Jim:
!
! >Wow, that was interesting. However, since it was a product of Rush
! >Limbaugh the Left will automatically discount it has being
! ridiculous,
! >they won't give one serious second of intellectual critique
! ... How sad
!
! I'm not part of the "Left", but I did read the article and
! as many of the old clipped articles as I could read without
! a magnifying glass.
Right; therefore, you didn't reject it out of hand and at least read
it with a critical eye.
! The problem I have with Limbaugh's representation is
! he uses some of the old articles comments and draws
! a direct analogy that what went on back then is exactly
! like what's going on in Iraq.
That's the problem many of us have with parallels to Vietnam.
!
! Well its not. If you read the old articles there's nothing
! about an insurgency and obviously no suicide bombers.
! There is mention of German's, mostly former soldiers,
! being very upset that American soldiers were porking
! their women. Terms like "growing hatred of the American
! occupation" were used in some of the articles titles, but
! very little evidence of large or even small scale violence
! were mentioned.
Similarly, there are so many divergencies between what's happening in
Iraq and the ME and what happened in Vietnam. Yet, there are those who
insist it's "just like Vietnam" or "worse". In fact, it's just
different, and by no means clearly "worse" than that debacle.
The only parallel that holds is the fact there is an active internal,
radical left-wing opposition working to undermine American success.
! I'm sure there were problems dealing with post war
! Europe, Japan and Asia. They were devastated beyond
! recognition and the shear magnitude of the effort itself
! would mean some problems would arise. However,
! during all that and the mounting tensions between the
! U.S. and Russia, there was never any violence that
! remotely resembles what's happening in Iraq.
Well at least give credit where it's due: The prediction from the doom
and gloomers about how we'd have tens of thousands of American body
bags just trying to take Baghdad was "more off" than Cheney's
prediction of a "cake walk". Similarly, I think every reasonable
person recognizes the post-war planning was way off, including the
Administration, though they are reluctant to say that in so many words
(as every administration is)---partly I think because they
overestimated the work required to topple the regime (there would be a
lot more dead Sunni's and Baathists if they hadn't basically run for
the hills when we rolled in).
Yes, the post-combat phase is difficult, but to ignore the successes
just to make one's predictions sound dire and paint the current
progress as minimal is IMHO just as wrong, if not worse, than trying
to look at the bright side (and there are lots of developments to be
optimistic about), shall we say, and rally the public and the troops
and politicians to the point where an exist strategy is both feasible
and immanent.
I mean, does Kerry (for instance) really expect Bush to go on TV and
compete with him in that dour, pessimistic, and frankly smug
negativism he's built his career mastering?
- Bob
!
! Jim Eddins
!
!
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2005 Bob Calco |
