Bush’s New Strategy: Copy The ‘Success’ of Vietnam
Bush’s New Strategy: Copy The ‘Success’ of Vietnam
Retired General Jack Keane is an “influential member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board” who met with President Bush last week to push his plan to send 40,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq. According to media reports, President Bush is leaning toward taking Keane’s advice.
In the most recent issue of the Weekly Standard, editor Fred Barnes lauds Keane’s plan. He explains that is an “application” of the “counterinsurgency approach” that was executed “so successfully” in Vietnam:
The Keane-Kagan plan is not revolutionary. Rather, it is an application of a counterinsurgency approach that has proved to be effective elsewhere, notably in Vietnam. There, Gen. Creighton Abrams cleared out the Viet Cong so successfully that the South Vietnamese government took control of the country. Only when Congress cut off funds to South Vietnam in 1974 were the North Vietnamese able to win.
Barnes is parroting the view of Henry Kissinger. Bob Woodward explained in his book, State of Denial:
Kissinger sensed wobbliness everywhere on Iraq, and he increasingly saw it through the prism of the Vietnam War. For Kissinger, the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out.
In his writing, speeches and private comments, Kissinger claimed that the United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress.
You know Iraq is going badly when people suggest the way to turn it around is to make it more like Vietnam.
UPDATE: Rick Perlstein explains why Kissinger was wrong:
To begin unraveling the true meaning of Kissinger’s advice to the White House, we have to go back to August 3, 1972. On that date, President Nixon repeated to the good doctor, his national security adviser, what he’d been saying in private since 1966: America’s war aim (standing up a pro-American and anti-Communist South Vietnamese government in Saigon) was a fantasy. “South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway,” the president sighed. But a presidential election was coming up. He had long before promised he was removing the U.S. presence, more-or-less victoriously (though “victory” was a word Nixon, by then, wisely avoided; instead, he called it “peace with honor”).
It was Kissinger, who had been shuttling back and forth to Paris for peace negotiations with the enemy, who named the dilemma: “We’ve got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two, after which–after a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater. If we settle it, say, this October, by January ‘74, no one will give a damn.” Thus was confirmed what historians would come to call the “decent interval” strategy. Having pledged to Saigon–and American conservatives–that Communist troops would not be allowed in South Vietnam after a peace deal was signed, Kissinger negotiated the opposite. “Peace is at hand,” he announced on the eve of the 1972 presidential election, in one of his rare appearances before the TV cameras. The United States left the following spring; the Communists moved in; Saigon fell.
That’s not how Nixon and Kissinger told the story, of course. They blamed the defeat on a combination of the liberal congressmen who refused to vote for continued aid to South Vietnam in 1974 and Saigon’s own unfortunate lack of will.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
81 Responses to “Bush’s New Strategy: Copy The ‘Success’ of Vietnam”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Or maybe, copy the "success" of the evacuation of Dunkirk?!
December 18th, 2006 at 3:31 pmSweet baby Jesus...
This is merely more proof (as if any more was necessary) that neocons live in a fantasy world of their own making. Within this fantasy world, this strategy makes perfect sense. Emulate Vietnam, since what we did in Vietnam was so successful.
And just to make it clear, President Bush isn't 'leaning' toward taking Keane's advice...he made up his mind on this a long time ago, and Keane is just providing a service by providing yet another unhinged batshit-crazy opinion that dovetails with Bush's unhinged, batshit-crazy opinions.
In November, the American people voted overwhelmingly to get out of Iraq. It's going to become real clear real quick that noneof the politicians in power, whether they be Repub or Dem, are going to honor this mandate. We're going to be in Iraq for a long time, so you might as well get used to the idea.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:40 pmUnbelievable.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:40 pmNext thing you know, revisionist neocon historians are going to come along and claim that we actually won Vietnam.
Anybody notice how quickly the number of troops is rising? We've already doubled McCain's tentative 20K, and we still don't know exactly what they're going to do, other than assure victory.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:42 pmEmulate the "success of Vietnam"? Take about being in a fantasy world. This would be funny it it wasn't so serious. Dubya needs to be impeached.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pmGREAT story! Love it!
ToTheCenter.com
December 18th, 2006 at 3:45 pmShut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie
December 18th, 2006 at 3:46 pmI think that maybe in all of this we can trust and work for a cause that worth our time.
In the coming days, the blue ocean of the Antarctic will turn to red. The six-ship whaling fleet has left Japan, and is headed directly to the Southern Ocean. 945 whales, including ten endangered fin whales, will be killed - unless we do something to save them. It's time to put an end to whaling in the Southern Ocean. Forever. Last year, your emails and activism convinced one of the largest seafood companies in the world to get out of the whaling business. This year, we're asking you to join us in defending the whales from the very beginning.
Share best action ideas check out what others are suggesting.
Vote for the action ideas of others or improve them with your own tips
This time all we can be there, all of us can tell to the world why whaling must stop
http://whales.greenpeace.org/global
December 18th, 2006 at 3:48 pmWinston Smith has been busy, I see. We won the Vietnam War.
Then we lost the Vietnam War, because the public and Congress voted against the Nixon Administration.
We are winning the War in Iraq. We have always been winning the War in Iraq. We will lose the War in Iraq only if the public and Congress vote against the Bush Administration.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
If it was a tie then why wasn't there a shootout?
December 18th, 2006 at 3:51 pmMeanwhile, back at the Axis of Evil: North Korea has declared itself a Nuclear Power.
Details, or the end of the world, at 11....
December 18th, 2006 at 3:51 pmWTF?
December 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pmYes, the Vietnam war was going so well in 1972 and it would have worked if it weren't for those meddling kids! This General is as stupid as he is insane. Those clusters he wears couldn't be more worthless if they were bird droppings. He’s right out of a Scooby Do episode.
Bush will use him as an "expert" to support his asinine "surge", though. More Americans will be maimed and/or die. More Iraqis will be maimed and/or murdered. Haliburton, Boeing, and the rest will rake in the dough.
We have become the most heinous nation on the planet and we deserve to be bombed to sh*t when it happens. We, as a nation, have perpetrated this invasion even AFTER the lessons of Korea and Vietnam. We can no longer claim ignorance or innocence. We must stop this and stop it now and we have to quit fooling ourselves into thinking that our "government" will do it for us. Who do you think is reaping in the big money off this travesty?
December 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pmThat's revisionist history. It's an outright lie that Abrahms or anyone else was winning at any time.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:57 pmWell if we won the Vietnam War, then finally we can stop blaming the media for losing it.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:57 pmVice President Dick Cheney’s New Battle plans for IRAQ expect more killing than ever before
We shall call it the Darwin Principle.
The Darwin Principle, Beltway version, basically says that Washington should stop trying to get Sunnis and Shiites to get along and instead just back the Shiites, since there are more of them anyway and they’re likely to win in a fight to the death. After all, the proposal goes, Iraq is 65 percent Shiite and only 20 percent Sunni.
Sorry, Sunnis.
Darwin? Try Machiavelli. An even more far-fetched offshoot of the Darwin Principle is floating around, which some hawks have tossed out in meetings, although not seriously, one administration official said. It holds that America could actually hurt Iran by backing Iraq’s Shiites; that could deepen the Shiite-Sunni split and eventually lead to a regional Shiite-Sunni war. And in that, the Shiites — and Iran — lose because, while there are more Shiites than Sunnis in Iraq and Iran, there are more Sunnis than Shiites almost everywhere else.
Wow.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:59 pmLet's see, goal of Vietnam war: stop the spread of communism to the south. Outcome: all of Vietnam becomes communist. Yep, that really sounds like a tie to me. I wonder what the people in the last chopper out of Saigon would say? "Hey NVC, good game, maybe next time their can be a winner"
December 18th, 2006 at 3:59 pmAs Harry Reid said yesterday on both C-Span and ABC, the only way 20k more troops makes sense is as cover for a withdrawal. We had to send 5,000 troops to Bosnia in 1996 in order to ensure the safe withdrawal of the US troops that were there.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:59 pmAs Harry Reid said yesterday on both C-Span and ABC, the only way 20,000 more troops makes sense, even in the short term, is as cover for a withdrawal. We had to send 5,000 troops to Bosnia in 1996 in order to ensure the safe withdrawal of the US troops that were there.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pmummm, didn't america lose in viet nam, lost about 58,000 soldiers.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:01 pmgreat idea, lets copy that.
i guess bush having avoided his duty in viet nam wouldn't understand the slaughter of america troops for a useless cause.
Vietnam was a success for all the Chicken Hawks.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:04 pmA point about the neo-cons is that behind the warlike exterior the neo-cons are disorganized individually. These people are unable to plan. There was no plan for after the fall of Baghdad because these people lack the resources to plan. The neo-cons convinced themselves that this inability to plan was a source of strength, of course. Bush changes tactics weekly. There is a new empty slogan almost daily. Be warlike is the extent of the neo-con plan for the Middle East. No secrets about the world are being hidden by the neo-cons but rather bur rather a fundmental personal indadequacy is concealed. Bush is, of course, a prime example.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pmDid I say WTF? Well.....JHC!...!!!!!!!!
December 18th, 2006 at 4:12 pmOur success in Vietnam was the "decent interval." Two years between our leaving and the North Vietnamese winning. People saw it for what it was when we left. Do they really think everyone has forgotten only 35 years later?
December 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmWHAT SUCCES IN NAM ?
We lost in Viet Nam not for the reason given by Hissinger and other liers , but simply , the general population wanted us out just as in Iraq .
December 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmForTruth,
Exactly! Just look at what Vietnam did for FMC. It went from being a large manufacturer of farm equipment to being a mega-corporation profiting enormously off of defense contracts.
It's a fine testament to our greed and moral collapse however. Who else would think that its a good idea to turn plowshares into swords. Literally.
Go figure.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmSome of the reasons why Osama bin Laden loves George Bush:
1) Bush is responsible for nearly 3,000 U.S. military deaths.
2) Bush is spending about $2 billion dollars a week on his illegal war.
3) Bush is increasing the hatred of Middle Easterners towards the U.S.
4) Bush has provided Iraq as an effective training grounds for terrorists.
Why does George Bush hate America?
December 18th, 2006 at 4:15 pm#4
Anybody notice how quickly the number of troops is rising? We’ve already doubled McCain’s tentative 20K, and we still don’t know exactly what they’re going to do, other than assure victory.
Comment by pugnose — December 18, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
December 18th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Hard to believe, but there are still people out there who actually believe Vietnam could be "won". Likely these same dumb 'tards think Iraq can be "won", whatever the hell that even means.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:18 pmBarnes' assessment of "success" is pure revisionism.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:19 pmaron67,
I believe it is a bit naïve to think that things are not going according to plan. Do you still think that we went in for WMDs? Do you honestly believe that the architects of this invasion believed in that reasoning as well? Or is it more likely that they knew that it would give them the “inâ€, the wool that we fearful Americans were begging for to pull over our eyes?
IMHO, I would say that it is going as planned.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:19 pmthe pentagon has authority to recall officers from retirement.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:24 pmBush's illegal criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan would be considered as genocidal actions if we bothered to cafefully examine them. The coming escalation of the war on the Iraqi people is the last throes of Bush criminality. Soon he will be Impeached, Tried, Convicted and Removed from Office. Then his war crimes trials can begin.
The Bush criminals are worse than the Nazis. Fascism, bullying, genocide, war profiteering and dictatorship all come naturally with the genetics of our frat-boy King George: his grandfather, Prescott Bush, loved and supported the German Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and the 1940s until President Franklin Roosevelt stopped it in 1942 by enforcing the "Trading with the Enemy Act." Ditto for Bush's greatgrandfather, George Herbert Walker. Bush's father admires the Saudi dictators. The Bush family has been profiting from treason off and on for some seventy years now.
One of life's little ironies is that Prescott Bush was a big advocate of eugenics, or selective government-run breeding of humans. Too bad that he was one of the bad seeds, himself...
Cheers and Happy-holy Days.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:27 pmThe Christmas Bombings
December 18th, 2006 at 4:27 pm#32 linda,
December 18th, 2006 at 4:29 pmAny officer can be called back at any time. It's part of the pact. It doesn't sound like this guy needed any convincing though.
Bottom line: this strategy spells DEATH for Republicans in '08 including McCain, who people are saying is making a smart strategic move. Wrongo. Nobody is listening to the voters - just the "ca-ching" of imaginary profits from control of Middle Eastern petro dollars. Let's see who gets up in congress and supports it. Then watch them go down in flames in '08. Any Democrat that supports this has a death wish.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:29 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II
The Christmas Bombings
December 18th, 2006 at 4:30 pmTuber sez:
Absolutely correct. Getting to the truth about our real reason for invading Iraq is a bit like peeling an onion...under each lie is another layer of lies.
First it was "Saddam and Osama are buddies"...turns out they are anything but.
Then it was "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...turns out there were no WMDs at all.
Then it was "Liberate the Iraqi people"...turns out that 'liberation' is extremely hazardous if you are an Iraqi.
Then it was "Bring Democracy to Iraq"...turns out we can't even stop the situation from sliding into civil war, much less 'build a democracy'.
Every justification given for this war has turned out to be blatantly false, and we are failing utterly at accomplishing what we are ostensibly there to do. However, if you look at the Iraq invasion from another angle...an angle vehemently denied by the administration, then everything we've done makes perfect sense, and we are actually doing quite well. The angle is: we invaded Iraq, not because of the saddam/Osama connection, nor to find WMDs, nor to 'liberate Iraqis' or bring Democracy to Iraq, but to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East.
Seen in this light, all is going exactly as planned.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:36 pmI seem to remember a time when Fred Barnes wasn't dumber than a bag of hammers. Maybe he was just a lot quieter then. I dont know. But, holy crap is he an idiot now! Has he been snacking on paint chips or what?
Yes, by all means Fred, let's imitate the rousing success we had in Vietnam.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:46 pmLast week I wrote about the parallel between Vietnam and Iraq, specifically the "wait it out" approach of Henry Kissinger where it took 2 years to agree on the shape of the table for the Paris peace talks. That wait, rather than being a success, allow North Vietnam to solidify their position in South Vietnam and eventually defeat the corrupt South Vietnamese government. Kissinger, I said, was wrong then and he is wrong now. It also led to another 20,000 Americans being killed in Vietnam.
This whole "surge" talk just reeks of Henry Kissinger and his concept of the world. This is not a new set of eyes looking at things, it is a very old set of eyes directing thing. But it does fit the Bush style of trying something a second time and expecting different results.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:50 pmIs it time for another mission?
-
December 18th, 2006 at 4:51 pmThere is a lesson to be learned here.
When the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, the folly and moral bankruptcy of our policy there were so widely perceived by the American people that those of us who had fought the war for years thought our task was done.
It never occurred to us that, in the face of the obvious truth, the wrmongers would spend decades trying to lie their way out of accountability.
The success at that endeavor led to an ever increasing series of unapologetic lies- the deification of the criminal Reagan, the destruction of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry, and now the abominable atempt to paper over the disaster that is the Bush administration.
We can't fall for this tactic again. As unpleasant as it is to engage with these valueless people, we must not allow them to continually rewrite history to cover over their unending series of failures.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:53 pmTripmaster you said, 'The angle is: we invaded Iraq, not because of the saddam/Osama connection, nor to find WMDs, nor to ‘liberate Iraqis’ or bring Democracy to Iraq, but to establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East.'
A neo-con goal is a permanent military presence in Iraq. That is a goal though. There is no rational plan behind that goal. The 'plan' is to deliver this permanent military presence in Iraq via the 'dynamic' personality of George Bush which is no plan.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:00 pmI posted a dark idea that was deleted. But it would hit home. All we need is that black and white photo of a burned Iraqi child, and its a complete rerun of Vietnam.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:03 pmRight now this is being billed as a temporary increase of 20 – 40 K troops. Remember way back before one series of elections when they temporarily raised the number of troops from 120K to it’s present level? They were only supposed to be there to provide security for the elections then leave. Two years later they are still there. At some point the administration needs to start defining terms. That is defining them in terms other than “I’m the president and I know what I am doing†They have also promised to stand down as the Iraqi’s stand up, then claim 200k Iraqi’s have been trained, yet no US troops have been moved from the war zone, other than for normal rotations.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:06 pmSo when do we see the return of the Phoenix Program?
December 18th, 2006 at 5:06 pmAnd we were all chided for comparing this to another Vietnam. Here it is.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:09 pmA quick little late '69 through '72 Vietnam war historical review reveals that the alleged success was due in no small part to the illegal mining of the harbors, the unlawful invasions of Laos and Cambodia, as well as the illegal bombing of those two countries--all which caused the big boys to the North (China) to be very upset with the US. So upset that Nixon and Kissinger had to go to China to work out all the details (can you say tail between the legs apologies) and tacitly agree to let China continue to control Tibet and other claimed territories (pissing off the Soviet Union).
So, given that history, and the proposed plan to "follow" the Vietnam example, we can expect invasions and bombings of Syria and Iran, as well as illegal and unlawful mining of harbors and tanker routes, all the while claiming that we aren't doing that. Of course Russia and China will get pissed, and we will once again run home to brood.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:09 pmIt's times like these, all the dormant spores are re-constituted let us know they still exist. I had no idea there are people out there who think Vietnam was a success.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:12 pmthe United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:14 pmYeah, just seven short years and 58,000 troops dead and we were sick of it.
We're going on four years, and it is a totally different scenario. In Nam we replaced the French colonial government with a Catholic upper class replacement.
In Iraq we invaded and occupied a country to impose democracy by the sword.
Can you say "Crusade"?
There we go with that whole Democracy thing and the will of the people. Whadid I say? HuH, I said the people want out, who cares what the war mongers want. They work for the people.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:30 pmWhat would be different today if we "stayed the course and won" in Vietnam? anyone wanna tell me how much better something would be?
December 18th, 2006 at 5:31 pmNo one told me that Vietnam was a success! Hell, let's reinvade!
Asshats.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:38 pm[...] Of course, Bush may well be moving towards the “successful” model of Vietnam. [...]
December 18th, 2006 at 5:48 pmFrag you Mr. President.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:57 pmFind 20 GOP Senators who are willing to impeach Bush next year? Might be difficulr. It is getting to where it may be easier to certify him and remove him from office for being insane.
December 18th, 2006 at 6:02 pmGen. Keane sits on the Board of General Dynamics...of course, escalating and prolonging this war will make this war profiteer and his immoral cohorts richer.
December 18th, 2006 at 6:11 pmGeorge Bush & Fred Barnes weren't in Vietnam. I was. Twice. Take it from me, we lost.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:06 pmApocalypse again! The medal awarded to me for service rendered in the Vietnam war....... the silver shaft with cow pie cluster.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:29 pm“South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway,†the president sighed."
Thus demonstrating that while Nixon may have been a crook and a paranoid psychotic, he was no fool -- unlike Fred Barnes and Barnes's favorite president.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:39 pmRE#49
Vietnam was a success.............for Halliburton.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:32 pmBush’s New Strategy: Copy The ‘Success’ of Vietnam
Shouldn't this be:
Bush’s New Strategery: Copy The ‘Success’ of Vietnam
:D
December 18th, 2006 at 10:23 pmWhat would be different today if we “stayed the course and won†in Vietnam? anyone wanna tell me how much better something would be?
Comment by ForTruth — December 18, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
Brilliant...
December 18th, 2006 at 10:24 pmVietnam war was a thorny problem which US failed to solve. The conflict did not start from 1961 when US military advisers went to South VN. It started from 1950 when President Harry Truman began authorizing direct financial assistance to the French in the first Indochina war. Why US govt hated the independence for VNese? Almost American misled that SouthVn was the land of anti-communist. Actually, first communist parties formed at Saigon and one of first communist-led uprisings was the 1940 Cochinchina (south vietnam) Uprising. And the flag of Vietnam(NorthVN and united VN) designed by leaders of the Uprising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Vietnam. At the end of 1944, the Viet Minh claimed a total membership of 500,000, of which 200,000 were in Tonkin(North VN), 150,000 in Annam, and 150,000 in Cochinchina (Annam and Cochinchina became later SouthVN). So number of communists in SouthVN might be even greater than in NorthVN before the war http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/pent4.html
December 18th, 2006 at 11:42 pmMoreover, Ngo Dinh Diem the first President of South Vietnam born in Quang Binh province part of North VN!? While Le Duan leader of NorthVN (after Ho death) born in QuangTri province part of South VN!?
Rick Perlstein is a Woodward butt-kisser and a big fan of all of his imaginary quotes from the death bed. Perlstein was sipping mother's milk at the end of the war and is hardly an authority on Kissinger and the Vietnam war.
Great choice of references for your argument Judd.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:05 am#68 MM,
I was around during the Vietnam conflict and have also studied it as well as our post WWII foreign policies. Kissinger was a failure. And that is fortunate because his agendas were dubious at best.
If you disagree then list off specific accomplishments that you feel Kissinger achieved that benefited humanity.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:54 amAnother analogy which I find disturbing.
a) Germany lost WWI because the army was "stabbed in the back by the home front". So in WWII they had only to "stick it out" to win this time. The consequences are known.
b) Large german companies supported WWII and the argument about being "stabbed in the back", because there was money to be made. Some of the owner's families are still abundantly rich.
Does this sound familiar to any of you?
End this war! And please vote for any candidate, who never supported this madness, even if they are really hard to find.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:40 amThe fact that wars cannot be won without passion is not going to help Kissinger. Blaming America's lack of righteous passion, necessary for fighting and winning wars is not going to change our opinions or make us feel guilty when we're passionately opposed to fighting an unrighteous war with Iraq in the first place. Kissinger is a sophomoric narcissist who thinks that Americans are a bunch of idiots that he can easily manipulate through guilt and shame.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:39 ambush's success in 'Nam consisted of him not having to go there ... remember the way this guy 'thinks' .. so for him that is another mission accomplished ...
December 19th, 2006 at 10:46 amI agree. Let's get out now and let the place implode into civil war. They deserve it.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:49 pmLBJ made up the Tonkin Gulf lie to get the American people to agree to attack N Viet Nam so the 'commies wont be attacking the shores of San Francisco'. Nixon followed with more lies to keep us in 'Nam. We lost, esp. the 54,000 GIs who got killed. An irony is that later it took the commie Vietnamese to stop fellow commie Pol Pot's murdering of the population of Cambodia. The ragtag Vietnamese army had to invade and then stay in Cambodia for about 6 years to keep down the Khmer Rouge for good, and then march back to Viet Nam and continue their poverty. We had 550,000 troops in 'Nam at the 1969 peak, plus tens of thousands more on ships, in Thailand, Taiwan, Guam, Haiwaii and Japan in direct support-and we lost. You can't beat guerillas on their own territory, can you? We can't "win" in Iraq, whatever that means. Let's get out of Iraq ASAP and let the Iranians, Kurds and Syrians be the Vietnamese invaders of Iraq, to occupy it and quell the 'guerillas' there.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:33 pm[...] read more | digg story Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: . [...]
December 19th, 2006 at 4:38 pmThe US won in Vietnam and is winning in Iraq. Its obvious. Why? To win is to 'domesticate' or destroy. Domesticating means you successfully install a client regime compliant to your will. If that does not work you destroy the country. Vietnam got destroyed and as such that made the US intervention there a massive success - Vitenam was no threat to anyone after being bombed back to the stone age. If the US had not gone into Iraq the Russian and Chinese would have partnered with Iraq to get the oil. They would have switched from the dollar to the Euro to trade oil. Once that happens its bye-bye US economy (eveyone would call in the reserves). If Iraq becomes a civil-war torn basket case these war planners don't care. Its still a win. No-one getting the oil is better than someone other than the US getting it. You have to remember that the cost to human life does not even enter into it. Thats how these people think. All of you arguing about the rights and wrongs of this are delusional. The people who plan this see Iraq in and US 'interests' in abstract terms - in the same way you would look at an ant-hill blocking your driveway. They know that the only card the US can play is extreme violence - otherwise everyone would just tell them to get lost. The thing Bush is most afraid of is democracy. Even a child could see that. That said, the writing is on the wall - as the recent US elections have attested. The current adminstrations' shenanigans are beginning sound like dying gasps of a vicious plutocracy. People are finally seeing them for what they are. Roll on 2008.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pmStill.. Many lessons were learned from the failures of Vietnam. No Ho Chi Min trail exists for Iraq--foreign insurgents are far less numerous.
I strongly suggest taking the British approach in South Africa in the Boor wars. That is, fence off and clear neighborhood by neighborhood thuroughly. Allow the residents back into their neighborhoods gated, with ID cards. This approach, in fact, generally worked in Fallujah. Do it also in Sadr City and Ramadi. This mess isn't nearly as big and pores as it was in the Boor wars. This is a military solution that can work--at least for the short term. Solving the political will mean handing a fairer piece of power to Sunnis. The Shias really are, as Sunnis claim, dominating power and handing over influence to Iran. All major groups need fair representation, inspite of who is the ethnic majority--that is what a constitutional democracy should provide, and isn't.
I think the U.S. is being taken for a ride by the Shias. I think they all want us to suffer before we leave so they can get away with anything, thereafter--without us coming back. Sunnis know this.
Matthew
December 19th, 2006 at 5:14 pm"Great Success!"
December 19th, 2006 at 5:24 pm@ Matthew C. Tedder
Taken for a ride? Are you completely high? Who got taken for a ride? The US went in and destroyed that country, precipitated a civil war and you say the US is being taken for a ride? Thats like robbing a store and being angry with the owner for not saying thank you when you're running out the door. Its also interesting you advocate turning neighborhoods into concentration camps/prisons as in the Boer war. You think the British had the right idea. Wow. The Brits - the most vicious imperialists next to Ghengis Kahn. Try saying that to a South African of Boer descent or an Irish person and see what answer you get.
Also Matthew, here's an newsflash - Fallujah was destroyed - 90% of the buldings were flattened. Are you going to start saying they had to destroy Fallujah in order to save it?
Your arrogance is astounding. You talk about 'handing a fairer piece of power to Sunnis'. Does it even dawn on you that the basic assumption that the US decides who gets what power in a country thousands of miles away is the height of condescension.
Wake up man.
December 19th, 2006 at 6:02 pm#76,#77: I can see US "won" and "winning" that way. But wait, it is a Imperialist victory not a Freedom victory. You can think US "won" but American "lost", because the country lost her way, lost her value. US "won" but SouthVNese who fought besides American feel be betrayed because US was only for her interests (1 of reasons SouthVNese govt hard to got support from their own ppl)
British in South African? Why you not try Irish War of Independence?
For who support the idea extreme violence will lead victory, check Soviet war in Afghanistan. They didn't have liberals, media, elections, and limitation in humanity but they still lost.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
[...] story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> [...]
December 19th, 2006 at 9:56 pmWe only lost vietnam because of the traiterous fifth column of
December 20th, 2006 at 2:42 amyup- I was there. We "lost". Saw it w/ my own two eyes. Bad model for future butchery.
December 20th, 2006 at 2:22 pmAs was mentioned above, Truman got us in on the side of the French by '50. The reason is an interesting story. After War 2, the French wanted to do the same idiot thing that led to Hitler et al- strip Germany of all wealth, phone poles, manufactory, railroads- reduce it to a peasant nation of serfs. EVERYBODY else thought that a really stupid idea. The French were adamant. They wanted to exploit cheap labor & raw materials to rebuild France, which was pretty beat up. We wanted the Marshall Plan. So, the French were bought off by the US promising them Viet cheap labor & Viet raw materials, which the French could profit from, sending raw materials to Japan, to keep THEM buggers busy, since everyone was still scared of them, even in defeat.
Stupidity heaped on stupidity. And Fred Barnes pulls down the Big Bucks.....
[...] administration ally and escalation proponent: Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane: Keane is an “influential member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board” who met with President Bush in December and convinced him to send more troops to Iraq. He [...]
April 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am