U.S. Military Report Draws Iraq, Vietnam Parallel

[PhillyKev 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20040520/ts_nm/iraq_usa_vietnam_dc

[Gawain 0]

It's a dotted line and the co-author drives his own wedge into it:

Quote

"In Vietnam, we were trying to prop up a government that had little legitimacy. In Iraq, we're trying to weave together a government and support it so it can develop legitimacy. Both are extremely hard to do," said co-author W. Andrew Terrill, of the War College's Strategic Studies Institute.

---and---

Quote

Terrill and his co-author, Air Force War College professor Jeffrey Record, say there are few military parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, where Communist fighters backed by the Soviet Union and China defeated a peak force of 500,000 U.S. troops.

I don't dispute the overall message they're trying to convey with the report, but Reuters could've done a better job reporting it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,131]

>It's a dotted line and the co-author drives his own wedge into it:

Agreed, but there are some fascinating parallels developing.

Johnson would go to Congress for funding for the war with small, secretive requests that were never quite enough to cover expenses. He feared that a congress that was fully aware of the costs of the war would (if the republicans had their way) cut spending on other programs he wanted or (if the democrats had their way) raise taxes, which would be politically unpopular.

In the Vietnam War, the thing that most galvanized the antiwar protesters were pictures brought back by photojournalists. A few of them - a naked child running down a street and a man being shot in the head - became symbols that anti-war protesters rallied to as symbols of what was wrong with the war.

In the Vietnam War, Johnson's advisors predicted a relatively quick and easy victory, and the morass it became suprised most of them. The US found itself unprepared to fight a ten-year war.

[mpsniper98 0]

it'll never be like vietnam....there's not enough vegetation

NBFT

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>It's a dotted line and the co-author drives his own wedge into it:

Agreed,

My life is complete.

Quote

but there are some fascinating parallels developing.

Johnson would go to Congress for funding for the war with small, secretive requests that were never quite enough to cover expenses.

I don't know, it doesn't seem to me like we're trying to pilfer on the costs ($200B, $87B, $50B, etc.). Lots of zeroes...

As for the predictions of "winning", if Johnson kept his paws out of the damn picture, the North would never have walked from the peace talks in Paris. Instead, he got PC, and wouldn't let us win. It took a sustained campaign backed by Nixon to get the north back to the table. In fact, by the time peace talks had resumed, North Vietnam was, in fact, a beaten nation.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,131]

>it'll never be like vietnam....there's not enough vegetation.

That's true! And there's no rice, and the music's not as good.

[PhillyKev 0]

Let's not forget the pot.

[Guest]

Quote

Let's not forget the pot.

Probably plenty of that Fertile Crescent hash and brown H tho...

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 3,131]

>I don't know, it doesn't seem to me like we're trying to pilfer on the costs . . .

I didn't suggest anyone was trying to steal any money. Just that they broke down the costs for the war into smaller appropriations, rather than plan for it as most things are planned for in the US budget
.
>As for the predictions of "winning", if Johnson kept his paws out of
> the damn picture, the North would never have walked from the
> peace talks in Paris. Instead, he got PC, and wouldn't let us win.

I fear the opposite will happen here. At some point, the Iraqis will become the enemy, and we will become determined to "win." At that point we will be doing far more to carry on Hussein's legacy than to liberate Iraq. Look at how many people here on this very board blame all Iraqis for the beheading of an american by terrorists - "Glass fucking parking lot!" as one poster put it. I hope that view doesn't become commonplace.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>I don't know, it doesn't seem to me like we're trying to pilfer on the costs . . .

I didn't suggest anyone was trying to steal any money. Just that they broke down the costs for the war into smaller appropriations, rather than plan for it as most things are planned for in the US budget.

Granted, but most of the planning for the budget involves programs that are far more static in nature. Since war is not "planned" it, in itself, is wholly dynamic. Bush's first budget didn't include a "fixed" expectation for invading two countries, expanding military spending to the extent we now must, etc.

Quote

>As for the predictions of "winning", if Johnson kept his paws out of
> the damn picture, the North would never have walked from the
> peace talks in Paris. Instead, he got PC, and wouldn't let us win.

I fear the opposite will happen here. At some point, the Iraqis will become the enemy, and we will become determined to "win." At that point we will be doing far more to carry on Hussein's legacy than to liberate Iraq. Look at how many people here on this very board blame all Iraqis for the beheading of an american by terrorists - "Glass fucking parking lot!" as one poster put it. I hope that view doesn't become commonplace.

I don't think we are to that bridge yet, but that's my point of view. I believe that we don't need to "win hearts and minds" what we need to do (and to a degree are doing it) is reinforce and advocate the desire that is being covered in the news: Iraqi self determination. Get out of the way as soon as possible, but not before we've ensured that the Iraqis can create their own identity. I really think we can do this. The transition in June will push the issue even more, the most tried and true method for anyone to get used to anything is: "baptism by fire". July 1 the Iraqis are gonna get a dose. If it all goes to hell, we'll already be there. If it doesn't we can become more and more inconspicuous and ultimately leave if we want (which we won't).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,131]

>The transition in June will push the issue even more, the most tried
>and true method for anyone to get used to anything is: "baptism by
> fire". July 1 the Iraqis are gonna get a dose.

I suspect that nothing will change. There will be a big ceremony, and Bush will give an excellent speech about the new freedoms the Iraqi people have, and that they are now a free and independent state. And nothing will change. We'll form a new interim government that will have the same power they have now (which isn't much) and the new government will bicker and argue. If we don't like what they do, their leaders will suffer the same fate as Chalabi. Iraqis will attack this government much as they are attacking the current one. Not sure where we go from there.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

. . . and Bush will give an excellent speech about . . .

Uh huh . . . although I'll be voting for GWB, I got a nice laugh out of that line . . .

. . =(_8^(1)