Bush equates Iraq with Vietnam

[wooderson]

Is the new way to show you love your country?

I don't believe I'm required to show my country any kind of love unless it's genuinely felt. In regard to the President and the state and the fiasco on the other side of the world - love ain't got a thing to do with it.

I don't abdicate one fiber of my intellectual or moral autonomy because someone - no matter how high-ranking - made a decision. If that abdication is what's required of being part of the team, 'coming in for the big win' and all that, then yeah - screw the team. I didn't ask to join.

[Leatherneck]

I don't believe I'm required to show my country any kind of love

Of course you're not. You're welcome for the free ride. Have a nice life.

TC

[roo_ster]

I don't believe I'm required to show my country any kind of love

Of course you're not. You're welcome for the free ride. Have a nice life.

TC

Yep, have a nice life.

Give us a heads-up when you find a country more worthy of your affection.

[Perd Hapley]

As usual, any criticism of the Iraq war is met with the same old tired rah-rah rhetoric that completely fails to   explain, let alone justify, this war.

Your criticism of the war in no way obliges others to explain or justify it.  Pages and pages of this forum have been spent explaining and justifying.  Go search. 

You're going to have to come up with a new sales pitch 'cause that one ain't working and it never did. 

You can lead a person to good reasons, but you can't make them think.

The official raison du jour has gone from 'bring evildoers to justice' to 'Saddam has WMD's' to 'regime change' to 'democratization'.

You missed a lot of good reasons, but all those you mention were present from day one.  You can have more than one reason for doing something, you know. 

Still, the U.S. military cannot even pacify the country, after 5 years.

 
You think five years is a long time?  See, this is why I said personal remark removed by fistful.

All the while our men (and women) are getting killed in onsies and twosies (lately foursies & up) while we spend hundreds of $$billions to play footsy with these third world dirtbags. 

Again, short and shallow.  We're always playing footsy with third world dirtbags, we're always doling out billions to places like Iraq.  I don't like that fact, either, but I don't blame the Iraq war for a larger problem.  Four deaths per day is not untenable.  Do you have some plan to fight terrorism that doesn't involve a few body bags? 

Either get it on and win it, or get the hell out.

  How?  When even conservatives like yourself get spastic about the low casualty rate we have now? 

[Tallpine]

Do you have some plan to fight terrorism that doesn't involve a few body bags? 

No, because you can't fight a tactic 


Really, if we want to "win" in Iraq, we need to bomb the whole place flat and then colonize it.  No, I guess we don't have the stomach for that.

[Monkeyleg]

Tallpine, forgive me, but that's a specious argument. Terrorists are indeed using a tactic, but that doesn't mean they are not an organized enemy.

And we don't need to bomb the place flat and colonize it. We need to get the three major religious sects to work together for the benefit of their country. Depending upon their level of cooperation, we can either use a carrot or a stick. The stick would be telling the Sunni's that we're leaving, and they're on their own against the Shia's.

But that wouldn't be in our interest, which is to start to pacify the region.

It's not as though terrorism is going to subside if we just ignore it, or the region is going to get better on its own.

[Perd Hapley]

"Fighting terror" and "war on terror" are just useful slogans that describe something much more complex. 

[wooderson]

We need to get the three major religious sects to work together for the benefit of their country

Not to be sarcastic, but the plan to save Iraq involves settling 1400 years of religious strife?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That 1400 years of religious strife involves the Christian West too, dontcha know.  The fact that it's an old conflict doesn't mean we get to ignore it.  Burying out heads in the sand isn't going to make it go away.  Retreating from Iraq now isn't going to make Islamic fanatics become peace loving good natured friends of the US.

[The Rabbi]

We need to get the three major religious sects to work together for the benefit of their country

Not to be sarcastic, but the plan to save Iraq involves settling 1400 years of religious strife?

Northern Ireland has had hundreds of years of religious strife and seems to have found some accomodation.  We aren't going to settle every difference, but we can
1) Make the place inhospitable for foreign al Qaeda fighters coming in from Syria, Egypt, the PA, etc.
2) Get the factions to believe they have more to gain by working together than they have by fighting each other and more to lose by not being co-operative.

[mtnbkr]

1) Make the place inhospitable for foreign al Qaeda fighters coming in from Syria, Egypt, the PA, etc.

There are Al Qaeda fighters in Pennsylvania now?  The Amish!  I knew their loyalty was suspect! 

Chris

[Tallpine]

We need to get the three major religious sects to work together for the benefit of their country.

Really, I think the "faster than light speed travel" thread has a better chance of working out 

[French G.]

Hmmm, are we still holding the same bunkers we held in 1954 on the Korean peninsula?  Yep. Are we still in Japan and Germany albeit in a cooperative role? Yep?  Can Iraq be fixed by the next commercial break? It damned well better be according to most of America.  Makes sense somewhere outside the space-time continuum I guess. I find it interesting that every headline clamors "Bush compares Iraq with Vietnam"  instead of Bush admits early Vietnam withdrawal was a mistake."  His actual remarks are a pretty astute observation.

 I am conflicted about why we went to war. I am sure we went to stop the spread of Islamic terrorism, as well as to stop WMDs. I'm also sure it was a little personal, it was an unavoidable mistake to leave S. Hussein breathing in GWI, and obviously the Bush and Hussein families don't exchange Christmas cards. To shadier motives, I am sure there are plenty of folks high up who would love to attack the real sponsors of terror, the Saudis. Bush isn't one of those, ascribing either to some scheme of engagement, or maybe just trying to keep enemies close and prop up a corrupt monarch so the real wackos can't steal the country. Who knows. I do know that when we went to Iraq that Saudi, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. noticed.  Iraq became a graphic example of what happens to Islamic states that sponsor terrorism. Libya gave up its WMD program, everyone got quiet and suicide bombings in Israel dropped right off since Saddam wasn't sending cash to the families of the bombers anymore. Maybe Iraq was not a direct and immediate threat, but it was a threat. I spent 1995-2000 supporting folks who routinely dropped bombs on Iraq for violating the UN no fly zones/sanctions. We never stopped being at war with Iraq after 1991. Bush just went for a more permanent solution this time.

  So I was happy we finally did something decisive. I thought we'd finally shake off the legacy of Vietnam where a few American casualties sent us running away, tail tucked. The sharp end of our military fought hard, fought well, took casualties and kept on going. The upper echelon kept on going despite casualties on CNN. If we would just carry that through it will pay huge dividends. America needs the world to see that no longer will 19 deaths in a victory cause us to change our foreign policy. So, I actually agree with GW. We left Vietnam at the wrong time for the wrong reasons and we are about to F up and do it again.

How about we just give war a chance this time?

[Ezekiel]

(sigh)  I was there.

Has anyone noted the distinct lack of clapping from what is the most pro-military (because, if I say the President can be in error, suddenly my -- and any -- service becomes questionable fodder) environment in America?

I will not mention my company/job publically but, if any question my presence, PM should work: with trust that you not reveal.  I mean, it's not difficult to find, but...

In any event, his statements floated as lukewarm in the most "conditioned" of environments.

"Things are not going well."

[Gewehr98]

As a career military type myself, I see plenty of clapping in my circle.  Of course, Zeke ain't part of the brotherhood...


But it is true, the pussification of America is indeed complete.  I seriously wonder if we'd have the stomach to fight back after another Pearl Harbor, even.   

[wmenorr67]

Not to be sarcastic, but the plan to save Iraq involves settling 1400 years of religious strife? 

More than that.


I am glad that President Bush had the balls to say that pulling out of Vietnam when we did screwed several thousands of people.  And if we pull out of Iraq now it will have the same effect.

Things over here don't move at the pace that Americans/Westerners are accustomed to.  Things are changing, for the good, and will continue.  Just don't expect to wake up tomorrow and see that everyone over here is dancing in the streets and holding hands together.  It just isn't going to happen in this culture.

[Perd Hapley]

if I say the President can be in error, suddenly my -- and any -- service becomes questionable fodder

Sigh.  That lie is getting tiresome. 

[roo_ster]

The ignorant and unserious might say GWB was comparing Iraq & VN, but those who listened to the speech think otherwise.  Precisely, that the effects of surrender will be similar in scope, gravity, and duration.

A little from Bennett this morning on the presidents speech yesterday  I'm indenting the bulk of the monologue but I caution that I paraphrase here and there ... didnt get every word down:

Quoting the president: Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility  but the terrorists see it differently.

To Bennett (who was dipping into his Last Best Hope):

   

heres the important, the philosophical and moral, launching point for our discussion today folks, based on President Bushs speech yesterday, and as we do this just remember the Democrats main mantra: the Presidents policies have isolated us in the world and made America less popular...

    a) I think President Bushs Vietnam analogy lily needed more gilding....

    First, do not put your most important point in the mouth of the terrorists, the enemy.

    Second, dont make this an arugment, there is no argument.

    There is NO argument that our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price, it carried almost all the price in the world.  In December 1974, the Democratic Congress ended military aid to South Vietnam. In April 1975, Saigon fell. Hanois communist regime imprisoned a million Vietnamese without charge in re-education camps, where an estimated 165,000 died.

    Laos and Cambodia also fell to communists in 1975. Over 40,000 Laotians had been imprisoned in re-education camps.

    Then, Cambodia:  2 million people killed.

    Now, b) or our credibility and our enemies:

    Sirik Matak, our ally in Cambodia, was offered transport out of cambodia in 1975 by our State Department.  Heres what he wrote, one month before he was killed:

    Dear Excellency and Friend, I thank you very sincerely for your letter and your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people, which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad, because we are all born and must die one day. I have committed this mistake of believing in you, the Americans. Please accept, Excellency, my dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.

    Heres what the South Vietnam envoy in DC said:  it is safer to be an ally of the Communists, and it looks like it is fatal to be an ally of the United States.

    Thats what happened to our allies.  Now, c) Heres how our enemies saw our withdrawal:

    Hafez Assad of Syria told Henry Kissinger in 1975:  Youve betrayed Vietnam, someday you will sell out Taiwan and well be around when you get tired Israel.  A month later, he invaded Lebanon.  Dont tell me we still arent paying that price!

    And finally, d) What was the aftermath of U.S. weakness, lack of resolve, and placing of doubt in our allies and conviction in our enemies?  I give you Jeane Kirkpatrick:  a dramatic Soviet military buildup, matched by the stagnation of American armed forces, and a dramatic extension of Soviet influence in the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan, Southern Africa, and the Caribbean, matched by a declining American position in all these areas. The U.S. has never tried so hard and failed so utterly to make and keep friends.

[Ezekiel]

if I say the President can be in error, suddenly my -- and any -- service becomes questionable fodder

Sigh.  That lie is getting tiresome. 

Then try being able to refute it.

"Lie?"  PUH-LEASE.

Iraq was -- and is -- a "bad idea."

That said, I enjoy your posts.

[wooderson]

But it is true, the pussification of America is indeed complete.

If vulgar and ignorant, there is some truth to this statement, though it has nothing to do with 'America' but rather the first world as a whole.

In the aftermath of the world wars, no longer is warfare considered a grand adventure, something every boy should take part in, a joyous patriotic orgasm of blood and heroism. War is brutal. War is inhumane. War is to be avoided at all costs.

Like slavery or keeping women as chattel or intertwining God and the State - taking pleasure in global, clash-of-nations warfare is a cultural idea that is dying out. Where once war opposition made you a pariah, today we are socially free to question our leaders' motivations. We're free to question the legitimacy of a war, and the very notion that 'winning' is paramount.

Thank god for that.

[The Rabbi]

But it is true, the pussification of America is indeed complete.

If vulgar and ignorant, there is some truth to this statement, though it has nothing to do with 'America' but rather the first world as a whole.

In the aftermath of the world wars, no longer is warfare considered a grand adventure, something every boy should take part in, a joyous patriotic orgasm of blood and heroism. War is brutal. War is inhumane. War is to be avoided at all costs.

Like slavery or keeping women as chattel or intertwining God and the State - taking pleasure in global, clash-of-nations warfare is a cultural idea that is dying out. Where once war opposition made you a pariah, today we are socially free to question our leaders' motivations. We're free to question the legitimacy of a war, and the very notion that 'winning' is paramount.

Thank god for that.

Actually the sentiment you express died out after WW1.  Look at the works to come out of that war: Goodbye to All That, All's Quiet On The Western Front, etc.  All of them are involved in the brutality of war and the lack of glamor.

But during WW2 there arose the idea that war is a messy nasty thing but necessary for the maintenance of democracy and honor.  People volunteered and gave their lives to maintain the American way of life.  This attitude continued through Korea and the beginning of Viet Nam.
By the end of Vietnam the peaceniks had pretty much convinced everyone that "war is bad" period.  There was no good reason to go to war, least of all promoting American interests.
That stayed around until the Gulf War when there was a re-evaluation.  Countering aggression and preserving life were now worthy goals, as long as they could be accomplished with little loss of life.  Precision missiles, high tech bombs etc meant war was more sanitary.  Thus we engaged in a bunch of adventures: Somalia, Bosnia, continued involvement in Kurdistan, and finally Afghanistan (which everyone predicted would be a Vietnam-style quagmire).
This all continued until the end of Phase I of the Iraq War, when we overthrew Saddam and took control within some very short time period, with minimal loss of American life.
But now that we are in Phase II, the guerrilla was phase, the old Vietnam crowd has re-asserted itself.  The idea of war being worthwhile to protect America is viewed as a naive throwback, certainly beneath the intellectuals and elite of this country.

[wooderson]

  The idea of war being worthwhile to protect America is viewed as a naive throwback, certainly beneath the intellectuals and elite of this country.

If you bias your argument in that way it certainly works. Ignoring the idea that people object to Iraq (and Vietnam - and actually Korea - and Iraq I even) because it doesn't "protect America" does make your ideology more justifiable.

[Gewehr98]

Rabbi, you've hit the nail on the head.

It's cyclical, and we're in the trough now. 

Kipling even saw the irony in his Tommy prose.

I make no apologies to anybody for being a retired warmonger.  That much is true.

Call me brainwashed, but I still firmly believe the best defense is a strong offense, and I don't particularly care to have a battle waged on our own soil when it can be accomplished on the aggressor's home turf.

War is vulgar.  Period.  I've got my combat stripes hanging on the wall, my own little F-bombs, as they were. Then again, sitting like Eloi waiting to be devoured by Morlocks strikes me as particularly vulgar in its own way, too.

I always enjoy the part where the doves ask, "Why didn't we take care of this before it became a problem?"

Better yet, "Why don't we have enough men and materiel for the task at hand?"

You don't have to read Sun Tzu or graduate from Air War College to figure it out. You want to maintain sovereignty, you can't play patty-cakes with the bad guys. Somebody's going to die. Just make sure it's them doing the lion's share of dying, instead of us. Attrition is a wonderful thing.

[wooderson]

Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and the rest of them are precisely the people being repudiated by humanity's growth. We're tired of war in a way that we have never been before.

(And to backtrack - while WWI made anti-war sentiment more acceptable in some circumstances, it certainly didn't keep the Germans and Italians from militarizing or fantasizing of their empires. Nor did it keep the French and English from continuing to fight for their colonial holdings. It was the brutality, particularly toward civilians, of WWII that brought the feeling mainstream.)

I don't particularly care to have a battle waged on our own soil when it can be accomplished on the aggressor's home turf

Central problem there again - neither Vietnam, nor Korea, nor Iraq were the "home turf" of "aggressors" who posed a threat to the US. This is the fundamental issue that 'warmongers' dishonestly ignore: 'peaceniks' don't hate America, they don't want to see it defenseless. They simply consider these particular wars unrelated to the 'national interest' much less necessary defense.

[Manedwolf]

Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and the rest of them are precisely the people being repudiated by humanity's growth. We're tired of war in a way that we have never been before.

The problem with being tired of war is that you then get overrun and conquered by the people who aren't. Those who beat their swords into plowshares will be made to plow for those who did not.

While you're contemplating your navel and visualizing world peace, someone who would rather think of conquering will sneak up and kill you and take all your stuff. And then what have you accomplished, besides self-engineered extinction of your culture?

And Sun Tzu's strategies for what must be done to win a war are as true now as the day he wrote them.

There will always be those who would rather take than produce. To believe otherwise is foolish, suicidal folly.