> That's the problem many of us have with parallels to Vietnam.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
If you don't respect history and learn from past mistakes
you're doomed to repeat it. I think there are parrallels to
Vietnam.
(A) We shouldn't have gone into either of them in the
first place.
(B) We invaded on spurious information in both cases.
(C) In Vietnam we attempted to pacify rather than fight
a total war, which would have meant, invading and
destroying Hanoi and the entire North Vietnamese
infrastructure. In Iraq we went in with too few troops
which would allowed us to go house to house if need
be to nip the lawlessness and insurgency up front.
(D) Too many decisions are made in Washington. The
"boots" on the ground basically have to make do with
what the Administration allows.
(E) We're backing a weak government, which requires
a long term stay, just like Vietnam.
Whatever positives there are would go away in a heart
beat if we don't keep troops there for a very, very long
time and continue to expend billions of dollars propping
the whole illusion up.
Meanwhile, this whole fiasco has weakend us both
militarily and financially while China is building up
in both areas to make a run on us sometime in the
near future I would guess.
Jim Eddins
©2005 Profox |
