Bush, Iraq, and Vietnam...

In many of our nation's newspapers today, there is an excellent article about Robert McNamara and the "11 mistakes" that the US made regarding Vietnam, and their relevance to the current situation in Iraq.

Mistake #1 - exaggeration of the dangers of our enemies, and their capabilities in the area. (We did this in Vietnam by failing to understand the purely local and nationalistic drive of the Vietnamese people towards independence, instead constantly pointing out the whole "domino theory" thing and the dangers of world communism - this from a poor agricultural and backwards country that just wanted to be "free" from colonial domination. Bush did exactly the same thing with Iraq by exaggerating the dangers of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.)

There are other parallel "mistakes" that we made in Vietnam, and apparently have now repeated under Bush's incompetent leadership with our mess in Iraq.

This, combined with the recent images of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners, ensures the defeat of this ridiculous and absurb presidency this fall. John Kerry, you are our next president.

Bush supporters, look in the mirror and repent. Your guy has screwed up the country, the economy, and even the one thing he claims expertise in - warfare against terrorism. What possible saving grace is there left to this administration? Who in their right mind will vote for Bush this fall except for the Rush Limbaugh / idiot fringe?

I welcome your responses.... in particular from Vanover and the other "apologists" for atrocity that we will no doubt hear from.

By the way, Rush recently equated the horrifying images from the Iraqi prisons with "college students just having fun!" almost like it was a fraternity bash or something - no one was "hurt". This is just how good old Republican boys apparently get their kicks.

Defend that - if you will, or if you dare.

 

Hi Carl,

Please have a look in the mirror yourself.

I think I know where you're coming from. But, let me ask anyway, do you think you are God?

The reason I ask is that Ann Coulter discusses the difference between liberals and conservatives in the last couple paragraphs of her book Treason.

I watched CSPAN during the Senate hearing on Abu Gharib Prison. I was most impressed with Sentator Joe Lieberman. I think he was embarrassed by more than a few of his colleagues. Senator Lieberman's opening remarks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8575-2004May7_3.html

 

Carl-

I haven't read this piece yet, but I have read many local columns parroting the same "quagmire" line. (I admit it: I used to be a lifelong newspaper subscriber - "used to be!" But no longer.

With the internet, I need no longer support the self-righteous, group-thinking elitist media - so I don't e.g.,
http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/05/07/409bbfc0d5b00 - people who are our alleged "betters" who get thier facts wrong and give us their opinions instead - as though the sheeple must be led.

(I have, naturally, corrected local media repeatedly in recent weeks.)

Now, as to this latest version of quagmire: The Kurdish north is democratic and largely peaceful; to judge the Shi'ite south based on British (10% of US troops) loses in 2004 - 6 deaths all in January except 1 - the south, too is peaceful.

The problem isn't all of Iraq. (Remember: Iraqi's have lost more men that the coalition - and they've suffered much more death from terror attacks.) the problem is the Sunni Triangle region that never experienced the 4th ID's boot since they couldn't come through Turkey.

Therefore, it isn't a "quagmire," but rather a persistent, regionally localized problem that simply continues unresolved. That "story" is wrong on the facts.

The real issue is how many US lives is it worth to keep a country together that doesn't want to be? Or do we gain something extremely valuable in having a demonstration project in Sunni democracy - tolerating other groups? Here, the Bushies have failed us (not making the case), and the media have failed us (to properly ID the problem); instead the latter have fallen to hysterics (it's a months-old story - only the pictures are new).

Tom Donnelly at the www.weekleystandard.com comes to my conclusions in the last third of his piece
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/070dgeng.asp

And Robert Kagan, et. al., offer one strategic solution to the issue here
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/056mvrqy.asp

Another if proferred by strategist Ralph Peters at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1120074/posts

Now, if the media were truly open to real thinking, their prejudice would be subject to testing against the facts, and the possible solutions would be actually discussed intellegently instead of the persistenly brain-dead manner we actually see! But, no.

Finally, Lawrence Kaplan has some answers on the prison abuse and John Kerry's prospects
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=kaplan050704

--Orson

 

Here's what John Kerry has to say...

From his official website...

"The first responsibility of the President is to keep our country safe and secure. That means honoring America's calling to be the strongest force for freedom around the world and the greatest engine of opportunity here at home. That is why I am running for President. And I will never cede the issue of strength to the other party.


Strength means working with our allies to win the war on terror, not going it alone. Strength means taking responsibility. Today, Secretary Rumsfeld apologized on Capitol Hill. But the chain of command goes all the way to the Oval Office. Harry Truman did not say “The buck stops at the Pentagon.” And after 241 Marines were killed by terrorists in Beirut, Ronald Reagan had the strength to say, “If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this Office and with this President. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.


America does not merely need a new Secretary of Defense. We need a new President. One who is strong enough to give our brave troops the allies and the armor they need; and one who is strong enough to take responsibility and, when necessary, correct course. We need a President who knows the difference between strength – and stubbornness.


Strength means standing up to the chemical industry to protect our chemical plants from attack, not giving in to big campaign checks. Strength means giving our firefighters and police officers the equipment and training they need to keep us safe, not telling local officials: "You're on your own."


Strength means lifting up the middle class and giving them the bigger tax break, not just the wealthiest Americans. Strength means having a health care plan that lowers costs, not pretending that nothing's wrong. Strength means ensuring that our kids get a good education, not just in affluent neighborhoods but everywhere. Strength means balancing the budget, not passing on trillions of dollars in debt to our kids. And strength means leading in a way that brings opportunity to all and special privileges to none.


It is time America had a president who understands that strength abroad means providing real leadership in the world, and taking responsibility for the bad as well as the good. And strength at home means building a stronger economy by getting results for the American people, and demanding accountability.


This is the kind of president we need in Washington, the kind of president I will be. It's not a new way or a third way-it's the right way to lead America and make America strong again.


Our opponents think that all they have to do is run $60 million in misleading ads. They think we'll back down and we'll cede them the issue of strength. Well, if they think the tired old arguments of the past are going to win in this new world-they guessed wrong. We will debate this Administration on every issue, any time, any place. We're ready because we know that they don't own the flag: they don't own patriotism; they don't own strength. All of these values belong to all of America. And we're going to stand our ground, tell the truth, and fight for a country that lives up to our ideals."

From Remarks of Senator John Kerry
Democratic Leadership Council
May 7, 2004
Phoenix, Arizona

Sounds about right to me. In fact, downright upright. What do the bankrupt policies of the Republican right have to say in response?

- Carl

 

Well, if Ann Coulter and Rush said it then it must be uh.......uh..

 

I agree with you completely. Bush keeps peddling the propaganda that we are wiping out terrorism, when the harsh reality is that we are engendering worldwide hatred for the U.S. that will take generations to undo. Does anyone honestly believe we are now in a safer world than before this war started?

The prison fiasco is just one more sign that the administration doesn't have a clue what's going on over there. Meanwhile, we are supposed to cough up another $150 billion or so to keep this charade going. And the Washington Post (I know that horrible liberal rag that has an office full of Pulitzers - when in fact we should be getting our news from right-wing, Republican bloggers) reports that many high-ranking military officials are openly questioning whether the war is winnable (does it sound like Viet Nam to you?).

And the Bush eloquence that everyone hailed after 9/11 is nowhere to be found. He can't articulate a decent apology. Worse yet, he cannot admit a mistake. This guy has not progressed very far from the towel-snapping high school punk of 40 years ago.

He needs to quickly grow-up, fess up to the enormous blunder he has sunk this country into, and bow out gracefully in November.

Unfortunately, it will be the next Democratic administration, and all of the American people, that will have to clean up the diplomatic and economic mess he has created.

Don't forget to thank him for turning the biggest surplus in history into another back-breaking Republican deficit on his way out. Does that sound familiar? Think Reagan and Bushie #1 if you need to jog your memory.

As Lloyd Bentsen said about Regan-Bush in the 1988 vice-presidential debate (paraphrasing): "I can give you the illusion of prosperity too, if you allow me to write $100 billion worth of bad checks every year." (feel free to insert your own number, for today's illusion.)

Finally, why does anyone listen to Rush Limbaugh? He’s a prototypical hypocrite. Here’s a guy who for years condemned all the liberal drug addicts and welfare shirkers, and he, of course, turned out to be the biggest drug addict of them all. The investigations into abuses at the Iraqi prison are reputed to include 25 or so suspicious deaths. Some college pranks.

 

Re: Here's what John Kerry has to say...

And, I'm here to tell you that John Kerry is not that kind of President.

John Kerry has been one of my two Senators for many years. He is, without a doubt, one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever met in my entire life.

He lives in the lap of luxury (thanks to 2nd wife Teresa Heinz), yet tells us (the American public) that we should pay more in taxes.

No, I don't think so, John. I pay enough in taxes already.

 

That says more about why McNamara and his boss let Vietnam become a quagmire than it does about the current situation. McNamara and Johnson had us fighting the wrong enemy. It wasn't pure nationalist goals that motivated the VC, it was the NVA. The VC is an an example of an insurgency that was heavily supported and motivated by a foreign power, North Vietnam. That became painfully apparent after the US pullout, when the NVA went in in full force and toppled Saigon. It wasn't Vietnamese nationalism that turned Vietnam into a quagmire, it was McNamara pointing us to the wrong enemy that did it. We fought a counter insurgency when we should have been fighting a foreign power.

I won't defend the autrocities in Iraq. It is imparative that those who purpetrated them be punished swiftly and severely. That in the year 2004 there are still enlisted soldiers who claim they were "just following orders" is problematic. However, I don't think it's a systemic problem in the Army. Most soldiers know what to do when they are told to "do whatever it takes." They know that it is not a liscence to break the law. Clearly, the soldiers in Iraq who committed these acts should have been better supervised. This appears to me to be a case of NCOs not leading their troops and improperly interpreting orders from higher-ups.

 

Hmmm

Ha Ha Ha. Sorry I must laugh.
I get such a kick of the political finger pointing.
It's Bush II, It's Clinton, It's Bush I, It's Reagan,

Geez.... No my friends, it's us.

What is the Middle East but a festering sore sitting on Mother Earth. Is current, has been, and will always be.
This a part of the world where no nation seems to learn it's lesson.

Churchill was the only leader during England's 16 year rule how had the gonads to state the truth about Iraq and the rest of the region.

Look at America and the relation to the Middle East. Since the enception of Israel in 1947 by the UN, the US has seen itself as the police, protector, and saviour of the Middle East.

My cousin served there in the 1970's, myself in the 80's ( I noticed the 1983 Lebanon comment ), my other cousin in Gulf I, and now my bro in law in Gulf II. All in all, the same old thing. Take out a despot then be social workers in uniform. Heck, there was one point during my tour that I had to unlock and unload my weapon so not to offend. So me and the rest of my platoon were sitting ducks, oh! but we were such nice ducks.

Look at us now. We want to throw eggs at our soldiers again. They are evil, they are terrible. Oh my God!!!
What a bunch of Liberal left wing tripe!!!

What we now have is a military that is stretched to beyond its limits. We have National Guard cannon cockers acting as MP's.
We have 40+% of our service members in Iraq that are National Guardsmen. Sorry, National Guardsmen are not trained to be warriors, they are trained as state patrols for tragedy such as 9/11, floods, riots, etc. not 12-24 month deployments in hostile zones.

No, I am not a fan of Bush, but our military was ripped apart under Clinton.

I don't know, maybe I will get off my soapbox, but just one last example. Why are we there? Iraq holds the 2nd largest oil reserves. Why do we need the oil. Well, could it be because Clinton and the liberal elite decided to cap oil wells, bar drilling, and jump on the Earth First bandwagon.

Remember today all the leftist in California are crying like stuck pigs to Arnold to claim a state of emergency due to $2+ gas prices.
Oh my my 8mpg Excursion needs fuel so my yuppie, spoiled, elite arse can drive to a college party. Now soldier go die for me because we all know my coward arse will never serve because the world owes me.

Bush, Kerry, Nadar, ??? None of the above???

I think it is time we all have a reality check and ask who really is responsible in today's unaccountable generation.

As my old First Sgt used to say.

Quite yer bitchin, suck it up and drive on.

 

Re: Hmmm

I agree with much of your post, but you're wrong there. National Guard soldiers receive the same training as their regular Army counterparts, and also get intensive readiness training before being deployed.

I spent 3 years active Army, 6 years National Guard, and I would have ranked my Guard unit as equal or superior to many regular Army units. The assistant commander of the 1st Infantry Division thought the same thing when we were deployed for Gulf War I, and commented to me that my unit changed his mind about the National Guard.

 

Re: Re: Bush, Iraq, and Vietnam...

Foreign power???? The only foreign powers in Vietnam between the early 19th century and 1973 were the French, and then the United States (and various allies and client states). Calling North Vietnam a foreign nation to South Vietnam is like saying that north Florida is a different state than South Florida. True, there are regional differences, but Vietnam was and is one of the most unified countries and peoples in the entire world. The whole problem was that we didn't recognize that had elections been held at any time, the communists/NVA would have won by a landslide throughout both "North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam" - in other words, the vast majority of people of all of Vietnam were entirely unified in their opposition to foreign domination, and just also so happened to be communist. The only legitimate power in Vietnam in the eyes of the Vietnamese people was the one established by Ho Chi Minh. The South Vietnamese government was a joke, run by puppets of France and the US, entirely foreign in their outlook to Vietnamese society, and supported by a plethora of repressive tools from a violent Saddam-like secret police to a military bought and paid for by US dollars.

We were so concerned with "stopping Communism" at the 17th parallel that we poured millions of dollars into an army for what was essentially a (South) Vietnamese dictatorship, and then were left to wonder why the common people/peasants were secretly or openly against us - as those same peasants watched their homes burned, their wives raped, and their children hauled off to the armies of Ngo Dinh Diem, Nguyen Kao Ky, and Thieu. A sorry procession of demagogues who ultimately fell before the superior moral position of "North" Vietnam.

IMHO....

- Carl

 

Hello Bruce

Sir,

I would gather that it depends on the Guard unit.

My active duty consisted of 12B status, then EOD in the Middle East with the 101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, and back to the 101st RDF. After my 3 yr stint, I spent the remainder with a National Guard MP unit.

Frankly Bruce, It was a joke.
I can actually say I was ashamed that this unit which I belonged was even allowed to exist.
The guard unit was, believe it or not, an MP unit.
During a review with the NCIOC during my ETS he almost begged me to re-up.

Once I unloaded, his response, well you have to realize the regular, esp. Airborne are held to higher standards. I was agast, long story short, my view of the ARNG was basically what it was during training stints in Campbell and Bragg.
No Go's, Weekend Warriors etc.
Keep in mind, Im sure there are some very great guard units with the Esprit of Corp at hand, but this was my experience.

On the other side of the coin.
With all do respect, 2 weeks a year as a citizen soldier does not properly prepare for 52 weeks in a war zone. Again, we are so depleted that we are taking National Guard Artillery members and transfering them as MP Correctional Confinment Specialist with no training.

There is much difference between the operation of a 105mm Howitzer than than the operation of a correction institution or a POW processing and holding center.

I have 2 bro in laws in this arena one working on his second year.

My only concern here is the govt is planning 130K troops throughout 2005. Under the current cycle and current strenth, we cannot handle this under current rolls.

Heck, we have guys in Croatia, Korea, Germany, Okinawa, Thailand, Afghanistan, Siani, N. Africa, Panama, etc.

In Iraq, one could say, and sometime I think, just kill'm all and let Satan sort'm out, but then we lower ourselves to the animal level of our enemy. Whoever, has the answer let me know.

Sorry, I don't see any beacon of light with Bush nor Kerry.
Maybe I would feel better about Kerry if he did not seem to have the Kennedy drunkard behind him everytime I see him, plus, who is his running mate, Hillary!!!???!!!

Thanks for your thoughts Bruce

Dave

 

Carl

Some would say that Northern Florida is a different state than Southern Florida.

 

Re: Hello Bruce

And you for yours.

We obviously had different experiences with the Guard. Maybe the Massachusetts NG is doing something right, because all of the units from MA that were deployed for Gulf War I received glowing praise from their RA commanders.

Ironically, I also was in the 101st (1984-86) and then in a NG Military Police unit (972 MP Company). My old NG unit was state activated for 6 months at Logan Airport following 9/11, then deployed to (I think) Bosnia for a year. They're home now, but on the list to get sent to Iraq.

Glad I got out.....

 

Bruce,

Now that is close
101st ABN 1982-1985

 

Dave, what unit in the 101st? I was in Division Recon.

 

Re: Hmmm

No. Nobody's saying that. Most liberals have a problem with Bush and his gutless, thickheaded cronies

No, if we are to believe Bush, we are there to free the Middle East and turn it into one big democracy.

I guess I should be insulted, but it's such a stupid-assed generalization, that it just makes me laugh. Moreover, it sure as hell doesn't apply to me, and probably a few million others in the State. Next time you visit the grocery store and the produce section, you might want to remind yourself that most of the food you pound down that big gut of yours comes from this State (picked and harvested mostly by immigrants - most of whom are Democrats and not the slightest bit elitist). This spoiled, elitist yuppie puts in 300 miles a week training, racing and commuting, on this strangely efficient machine with pedals that you turn with the muscles of your leg. You might want to try it some time. Then you might be able to ditch YOUR SUV.

But seriously, if that's really how you feel, why in god's sake did you join the military? I mean, if you're only protecting a bunch of cowards who don't care if you die, seems kind of stupid, doesn't it? I suspect the real reason is that you don't really believe your own words, and that your words say more about your own prejudices than they do about reality. That'll be $50 bucks, please.

 

Re: Re: Hmmm

Dave has conservative leanings, so you assume that he has a "big gut"?

Tell me again about generalizations?

 

Re: Carl

Yeah I know. I live here! That's why I used the example - however different the two parts of the state are, it is still ALL Florida though. Just as Vietnam is, and always has been, ALL Vietnam.

 

DO YOU SEE WHO WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE?

For days now the world's media has been full of stories about the abuse of prisoners at the now-infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Let's review. We had pictures of Iraqi prisoners in a pile, pictures of an Iraqi prisoner wearing a leash held by an female American soldier. There was a picture of another Iraqi prisoner being intimidated by dogs and one standing on a box with a hood over his head and some wires attached to his hands. Strong stuff, right? And ohhhhh ... the outrage!

Now ... what pictures did we see yesterday? We saw pictures of brave Arabs redeeming their manhood by beheading an American civilian named Nick Berg. These peace-loving Muslims first read a statement, then they pushed Berg to the floor and proceeded to saw off his head with a large knife while shouting "God is great." You could hear Nick Berg screaming .. right up until the time the knife went through his windpipe. When they were finished these brave Arabs, their manhood redeemed, held up his head for the camera.

Suddenly the pictures of what happened in the Abu Ghraib prison don't seem to be quite so horrific, do they? The victims of abuse at the hands of U.S. soldiers will be compensated by United States taxpayers. Nick Berg will be buried ... in two pieces.

Compare the two cultures. While America is investigating the abuse of Iraqi prisoners ... while America is preparing to punish those responsible ... while America is apologizing to the families of the prisoners and their countrymen for the actions of a few soldiers, and preparing to pay these families large sums of money .. while America is trying to do the right thing, Arab Muslims are slaughtering an innocent American civilian who's only crime was he was looking for a job trying to improve the Iraqi communications infrastructure.

This was a terrorist attack. It was an attack by Islamic terrorists, only this time it took five men to kill one American. One American civilian, or 3000 ... it's terrorism all the same.

Will this finally convince you that we are in the midst of a war? It's a World War. A war being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, on Manhattan Island and the Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. It's a war being fought in former Soviet republics; a war is being fought on the island of Bali and in the Philippines. This is World War III -- a war against fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists and terrorists. These are the people we are fighting. They are vicious relentless Muslim animals who will not stop killing innocent Americans and who will not abandon their dream of a world dominated by Islam until they are utterly and completely destroyed. These are people without a conscious who believe that the way to redeem their honor is to brutally slaughter innocent human beings, and this they do in the name of their god.

The question may be discomforting, but do these Islamic terrorist fanatics draw encouragement from the constant Democratic attacks on the president and the liberation of the people of Iraq from one of history's most brutal dictators? How could they not? How could these vicious Islamic bastards not draw comfort from Ted Kennedy's comparisons of Iraq with Vietnam? These Islamic fanatics know they're at war. They make no secret of their ambition and intention to destroy America. Do you think they haven't studied our history? How could they not know that America abandoned Vietnam to communist aggression when the going got particularly rough and when the tide of opinion in America turned against the war. Do they not hear the comparison to Vietnam from a leading American politician as nothing less than a prelude to surrender or withdrawal ... a sign of American weakness?

This vicious murder of an American civilian should serve to reignite the American resolve to destroy, not to appease, but to destroy the Islamic Jihadists. Now you should know that playing nice won't work. While we try to bring to justice the people responsible for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, the Islamic fanatics cut the head off of an innocent American civilian in order to "redeem" their manhood. They're not men, they're bugs ... and they need to be squashed.

The retaliation for this vicious act must be firm, it must be swift, and it must have a violent finality. These inhuman Muslims must learn that these actions against Americans will not go unanswered ... and the answer will have a terrible finality.