While it’s not likely that Iraq can/will become another Vietnam (in the sense of scale), the current death toll is somewhat apace of the early years in Vietnam. In 1965 there were about 1900 US Soldiers lost in Vietnam (Johnson escalated the US troop presence after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1965). In 1966 these rose to about 3400. They peaked in 1968 at just under 17,000. Of the 58,000 number only about 47,000 are attributed as “combat deaths”.
The only way that Iraq should increase to Vietnam-like numbers would be a more organized and better supplied resistance force. I doubt that the Chinese or Russians would be keen to supply Iraqi insurgents, but Syria and Iran might, especially if we keep rattling our sabres at them. Not likely to be on the scale of Vietnam, though, it 's still not someplace I’d want my kids if they were of age.
The context in which we should be bringing up Vietnam is not “Iraq is another Vietnam” so much as “shit, didn’t we learn anything, even long enough for the folks who were around for the first one to become wizened old geezers, about the absolute stupidity and indefensibility of invading another nation for no clearly defined reason and with no clearly identified goal, and pursuing it long after the native locals want us gone and a significant portion of our own citizenry thinks we’ve got no business being there?”
It’s not another Vietnam. It’s a fucking embarrassment given that we ought to know better as a consequence of Vietnam.
Shibb: My bad. I thought you were quoting total troop numbers, not troop casualties. Sorry!
But you’re analysis is still flawed. For example, in 1965, troop levels increased from 3500 in March to 184,000 by the end of the year. Those troop levels might be comparable to Iraq, but after that troop levels just don’t compare.
However, it’s simply not accurate to just look at things proportionally. Anyone who wants to claim that Iraq is worse than Vietnam has to compare **absolute **numbers. In that case, there simply is no comparison.
I’ve always argued that our potential entanglement in Iraq is more likely to closely resemble what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, although in that case once again the insurgents were being supplied by one of the world’s major superpowers. Guess who?
Sorry, John, I have no idea why that myth won’t die, but it simply isn’t true. Set aside the fact that proof of a negative is the very basis of reductio ad absurdum, and consider the contradiction of the assertion itself. If you cannot prove a negative (which is itself a negative assertion) then you cannot prove that you cannot prove a negative. Therefore, if it is true, then it is false. It violates the law of noncontradiction.
I wouldn’t call it hyperbole. The way out of Vietnam was incredibly easy, once you decide you don’t particularly care which group of Vietnamese prevail. You simply pull out. There weren’t any neighboring nations ready to take advantage of a vacuum and move in. There wasn’t a region of Vietnam with different ethnic and religious background and a history of persecution. There wasn’t an American occupation. And most of all, there weren’t hundreds of millions of people outraged at the US presence because of religion. Now compare it to Iraq. The Iraqi can of worms, once opened, is much more delicate. You’ve got the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites all within these artificial borders from colonial days. You’ve got Iran, ready to seize the opportunities that a weakened Iraq presents. You’ve got the entire Islamic world enraged that a Moslem nation is being occupied by a non-Moslem nation. You’ve got the mere existence of Israel. You’ve got seemingly every person in the country toting around RPG launchers. And all of this atop a sorely needed economic resource. The way out is so complicated and tortuous that it is going to take years if not decades. I’m not comparing Vietnam and Iraq in terms of US casualties, of course it isn’t to that scale yet. But in terms of the commitment level and the dangers involved and the potential for disaster, it blows Vietnam right out of the water.
And who in the Administration was considering all that when we went into that God-forsaken country in the first place? Who was it that was weighing the advantage to be gained from the invasion against the burden of dealing with the place? Who was in charge of determining whether or not the cure (the invasion and occupation) would not be worse than the disease (the speculative and conjectural threat posed by Saddam’s regime)?
And while we are at it, in just what way specifically is America safer because of the invasion and occupation? In what way, specifically, is the United States now safer from foreign terrorism because Saddam has been removed by force of arms?
Two significant sites now have Kerry back in the lead within the Electoral College —
Zogby/WallStreetJournal, which updates only twice a month, posted again yesterday, showing a Bush gain since August 23rd but not enough to take away Kerry’s lead in the electoral vote.
electoral-vote.com, which despite its openly acknowledged pro-Kerry attitude has had Bush ahead in electoral votes for several days now, posted some Kerry gains and some Bush losses (in some cases those are not the same —states can become, or cease to be, dead heats) and Kerry is now listed as being ahead.
The usual disclaimers do of course apply, but I would at least fling this in the face of any argument that Bush has it sewn up now.
The answer, of course, is nobody. This reckless rush to war is the mark of incompetent leadership. What is worse are those that think that careful weighing of these issues is a sign of weakness.
Barring some tragically big event or revelation, I think it’s going to be a close election, and go either way.
I take it with a grain of salt when I hear someone say at this point, “Of course Bush is gonna win”. It’s a little like a guy in a barroom fight saying, “I’m going to kick your ass!” – it’s an attempt to convince himself, and cow his opponent, not a rational analysis of the facts.
Nope, today’s polls show Bush is losing momentum, and the race is essentially even. Kerry is on track to peak on the day of the only poll that counts; November 2[sup]nd[/sup].
Wow. You see a lot more there than I do. Most of the chart resembles white noise, if you ask me, but currently Bush is clearly trending upward. You would need data until at least the beginning of Oct. to confidently assert Bush is trending downward again.
Figured this was as good a place as any to talk about general polling questions. So here’s a few thoughts about registered voters (RVs) v. likely voters (LVs).
Here’s what Ruy Teixeira points out about Gallup’s registered vs. likely voters:
So in 3 of the past 4 elections, Gallup’s RVs have been more accurate than its LVs.
And these were its election-eve polls, too, when LVs are supposedly at their most accurate.
In the link, Teixeira also posts the questions Gallup asks to determine its LVs. (Go read it for yourself.) It’s better than nothing, I suppose, but I sure wouldn’t want to base a prediction on it unless it had a track record of improving the accuracy of polls. I’d say the burden’s on Gallup and the other pollsters that determine and use LVs to prove that LVs are the way to go. Certainly Gallup’s LVs don’t have such a track record in Presidential elections.
