier position by killing thier political enemies, we will have no way of knowing. We'll have to take thier word for it.

So we will hand over sovereignty to whatever rag-tag bunch we can scrape together, and we can pretend that we have established "democracy". But the real power will reside in the Army. History has shown that unarmed men are very prone to accept the wisdom and opinions of armed men.

We can expect, for at least a short "honeymoon" period that Iraqi foreign policy will reflect the wisdom of thier benefactors. The Bushiviks will, naturally, point to this as proof that thier program was successful: behold, a democratic Iraq (though, perhaps, the nascent Republic of Iraq may need the guidance of its military elite for the time being....)

And the worst of it is....there is every likelihood that this is the most optimistic scenario with any plausibility. May God have mercy on the Iraqi people, and forgive us.

[London_Calling]

. . . or give up the oil and give Iraq to the UN.

The offer's still there, folks. Many tens of thousands of peacekeepers and nation-builders just waiting for the word.

[elucidator]

I fear that the Bushiviks regard turning everything over to the UN as an admission of defeat. They would rather nail thier collective pecker to a tree than admit that. If they could dream up a spin that makes whimpering to the UN look like a bold and forceful initiative, they would be on it like a starving coyote on a chicken.

Karl Rove dreams of France's Chirac patting GeeDubya on the head in an avuncular fashion and saying "Thats all right, dumbfuck, we'll clean this up for you, why don't you just go play with your trucks for a while...."

And wakes up screaming...

[London_Calling]

Well, their collective pecker will be worse than nailed to a tree; they’ll lose the re-election, which is more akin to being a eunuch on Viagra in a harem and being forced to wach the other guy . . .

Cheney has some heavy choices to have Bush make.

[elucidator]

They will not lose the re-election. They will sell thier mothers into porno-slaves. They will sprinkle heroin on their kids oatmeal. They will burn incense at the tomb of Anton Szandor LeVey and profess eternal fealty to the Church of Satan.

But they will not lose the election!

[esquimalt]

Originally posted by elucidator
They will not lose the re-election. They will sell thier mothers into porno-slaves. They will sprinkle heroin on their kids oatmeal. They will burn incense at the tomb of Anton Szandor LeVey and profess eternal fealty to the Church of Satan.

But they will not lose the election!


You are a sad excuse for a human being.

[Rashak Mani]

If they won't split up Iraq... can they "write up" a nice constitution with a reasonable amount of autonomy for the south and the north areas ? Or would that simply push them into declaring some sort of independence ?

As for the Americans... as soon as the arabs perceive them as beaten and due to leave Iraq... then the nasty jockeying for power will get nasty. Civil War quite possible.

[elucidator]

Aw, gee whiz. You don't love me? Another night of crying myself to sleep. Pobrecito mio!

[Gaudere]

esquimalt

You are a sad excuse for a human being.

[Moderator Hat ON]

esquimalt, do not personally insult fellow posters in this forum. elucidator, can you stick to debating the topic, please?

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[elucidator]

This unworthy one begs to differ. In my opinion, the central axis upon which the entire mess revolves is the craven grasp for power by the Party of the Undead. They can hear the calender ticking like a time bomb, much like another misguided Texan, lo, those many years ago. IMHO, I am entirely on topic.

[London_Calling]

I fear The Man of Nipples has been Kippled!

[elucidator]

Isn't that some kind of flat, stinky fish you guys eat for breakfast?

[XT]

From elucidator
This unworthy one begs to differ. In my opinion, the central axis upon which the entire mess revolves is the craven grasp for power by the Party of the Undead. They can hear the calender ticking like a time bomb, much like another misguided Texan, lo, those many years ago. IMHO, I am entirely on topic.

So you see parallels between Johnson and Bush?? I mean, besides the obvious one that they are both Texans of course (though Bush is rather a transplanted Texan IMO). Is that what you are trying to say? If so, could you show how they connect in your mind? I'm not seeing ANY parallels between them.

From From elucidator
They will not lose the re-election. They will sell thier mothers into porno-slaves. They will sprinkle heroin on their kids oatmeal. They will burn incense at the tomb of Anton Szandor LeVey and profess eternal fealty to the Church of Satan.

And you see this as a parallel to Vietnam how exactly? Or was this just...gods, I don't even know WHAT this was supposed to be. But I'm failing to see much parallels between Vietnam and Iraq on this page of the thread. Maybe its just too deep for me...could you give subtitles?

BTW, off topic but I gots to know: You don't REALLY think Bush is gona win, do you?? Please say it aint so. Thats the one thing I would have thought we were in agreement on...that Bush must go, and that the odds of him staying are fairly long and getting longer.

From From elucidator
Just so. Which brings up a really awkward stance, politically. Recently, the Bushiviks look a lot like they're beginning to panic. The concept of a "federal" Iraq, that is, an Iraq as a unified country is crucial. But I fear that the only way this can be realized is by sheer force....the same way that Saddam held it together.

A "Balkanized" Iraq is a recipe for disaster. I don't see any way to keep the Kurds and the Turks from leaping at each others throats at the earlist opportunity.

So the "federal" Iraq is the only rational alternative. And it seems to be the solution the Bushiviks are stumbling towards. They will reconstitute the Iraq army, there isn't any alternative. That Iraq army will be led by Iraqi officers, again, no alternative. And those Iraqi officers are of precisely the same ethnic and religious derivation that has formed the Iraqi "elite" for loathe, these many years. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Saddam himself will be gone. But that's about it.

By a lucky coincidence, their political enemies are, to a large degree, ours. So we can safely sic 'em on our enemies, and "security" will result. But if they move to entrench thier position by killing thier political enemies, we will have no way of knowing. We'll have to take thier word for it.

So we will hand over sovereignty to whatever rag-tag bunch we can scrape together, and we can pretend that we have established "democracy". But the real power will reside in the Army. History has shown that unarmed men are very prone to accept the wisdom and opinions of armed men.

We can expect, for at least a short "honeymoon" period that Iraqi foreign policy will reflect the wisdom of thier benefactors. The Bushiviks will, naturally, point to this as proof that thier program was successful: behold, a democratic Iraq (though, perhaps, the nascent Republic of Iraq may need the guidance of its military elite for the time being....)

And the worst of it is....there is every likelihood that this is the most optimistic scenario with any plausibility. May God have mercy on the Iraqi people, and forgive us.

This was a great speech, but...well, where are the parallels to Vietnam again? I don't recall any of this. Would you be so good, once again, to provide subtitles so those of us lesser minds can follow how this fits with the OP of this thread? Unless, as it appears, this thread has mearly degenerated into a free for all Bush bash session that doesnt even bother to try and stay close to the topic...which was, Iraq COMPARISONS to Vietnam. :)

-XT

[elucidator]

Most important question first: do I really think Bush could win? Yes, I do. He has a stupendous financial advantage and a very solid, very loyal base of support. But he must at least appear to have the Iraq issue under control. Hence, the scenario I've outlined above becomes more plausible the more the Admin feels the pressure.

We knew when we negotiated the peace agreement over Viet Nam that it would all fall apart the minute our military force was gone. We proceeded anyway, while publicly asserting that "peace with honor" had been obtained.

The fastest way out for the US, perhaps the only way out, is to reconstitute the Iraqi military toot sweet. Only a centralized military force can hold Iraq together as a national entity. And that force will be the ruling authority in Iraq regardless of all fanciful displays of "democracy". Another version of "peace with honor". Would the Bushiviks be willing to pretend that a military dominated Iraq with a compliant foreign policy is the same as "liberation"? Of course they are. Especially if all the soldiers are home for the October Victory Parade and Support Our President and Re-Elect Our Troops.

The worst of it is, this may actually be the most optimistic scenario. It may be entirely reasonable for the Iraqi people to accept an authoritarian regime much less obviously oppressive than the previous, as sort of Saddam Lite. Much like the average Vietnamese might have most fervently wished for both of the antagonists to go fuck themselves and leave him in peace.

[sailor]

The main difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that the rate of killings at this point in Iraq is higher that it was at this point in Vietnam.

[elucidator]

If the policy is to more rapidly Iraqify the situation -- as in Vietnamization during the Vietnam War -- then that is another version of cutting and running. One way to cut and run is to simply say we're pulling out. Another is to prematurely turn over security to Iraqi forces and draw down American forces. That's a near-term prescription for disaster.
Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del)

The United States will fail in Iraq if our adversaries believe they can outlast us. If our troop deployment schedules are more important than our staying power, we embolden our enemies and make it harder for our friends to take risks on our behalf. When the United States announces a schedule for training and deploying Iraqi security officers, then announces the acceleration of that schedule, then accelerates it again, it sends a signal of desperation, not certitude. When in the course of days we increase by thousands our estimate of the numbers of Iraqis trained, it sounds like somebody is cooking the books. When we do this as our forces are coming under increasing attack, we suggest to friends and allies alike that our ultimate goal in Iraq is leaving as soon as possible – not meeting our strategic objective of building a free and democratic country in the heart of the Arab world.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz)

[XT]

Well, I agree with these statements completely elucidator, especially McCain (who was my choice for president over Bush). However I'm confused. I thought that the left, and especially Europe WANTED the US to turn over power right now and get out asap. Weren't they yammering for just this thing pretty much since the Iraq army folded?? Now you seem to be saying that this isn't what they want. I agree with you, if Bush does this, if he basically turns over power to the Iraqi's right now, reconstituting their army in haste and throwing them into the field at this time so that we can withdraw, it will be a disaster. Hell, it will be MORE disasterous than Vietnam could ever dream of being...in the end, Vietnam had nothing vital the world needed. Iraq on the other hand does.

If this comes to pass as you are speculating, I'll be more than willing to fully conceed that Iraq IS starting to look more and more like Vietnam...a Vietnam with all the disasterous implications too.

So you really think Bush is that strong for next year? :( I've been watching the trends and it seemed to me that he was falling, not rising (in spite of his monetary advantage). It seemed that every month his numbers were going down a bit more. The only bright spot for him seemed to be the economy recovering, but even there, my understanding is that, so far, its been a jobless recovery, and might remain so over all.

-XT

[elucidator]

As to GeeDubya's prospects, one must keep in mind that a year in politics is a geological age. And he has an awesome advantage in money. And, of course, a solid core of partisans who will vote for him, regardless.

What is categorized as "the Left" in American politics barely even exists in comparison to the staunchly resolute base of the "Right". As Will Rogers once said, "I'm not a member of an organized political party, I am a Democrat".

There was a time when "conservative" meant someone who was as committed to social justice as a "liberal", but might disagree as to methods and timing, a prudent, cautious approach. Such men as Barry Goldwater come to mind. Now, regretably, it is firmly in the stranglehold of such two-legged horrors as Tom DeLay.

But I digress....

Those of us of an age to remember those dark years of Viet Nam are horrified at the prospect of that sort of politics coming round again. But, as the 2002 mid-terms clearly demonstrated, the Tighty Righties haven't the least qualms as to resorting to loathsome tactics.

To my eye, the wholesale rush to turn this mess over to somebody....anybody...else is a symptom of panic. As I've outlined above, just about the only prospect for "Peace with Honor" lies with constituting and supporting a largely military dominated Iraq, Saddamism without Saddam. And, as I've said, I think this may be the least horrendous item on a menu of horrors. "Liberation", my ass.

[rjung]

Originally posted by xtisme
I thought that the left, and especially Europe WANTED the US to turn over power right now and get out asap.
You thought wrong. :) For me, at least, while I wish we didn't go into Iraq to begin with, I realize that we're now stuck there, and have a moral obligation to "tough it out." Leaving a shattered Iraq high and dry while Haliburton continues to steal its oil is morally indefensible.

Weren't they yammering for just this thing pretty much since the Iraq army folded??
Nope. Perhaps if you asked "the Left" as opposed to getting secondhand reports from the conservative media, you would have a better understanding of what some of us think. :) It's not like we're hard to find, especially on the SDMB...

So you really think Bush is that strong for next year?
A $400 million re-election war chest buys a lot of bullshit.

[sailor]

It seems the USA has caught a tiger by the tail and now cannot let go. China, Iran and other countries in that region have to be salivating at the prospect of the USA being bogged down and worn out in Iraq for the next 10 years at this rate of guerrilla war and will make sure the Iraqi resistance suffers no shortages. If the conflict is kept simmering at the right level then in ten years time you have an American population who is sick and tired and desperate to get out no matter what. Then, after that, China and other countries have a window of another 10- 15 years where they know the USA will not get involved in further adventures unless they absolutely have to. I can see China salivating at the prospect. Imagine 7 or 8 years from now if Iraq continues at this rate. The USA would be very weary by then. Who would support a military adventure against China when China decides to intervene somewhere? Americans will say "we could not win Iraq and we're going to take on China? No way!"

[ElvisL1ves]

McCain's full statement is worth reading. (http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1174) It's mostly exhortations to the people to stay the course, make Iraq free and democratic, etc., and eshortations to Bush that there aren't enough US forces or good planning to do so. But he does address the Vietnam comparisons that this thread is actually about:Iraq is not Vietnam. There is no popular, anti-colonial insurgency in Iraq. There are killers who prospered under the tyranny of Saddam and seek its restoration. Unlike in Vietnam, the Iraqi Baathists and terrorists who oppose us are not guerrilla fish swimming in a friendly sea of the people. Our opponents, who number only in the thousands in a country of 23 million, are despised by the vast majority of Iraqis. The vast majority of Iraqis share our goal of defeating the remnants of Saddam’s regime and their terrorist allies.

Unlike in Vietnam, the Iraqi insurgents do not enjoy the kind of sanctuary North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos provided. They do not have a superpower patron that sponsors, supplies and sustains them beyond the reach of our power for geopolitical reasons. These murderers cannot carry the banner of Iraqi nationalism, as did Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam for decades. Their return to power offers the Iraqi people the promise not of self-rule but of mortal danger, not of a better future but of a return to a hated and fearful past. Iraq is not Vietnam because our ally is not a corrupt government unwilling to defend itself, but a newly-freed people that desperately want to build a new future. Most fundamentally, Iraq is not Vietnam because the United States and the Iraqi people share the same goal of building a free, prosperous, and secure Iraq.

Our defeat in Vietnam nonetheless holds cautionary lessons. We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal. Tet in 1968 was a massive battlefield defeat for the North but a strategic defeat for the United States – because the American press and the American public saw our leaders talk about a light at the end of the tunnel that did not exist. We can win the war in Iraq, but not if we lose popular support in the United States.

Virtually every point he makes in that passage is either wishful or wrong, unfortunately.
No popular insurgency? Sure looks like one.
Killers wanting Saddam's restoration? Maybe not - but then we shouldn't talk about restoring their organization and putting them in charge.
Our opponents despised by the "vast majority"? Not at all clear.
They have no sanctuary? They come from somewhere we haven't found, don't they?
No superpower patron? Don't need one; just a supply of arms.
Cannot carry the banner of nationalism? Sure they can.
Our ally is not a corrupt government but a freedom-loving people? False comparison between a people and a government - there is no reason to believe the Vietnamese people weren't like people anywhere, and there is no reason to believe that a near-term Iraqi government won't be as corrupt as any other in that part of the world (quite the opposite, in fact).
We lost the will to fight in Vietnam? Not that the nationalists didn't lose their will to defend and control their own country?
Tet was a massive battlefield defeat for NV? Yes, but it wasn't a battlefield war.
The light at the end of the tunnel did not exist? True - but admitting that invalidates the rest of the argument, Admiral, sorry.

[London_Calling]

Don’t think that’s an option sailor, there’s a re-election to be won and I suspect the administration realises, finally, it can’t tough this out. Policy change, in the middle of.


Fwiw, I think we have a game of bluff for the very highest stakes possible; is this where the world combines to rein in the single super power, and others rise to once more balance the scales after this unusual post-Berlin Wall period?

I think we might, but it depends on the bluffing and who calls who when.

For the empire, worst-case scenario is to leave Saudi and leave Iraq; at that point the US doesn’t control its own economic destiny and, imho, that is the Achilles heel of any empire. Power begins to slip away. The US would have passed its peak.

In turn, that, of course, is the best-case scenario for all the other major players who include Islam, the UN, the EU and China – in short, the world wants a balance restored, after all, that’s in everyone’s best interests save the US.

So Cheney and Bush are up against it IMHO, what they need to try and achieve now is negotiating leverage for handing the administration of Iraq over to those better experienced in nation-building while maintaining a presence – control even – over the key oil-related industries; drilling, refining, the ports and pipelines, etc.

But first they must regain negotiating leverage, and that can only be done by suppressing the resistance in Iraq.

I still believe the US cannot walk away with nothing and remain the single super power so, somehow, this has to morph from Afghanistan circa 1982 to Cambodia circa 1992 within nine (or so) months and with the US still patrolling the oil fields.

It's going to take some dealing. But I think that's the new policy.

[ElvisL1ves]

Suppressing the resistance in the Philippines took half a century, and the US had to bail even then.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are stuck as you say - internationalizing this will require a complete change of the cast of characters in Washington. The world doesn't have to contemplate how to handle it until after 11/5/04.

[London_Calling]

I didn’t say they were going to succeed, I said I think it’s the new policy/field strategy. They’ll be working on other options, but I think they have to try and suppress the resistance in order to build negotiating leverage.

[sailor]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Virtually every point he makes in that passage is either wishful or wrong, unfortunately. I agree.
It is definitely a popular insurgency with popular support.
I do not know if they want Saddam's restorarion but it is clear they do not want to be ruled by America.
"Despised by the "vast majority"? Maybe by some. That is why they all agree they want the Americans sout: so they can the proceed to fighting and killing each other.
Sanctuary? The entire country is their sanctuary and they move about with greater freedom and safety than the occupying forces.
No superpower patron? This is *really* wishful thinking. China, Iran and others may not openly and blatantly supply them but it is in their interest that the resistance are well supplied and they will see to it that it happens. They will not publicise it and they don't need to. Just see that it happens. If the US government believes its competitors are going to help the USA to maintain it hegemony as sole superpower then the US government is delusional. China will just pull up a lawnchair and watch as the USA sinks in the quicksand. oficially it will just be watching but if you look closely you will see their smile and their hidden hands are pulling the USA further into the deep sand and not away. What did the USA expect? A few decades later, when history is written, it will all come out to the light but not while it is happening.
Cannot carry the banner of nationalism? Of course the can and they do in fact. What world does McCain live in?
Our ally is not a corrupt government but a freedom-loving people? The "ally" is a corrupt government imposed by the USA. There have already been plenty of complaints about the governmnet being corrupt and about them being outsiders imposed by the USA. Without the USA that government would last a matter of minutes before they were eaten alive. As similar to Vietnam as you can get.
We lost the will to fight in Vietnam? The Vietnamese outlasted the USA in spite of heavier losses and the Iraqis will also outlast the USA. It is very simple: The USA can go home while the Iraqis have nowhere to go: that *is* their home.

As much as I admire McCain as a person and as a hero I believe he does not truly understand the situation.

[hansel]

Originally posted by xtisme
However I'm confused. I thought that the left, and especially Europe WANTED the US to turn over power right now and get out asap."The left", insofar as it can be said to have a unified position, wants Iraq turned over to the U.N. and an international coalition of nations willing to support the effort with troops, to be rebuilt into a democratic nation, much as what resulted from the breakup of Yugoslavia is now a set of reasonably functional nation states that aren't bogged down with an insurgency.

Note that this doesn't mean the left wants Iraq broken up, only that we want a real international effort to rebuild Iraq by a body that's done it successfully a few times. Yes, the U.S. has rebuilt a few nations--planning for the governance of postwar Germany and Japan started in 1942--but that infrastructure is gone, replaced with Neo-con pipe-dreams about flower-throwing Iraqis ready to step in and take over.

[adaher]

Er, the UN has not been that successful. The UN had nothing to do with the republics of Yugoslavia except for Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which STILL are not fully self-governing. In Kosovo, it's not even partially self-governing after five years.

And most recently, we transformed Grenada and Panama into democracies. It is the US with a proven track record, not the UN.

[elucidator]

Grenada! Yes! My personal favorite! Operation Urgent Fury!

"Delta One, describe the target environment."

"Roger, Delta Leader. The Target is in the carriage, in the baby's left hand, repeat, left hand! Range, eight yards."

"What is the condition of the target, Delta One?"

"The target is moist, and shows considerable signs of gumming.."

"Delta One, any signs of tooth marks? Do we have dentition positive status?"

"That's a negative, Delta Leader, repeat, negative. We have no indication of effective dentition. Recommmend no more than two armored divisions in order to secure target...."

[adaher]

Nevertheless, we took down a dictator and democracy was the end result.

And it's enlightening how you mock it when Americans died during the liberation of that island. They faced Cubans, not babies in strollers.

[elucidator]

Tell you what, Adaher. You want to open a debate about Grenada, I'm your guy. But you're gonna want to get your facts straight first. Just a fair warning, wouldn't want to take advantage.

And please note: I will do you the honor of presuming that you're already embarassed about insulting my patriotism. That a single American soldiers life was thrown away on this puerile excercise is disgusting. Obscene.

But it damn sure wasn't my idea.

[adaher]

Puerile exercise? Cuba was interfering in the affairs of another state. We interfered to stop their interference. Grenada is today a democracy thanks to that action.

[Milum]

It is the US with a proven track record [of implementing democracies], and not the UN.
________________________________

Ok elucidator, elucidate adaher's point.

[elucidator]

Point?

[London_Calling]

I'm convinced, Milum. An insightful, well supported and admirably ‘nuanced’ argument, as usual.

And with superb use of brackets and underlining! Pure quality.

[Mr. Duality]

"The Gulf of Tonkin incident that launched the Vietnam misadventure in earnest turned out to be a fiction, so too had the deceptive dossiers on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The first was an excuse to pour Washington's coffers into the military-industrial complex, the latter to cook up sweetheart deals for Haliburton, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former employer."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/08/1068243302641.html?from=storyrhs

[Boo Boo Foo]

Originally posted by Milum
It is the US with a proven track record [of implementing democracies], and not the UN.
Name 'em Milum. Go on, point 'em out. The people of Germany were a democracy prior to WW2 - they even legally voted Hitler into power so implementing democracy into West Germany after WW2 was no great brain job.

And Japan? 50 years on? It still has yet to truly evolve into a genuine two party democratic nation state. It's a country where corporate cronyism is balanced perfectly against nationalism.

So go on... name 'em.

[sailor]

Originally posted by Milum
It is the US with a proven track record [of implementing democracies], and not the UN. Well, not really. You could also say much more accurately it is the USA who has a proven record of implementing dictatorships or to meddling in other country's business.

[elucidator]

Trujillo, Samoza, Reza Pahlavi, Syngman Rhee, Pinochet, Uguartem, Duvalier, Marcos, Sukarno, Deim, Nhu, and the list of "democracies" nurtured and fostered by the US goes on, and on, and on...

Are we about to add the name "Chalabi" to the list?

[ElvisL1ves]

Nah. The others were actually able to run their countries, after a fashion. Put Chalabi on the list with the guy Teddy R. installed to run Panama after the "revolution".

[hansel]

Originally posted by adaher
Er, the UN has not been that successful. The UN had nothing to do with the republics of Yugoslavia except for Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which STILL are not fully self-governing. In Kosovo, it's not even partially self-governing after five years.How many foreign troops have been killed in Bosnia or Kosovo since the end of major operations was declared?

So what if they're not yet fully self-governing? For the last five years they've had a steady and peaceful progression towards it. Nation-building takes time. And what's the latest I hear about U.S. troops in Iraq? "Out by July..."

[XT]

From hansel
So what if they're not yet fully self-governing? For the last five years they've had a steady and peaceful progression towards it. Nation-building takes time. And what's the latest I hear about U.S. troops in Iraq? [B]"Out by July..."[/B[

You have a cite for this? The last I heard was that we were turning over the GOVERNMENT to them by June...but that there are no plans to bring home our troops at that time. If you have a cite saying differently, I'd be interested in seeing it.

-XT

[adaher]

Almost all those dictatorships we supported are today democracies.

Gee, I wonder why?

[Rashak Mani]

No US troops died in Bosnia and Kosovo after "cease fire"....

[elucidator]

Originally posted by adaher
Almost all those dictatorships we supported are today democracies.

Gee, I wonder why?



"Guatemalans who voted in presidential elections last week should be congratulated for thwarting the comeback bid of one of the country's most brutal former military dictators, Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt. During his 18 months in power in the early 1980's, thousands of Mayan Indian peasants were slaughtered by soldiers moving against left-wing guerrillas. His crushing electoral defeat is a welcome sign of health for a fragile democracy.

The brutality of Mr. Ríos Montt's rule and his continuing political ambitions made him emblematic of the military dictators who intermittently ruled Guatemala during the more than three decades of civil war that followed a C.I.A.-sponsored coup in the early 1950's. The traumas Guatemalan society endured during that time almost defy imagination. The cumulative toll of military repression amounted to some 200,000 deaths, 50,000 disappearances and the uprooting of 500,000 people. Hundreds of rural Mayan Indian communities were destroyed, along with much of Guatemala's surviving indigenous culture. All that in a country that barely numbers 14 million people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/17/opinion/17MON3.html

"...Reagan personally picked up this theme of a falsely accused Guatemalan military. During a swing through Latin America, Reagan discounted the mounting reports of hundreds of Maya villages being eradicated.

On Dec. 4, 1982, after meeting with Guatemala's dictator, Gen. Efrain Rios Montt, Reagan hailed the general as "totally dedicated to democracy." Reagan declared that Rios Montt's government had been "getting a bum rap."..."

"...In March 1982, Gen. Rios Montt seized power. An avowed fundamentalist Christian, he immediately impressed Washington. Reagan hailed Rios Montt as "a man of great personal integrity..."


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Reagan_Guatemala.html

"...Washington was openly supportive of Rios Montt's dictatorship. In December 1982, then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan called him "a man of great personal integrity" who was "getting a bum rap on human rights."

During the interview, he sat next to a black-and-white photo of him sitting with Reagan...."

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/nation/6955957.htm

The Guatemalans acheived democracy the same way we did. By revolution. The primary source of support and weapons for the vile and vicious regime was.....us. In our name. Keeping Central America safe from the Commies.

Any questions?

[sailor]

Originally posted by adaher
Almost all those dictatorships we supported are today democracies.

Gee, I wonder why? No thanks to US help. In Chile I believe the daughter of Salvador Allende is now the Speaker of the House and there have been unsuccessful attempts to prosecute the US backed dictator, Pinochet, for his crimes against humanity but it has all happened in spite of the USA, not with their help.

One of the main reasons was the fall of the Soviet Union and the relaxation of international tensions but you can see that whenever the USA feels it is in their interest it will back the cruelest dictators.