Iraq = Vietnam

[August1991]

Tet offensive?

Vietnam was one battle in the Cold War. Americans won the Cold War - for the good of us all. Did Churchill stop with Poland or Dunkerque? Did Kennedy stop at Cuba? Did Nixon stop at Cambodia?

The defense of individual liberty is a long war - it is a fight against dictators such as Louis XIV, Castro, Brezhnev, George III, Saddam, Lenin, Mussolini, Tojo. We all face threats to liberty - an individual's freedom to choose. The American people will say once again what they think, thank God.

Iraq? Afghanistan? Give these battles time to see what happens. I thank Americans for their defence of liberty. I hope my children's children will thank the American children whose parents defended liberty.

America is a wonderful country.

I am a Canadian but let me post once again what I believe about America and what all Americans should know and believe about their country:

Several years ago, my car broke down in a small town in Wisconsin and I had to wait several hours while it was in a garage. In wandering around the town, I saw a small monument with the names of some 10 young men from the town killed in Vietnam. I realized, "There are thousands of towns like this across America."

It has been fashionable on the Left to say the Vietnam War was a big mistake and America should never have gotten involved. No doubt, there were many errors committed in Vietnam, and Robert McNamara has listed many. Nevertheless, America was right to get involved. America was fighting the good fight. The same one Churchill fought.

Since World War II, America has learned that it must defend the principles of liberty abroad where it can and when the threat is particularly great to America itself.

This defense of liberty sometimes means lengthy, complex wars that last for years.

On the balance of evidence, Iraq had WMD and this provided justification for war. The possibility Iraq would share these weapons with a terrorist group also justified war. One forgets also the signal this war delivers to other countries about America's intention to defend itself. Gaddafi is not the same as before.

Most Canadians travel abroad without visas, move freely from one part of Canada to another and write all kinds of nonsense on forums such as this. Too easily, we take these freedoms for granted.

As Canadians, we should be grateful those young Americans believed in their country, and grateful America won the Cold War.

[jdobbin]

Tet offensive?

Vietnam was one battle in the Cold War. Americans won the Cold War - for the good of us all. Did Churchill stop with Poland or Dunkerque? Did Kennedy stop at Cuba? Did Nixon stop at Cambodia?

I'm not sure what point you're making in this post. Did Kennedy stop with Cuba. Um, yes, he did.

As far as the Vietnam references being made to Iraq. Most are untrue.

The only real comparison is that Americans are beginning to wonder if they can make things better over there. Just like Vietnam.

They can still be a wonderful country when deciding whether they are better off out of there.

[M.Dancer]

The Tet offensive, while being a military defeat for the VC and NVA, was also a moral defeat for the US. The origins of the loss of will to fight can be traced directly to Tet.

In that sense, the Tet offensive was a decisive victory.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Tet offensive?

Vietnam was one battle in the Cold War. Americans won the Cold War - for the good of us all. Did Churchill stop with Poland or Dunkerque? Did Kennedy stop at Cuba? Did Nixon stop at Cambodia?

I'm not sure what point you're making in this post. Did Kennedy stop with Cuba. Um, yes, he did.

As far as the Vietnam references being made to Iraq. Most are untrue.

The only real comparison is that Americans are beginning to wonder if they can make things better over there. Just like Vietnam.

They can still be a wonderful country when deciding whether they are better off out of there.

Did Vietnam - or more correctly, the threat by the US to use force overseas - help win the Cold War?

I don't. I think communism would have imploded anyway and Vietnam had nothing to do with it. As for Iraq, it's difficult to say anything has been won. There are those who argue that Bush has "saved" Iraq and Afghanistan - but, from what?

[August1991]

I'm not sure what point you're making in this post. Did Kennedy stop with Cuba. Um, yes, he did.

As far as the Vietnam references being made to Iraq. Most are untrue.

The only real comparison is that Americans are beginning to wonder if they can make things better over there. Just like Vietnam.

Kennedy accepted defeat at the Bay of Pigs but stood up to Khrushchev to have missiles removed from Cuba. Kennedy expanded the US military in Vietnam. When the Soviets built the Berlin Wall encircling West Berlin and cutting it off from West Germany, Kennedy made it plain to the Soviets that they risked nuclear war if they tried to occupy the enclave.

The West faces a different threat to liberty than it faced in the Cold War but it's still a threat.

Here is the context and I should have posted this quote in the OP:

President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate.

Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.

"He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."

"George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here's how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw."

ABC

The Tet offensive, while being a military defeat for the VC and NVA, was also a moral defeat for the US. The origins of the loss of will to fight can be traced directly to Tet.

In that sense, the Tet offensive was a decisive victory.

But it was only a victory for the Communists in one battle of a much larger war.

The fall of France was a victory for Hitler's Germany but he was eventually defeated.

Did Vietnam - or more correctly, the threat by the US to use force overseas - help win the Cold War?

I don't. I think communism would have imploded anyway and Vietnam had nothing to do with it.

How soon people forget.

Communism? The Soviet Union? What was that? Oh right. It just imploded.

The Soviets were aggressive and expansionist. They (and many others at the time) believed that Communism was the way of the future. Americans under presidents from Truman to Reagan consistently stood up to this threat. Eventually, Americans defeated the Soviets.

As for Iraq, it's difficult to say anything has been won. There are those who argue that Bush has "saved" Iraq and Afghanistan - but, from what?

Gaddafi gave up his WMD. Other potential threats know what could happen to them. Saddam Hussein is no longer around to cause any problem.

What too many fail to realize is that for a threat to be credible, force has to be used occasionally.

[Guest Warwick Green]

As for Iraq, it's difficult to say anything has been won. There are those who argue that Bush has "saved" Iraq and Afghanistan - but, from what?

Gaddafi gave up his WMD. Other potential threats know what could happen to them. Saddam Hussein is no longer around to cause any problem.

What too many fail to realize is that for a threat to be credible, force has to be used occasionally.

Depends on what is left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan. It won't be a democracy in either country. In fact Iraq might even by partitioned. And nothing the US is doing will prevent Iran, Syria and others from financing terrorism. I don't see a real threat to the US from any of these countries - more sabre rattling than anything.

But they all do know one thing - the US is the only country in the West with any testicular fortitude. And if they become a real threat at some time in the future the US will engage in unilateral action.

[Black Dog]

It has been fashionable on the Left to say the Vietnam War was a big mistake and America should never have gotten involved. No doubt, there were many errors committed in Vietnam, and Robert McNamara has listed many. Nevertheless, America was right to get involved. America was fighting the good fight. The same one Churchill fought.

That, in the parlance of our times, is bullshit. And for Christ's sake, stop diging up WSC's corpse to prop up your arguments (not that Churchill was exactly the paragon of virtue everyone make him out to be today).

Kennedy accepted defeat at the Bay of Pigs but stood up to Khrushchev to have missiles removed from Cuba. Kennedy expanded the US military in Vietnam. When the Soviets built the Berlin Wall encircling West Berlin and cutting it off from West Germany, Kennedy made it plain to the Soviets that they risked nuclear war if they tried to occupy the enclave.

The West faces a different threat to liberty than it faced in the Cold War but it's still a threat.

And fatuous remark of the day goes to...

Radical Islam is a threat, but nothing on the scale of fascism or Soviet communism (a threat which was always checked by the possibility of nuclear war). It is not an existensial threat.

But it was only a victory for the Communists in one battle of a much larger war.

The fall of France was a victory for Hitler's Germany but he was eventually defeated.

August, the Communists won the Vietnam war. The collapse of communism in Europe doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that the North Vietnamese accomplished what they set out to do: the independence of Vietnam from its former colonial status and the reunification of the country. Indeed, it can be argued that the loss of Vietnam and the subsequent defeat of communism repudiates your theory. IOW, Vietnam had no bearing on the Cold War's endgame.

The Soviets were aggressive and expansionist. They (and many others at the time) believed that Communism was the way of the future. Americans under presidents from Truman to Reagan consistently stood up to this threat. Eventually, Americans defeated the Soviets

And? Doe sthat then mean that every time America does something it is right and just? Honestly, August, I never saw you as being so Manichean before.

Gaddafi gave up his WMD.

Gaddafi's decision to give up his WMD had nowt to do with Iraq. Sorry, we've been there before.

What too many fail to realize is that for a threat to be credible, force has to be used occasionally.

Force misapplied can be as dmaging to a country's strategic ends as inaction. Indeed, Churchill himself ( _ would probably argue that force be used only in defense of strictly limited interests, with careful attention to risks and costs. Iraq certainly does not appear to fit that description.

[Rue]

The U.S. went into Vietnam in an era where they truly felt they were engaged in a war against communism v.s. democracy. The problem is they tried to use their under-classes to fight the war. They lost because it became a class war where the privileged stayed at home enjoying their inequality while the poor lost their lives not to mention also where blacks soon realized they had no beef with Viet Cong but had much in common with them as to how they were treated by white Americans.

The U.S. lost the war because it had no vision and no moral ground from which to culminate its attempt to spread its alleged cultural and moral superiority.

The Vietnam War was one of genuine cultural imperialism not oil. Ironically years after its ending, Coca Cola and Nike marched in turning Vietnam into another source of cheap labour and capitalism did win out.

In Iraq, like in Vietnam, the Americans claim they were coming in to a savage country to help the heathens find democracy. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq has oil. Iraq is all about oil. The pretense of bringing democracy to heathen and/or fighting terrorism or making the world safer fools no one, not even Republicans.

We all know it was and is always about oil and trying to protect oil pipelines. We all know brave American soldiers die because the oil conglamorates try to use them as security guards for the pipelines and has made them sitting ducks to be picked off one by one by terrorist attacks. Like Vietnam the U.S. has made the mistake of thinking it could use its conventional army as a political police force and political occupation force and like Vietnam, today's Iraqi terrorists merely up-date the Viet Cong tactics which are of course Mao Tse Tung's gift to the earth from his little Red Book.

So like Vietnam, the conventional army is now caught in a civilian war of attrition it can't win. Like the Viet Cong they blend into the back-ground but unlike the Viet Cong some are mercanaries while others are religious fundamentalists but like the Viet Cong, they despise everything America stands for.

The similiarity is that the U.S. went into a country it does not belong, tried to impose a government, and tried to act as if it was superior to the natives and could colonize them. It is simply an updated version of the Christian crusades, or the British in so many countries, or any colonial regime you care to mention. The Americans went in to get and protect oil and instead they have gotten caught in quick-sand and any idiot could have seen this would happen but America is all about ego and believing they are superior to

non Christian savages. Nothing changes,

Like any colonial power, the natives grow more and more restless, destroying the country, and they will end up with their illusion of freedom once they rid themselves of the Americans, until yet another corupt totalitarian regime takes over and no doubt engages in deals with the oil monkey men. Today's enemy is tomorrow's ally and so on.

The only question remains how much will these "savages" want in bribes once the Americans have to pull out and like the Vietnamese communists who had no problem getting into bed with Coca Cola and Nike so will these alleged Muslim puritans get into bed with Exxon, Shell, etc., when the time comes.

The more it changes, the less things change.

[jdobbin]

Kennedy accepted defeat at the Bay of Pigs but stood up to Khrushchev to have missiles removed from Cuba. Kennedy expanded the US military in Vietnam. When the Soviets built the Berlin Wall encircling West Berlin and cutting it off from West Germany, Kennedy made it plain to the Soviets that they risked nuclear war if they tried to occupy the enclave.

The West faces a different threat to liberty than it faced in the Cold War but it's still a threat.

Here is the context and I should have posted this quote in the OP:

President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate.

Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago.

"He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."

"George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here's how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw."

ABC

My reference to Cuba was that he stopped short from attempting a misguided invasion again. The blockade was a separate issue.

As to the talk of the rest of the cold war, the U.S. leaving Vietnam wasn't a defeat in the cold war. It was an act of self preservation...for the United States.

Leaving Iraq isn't a defeat on the war on terrorism. Iraq was never about the war on terrorism.

[STOLYPIN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvUJIT6rins&search=Borat Patriot Rally

[KrustyKidd]

Leaving Iraq isn't a defeat on the war on terrorism. Iraq was never about the war on terrorism.

Iraq was and is about removing an impediment to prosecuting the WOT and creating an invaluable asset and tool to do same.

[Liam]

If Iraq is so important, why didn't Bush doing everything he ought to have done to assure victory? If it was so central to the war on terror, shouldn't they have planned better prior to waging the battle? Iraq was a war fought on enormous leaps faith: faith that the justification (WMD) would be uncovered, faith that the people in the West Wing knew more about Iraq than the tribes and factions who have lived there for centuries, faith that the war would be quick and easy, and faith that the American public would congratulate their leadership for the quick victory. Unfortunately for Bush, each and every assumption about the war and about Iraq, every one of those leaps of faith, turned out to be false.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKid,

Iraq was and is about removing an impediment to prosecuting the WOT and creating an invaluable asset and tool to do same.

Not really. We are now seeing the fruition of the 'popcorn amongst the monkeys' tactic. It may be a 'tool', but certainly not one of the better ones.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ost&p=33882

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE

Either they will allow secession and Iraq will balkanize into a few small, ethnically contiguous states or they will not, in which case we can look forward to at least a few years of Iraqi civil war and probably a longer period of terrorism, as Russia is undergoing now.

You are quite right. Furthermore, I was told a while ago by an Arabic (Sikh) friend of mine, that this was the intentional tactic by the US all along. He told me that there is an old phrase in his culture, "to drop a bucket of popcorn amongst the monkeys". The same tactic is working in Afghanistan.

[KrustyKidd]

Not really. We are now seeing the fruition of the 'popcorn amongst the monkeys' tactic. It may be a 'tool', but certainly not one of the better ones.

I undertand your theory but don't understand why the US should invest so much to undermine one country when they could simply move on and do more to more. Also, a stable country even if opposed to the US is better than an unstable friend.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKid,

a stable country even if opposed to the US is better than an unstable friend

If that is the case, why did they invade Iraq? Certainly Saddam provided stability, if nothing else. He was in no position to 'destabilize the region', as he was 'kept in his box'. He wasn't even trying (for the last 10 years or so). It wasn't about 9/11, though you do make the point that things did chang after that incident, and it wasn't about WMDs, nor the WOT. So, what was the real reason? (I don't believe it was a warning to Saudi Arabia, they could have done that over lunch)

[Higgly]

... it is a fight against dictators such as Louis XIV, Castro, Brezhnev, George III, Saddam, Lenin, Mussolini, Tojo. We all face threats to liberty - an individual's freedom to choose. The American people will say once again what they think, thank God.

With respect to Louis, I think you have your I and your V reversed. Why not cite the Spanish Inquisition as well? By the way, which country did Louis invade? Refresh my memory...

Castro. Hmmmm. Which country did he invade? Cuba... don't they have universal health and dental care there? What would Cuba be like without the 40+ year long American embargo? Are Cuba's problems really Castro's fault? My theory is that it would be a much different place if the Americans had learned to forgive and forget. How much do you know about Cuba, and why the revolution occurred?

Brezhnev. Well not a great guy, but why pick him? My favorite Russian asswhole has to be Stalin. Probably he greatest mass murderer who has ever lived.

Saddam. Again, not a great guy; would more Iraqis be alive today if he had been left alone?

Mussolini. Yes a clown. Il Dupé. I guess we can say he got his just desserts, can't we?

Tojo. Are you familiar with tha way in which Japan was inveigled into entering the Second World War? Well, again, not a great guy, but a military man at the end of the day, just following orders. It really is the politicans who should be getting the blame. Why is it that still respect Rommel and revile Hitler?

[M.Dancer]

Tojo. Are you familiar with tha way in which Japan was inveigled into entering the Second World War? Well, again, not a great guy, but a military man at the end of the day, just following orders. It really is the politicans who should be getting the blame. Why is it that still respect Rommel and revile Hitler?

I was with you till the last part. The politicians that got Japan into the war (well they were at war already, they just extended it) were the military clique. They were the ones who shut down the moderates, who pushed for war in Manchuria, who were convinced that siezing the dutch oilfields would be their winning prize.....

....and Tojo, Prime minister from oct 1941 to 1944, was thier man.

[Higgly]

Well, you have a point, but he did try to negotiate and ended up backed into a corner. One could argue that this was a battle over spheres of influence, with the US going beyond their natural boundaries and Japan trying to secure its own. I will acknowledge that my reading on this is a bit dusty; I guess I should pay a visit to the library. I forgot that he was prime minister (yikes)

[ft.niagara]

As far as the Vietnam references being made to Iraq. Most are untrue.

The only real comparison is that Americans are beginning to wonder if they can make things better over there. Just like Vietnam.

I think that the comparison between VietNam and Iraq is that there is a civil war going on. In Iraq the civil war started when that Golden Mosque was bombed, which was its intent. In Viet Nam, the north wanted a unified country, more than the south wanted their independence. The US could not stop a civil war, especially when the north was well supplied. In the case of Iraq, the US can not stop a civil war, especially when the sides are well supplied. The US wins every battle, but can not win an endless war when blood is no object. The US can only propup a government so long. The US did not loose in Viet Nam, the south VietNamese did not want democracy enough. In the same way, if Iraq does not stabilize, THEY do not want democracy enough. In that way, Iraq is like Viet Nam, IMO.

[KrustyKidd]

If that is the case, why did they invade Iraq? Certainly Saddam provided stability, if nothing else. He was in no position to 'destabilize the region', as he was 'kept in his box'. He wasn't even trying (for the last 10 years or so). It wasn't about 9/11, though you do make the point that things did chang after that incident, and it wasn't about WMDs, nor the WOT. So, what was the real reason? (I don't believe it was a warning to Saudi Arabia, they could have done that over lunch)

For a lot of reasons that I listed here. There are probably more.

[jdobbin]

For a lot of reasons that I listed here. There are probably more.

Should the United States send 20,000 more troops to stabilize Iraq as John McCain suggests?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446757/

[ft.niagara]

For a lot of reasons that I listed here. There are probably more.

Should the United States send 20,000 more troops to stabilize Iraq as John McCain suggests?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446757/

A common complaint of Rumsfield was that he did not send ENOUGH toops. Then there are those who say we should withdraw troops. I am of the second thought. WITHDRAW, and let the chip fall where they may. McCain is far from a military genius, last in class at Annapolis. He must have made a thorn in side prisoner, because he is a thorn in side Senator.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear jdobbin,

Should the United States send 20,000 more troops to stabilize Iraq as John McCain suggests?

It depends on what they want to happen. Do they want to win, or just get some practice? They shoudn't continue as they have, there should be no questioning that. If they aim to 'democratize Iraq', they better send enough troops in to secure the country, at least 100,000. Proxy gov't (UN [or a new, improved model, the present one sucks] or NATO controlled) for a period of at least 5-10 years, and martial law superceding any religious or other concerns. Just to be nice, though, a velvet glove on the iron fist.

One must have a winning strategy to go on the offensive. Otherwise, one should be playing defence. I can't believe these clowns haven't read Sun Tzu!

[jdobbin]

A common complaint of Rumsfield was that he did not send ENOUGH toops. Then there are those who say we should withdraw troops. I am of the second thought. WITHDRAW, and let the chip fall where they may. McCain is far from a military genius, last in class at Annapolis. He must have made a thorn in side prisoner, because he is a thorn in side Senator.

I haven't heard a reaction in the United States yet. I just know that Bush hasn't stated what his new strategy is.

[jdobbin]

It depends on what they want to happen. Do they want to win, or just get some practice? They shoudn't continue as they have, there should be no questioning that. If they aim to 'democratize Iraq', they better send enough troops in to secure the country, at least 100,000. Proxy gov't (UN [or a new, improved model, the present one sucks] or NATO controlled) for a period of at least 5-10 years, and martial law superceding any religious or other concerns. Just to be nice, though, a velvet glove on the iron fist.

One must have a winning strategy to go on the offensive. Otherwise, one should be playing defence. I can't believe these clowns haven't read Sun Tzu!

Do you think Bush will be able to get 100,000 troops if he loses Congress in the mid-terms?