Are we in another Vietnam?

With all that is going on in Iraq it is difficult to see the end of the fighting.

Do you think that we will eventually win the War on Terrorism or are we caught in an endless Vietnam type conflict?

Who is to blame for this mess?

 

I don't believe Iraq has the kind of unified resistance Vietnam had built up in its wars long history against the French and the Chinese. In Iraq I think we can win the trust of the non-radicals and bring the country to stability.

 

Just my opinion (which is all that anyone can really offer), we can never really win in Iraq. We have not, and will not win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's. Saying so will not make it so. What the US should do is to make peace with the Kurds to the north and allow them their own freedoms (and country). Don't abandon them as what GHWB did after GWI.

As in the saying "Where's the beef", I say to GW "What happened to bin Laden" He is the leader who caused 9/11 - and there is no doubt about that whereas any involvement of Saddam has been countered with other intelligence reports showing he had no involvement. Until you get serious and capture this butcher, all you other rhetoric will fall on deaf ears.

Wow - there was a thread asking about choices in 2008. I think at this point, anyone (even Frist) would be a better choice than Karl Rove and his puppet sidekick GW.

 

Re: Re: Are we in another Vietnam?

I´m sure many strategists at Washington have thought about that, but if the US proposes something like that, it will be interpreted as an act of war by Turkey, a country that houses millions of Kurds and fears a civil war and losing stability if an independent Kurdistan is established. But those Peshmergas have been great allies for the US, and deserve the best possible treatment.

 

Re: Re: Are we in another Vietnam?

Do you really believe that? They had a 747 set up to train terrorists and you think they had no involvement?!

 

Even the Administration says that Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 plot.

But is it Viet Nam?

No. At least, I don't THINK so.

Viet Nam was an essentially civil war fought between two sides each of which enjoyed the military, economic, and political support of a superpower. That war could drag on as long as the two sides had the stomach to fight.

The Iraqi insurgency DOES receive outside support, maybe even a LOT of support from Muslim groups in (it appears) Saudi Arabia and other countries. I don't think Iran is helping out very much because the emerging Iraqi government will be so constituted as to be much friendlier to Iran than Saddam ever was so it really isn't in their interests to destabilize Iraq.

But the support the insurgency receives seems to be taking the form of money and individual terrorists rather than military units and heavy weaponry. This looks a lot like the earlier days of the Palistine Liberation Organization in Israel and what was then the Jordanian West Bank.

I'm thinking that this sort of private war requires surrounding states to tolerate fundraising for terrorism, similar to the U.S. long standing toleration of IRA fundraising here. So, if we can stop the funding, we can end the insurgency.

 

In keeping with this topic, what does everything think of Tony Blair's new policy of deporting all resident aliens who engage in terrorist or terrorist sympathizing activities (web sites, inciting, etc?) Do you think we should do the same in the US and if so, how should it be determined what "sympathizing" really is?

 

It's the NIMBY approach. Not in my backyard. Why does it help to move them? If you have probable cause, why not put them under 24/7 surveillance? Might catch others.

 

Unusual website I found.

I found this website that was interesting.


http://www.allhatnocattle.net/5-20-04_look_toto.htm

 

Tony Blair is also "de naturalizing" British subjects who speak in support of terrorism. This is actually a much more serious violation of human rights because it can result in statelessness. Not to mention that it creates two classes of subject; those who can be deprived of citizenship for speech and those who cannot.

The U.K. does not have separation of powers like the U.S. does; indeed, the English example is what CAUSED our Founders to put it into the constitution.

So a moral dwarf like PM Blair can do things like this with impunity, always using the backdrop of the War on Terror.

It IS permissible, even in the U.S., to restrict speech that actually incites to violence and rebellion. But it would NOT be permitted to deprive the speaker of his naturalization on that ground.

 

No, we can NEVER win the war on terrorism because it requires a political solution NOT a military one. We create 10 new terrorists for everyone we kill. That tactic doesn't work now does it?
We created this mess as we do all messes we get ourselves into. We in fact don't promote democracy as we claim but totalitarianism as in Saudi Arabia. When you have 35% unemployment in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, no freedoms whatsoever, and an artificial government propped up largely by the United States is it any wonder to anyone why the the Bin Ladens of the world are so successful in drumming up anti-American resentment and driving planes into our buildings? What to do about it? For starters get rid of the Saudi Royal family ASAP. Then pressure the Israelis to give up all occupied Arab land and create a Palestinian State. Other than that perpetual war which only the rich make money from. Everyone else pays.

 

Hi Nosborne

I wasn't very clear in my post. I wasn't suggesting Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 but rather in general support and training of terrorists.

 

In order for the insurgency to win the war in Iraq, all they need to do is keep harassing the troops until we decide it is not worth it and go home (think N. Vietnam/Viet Cong in the Vietnam War, CSA in the Civil War, US in the American Revolution). The US troops, on the other hand, need to stomp out every last bit of resistance wherever they see it (think UK in the Revolutionary War, US-Northern rump in the Civil War, US in the Vietnam War).

Conclusions?

 

Hmmm,

Seems like the CSA lost. Iraq is NOT Vietnem, that is clear. As to the US war of independence, I don't believe the terrorist have the hearts and minds of most Iraqs. If they do, I agree we need to exit.

 

The CSA lost because Bobby Lee was too stupid to realize that he didn't need to go on the offensive in order to win.

For England to have won the American Revolution, they needed to conquer every square inch of territory and find every guerilla warrior/freedom fighter hiding in the trees taking potshots at redcoats. For the Americans to win, all that was needed was for George Washington to run, run, run away and live to fight another day while the rebels took potshots at the redcoats, which they did, which is why they won.

For the US-Northern rump to win the Civil War, they needed to quell every square inch of territory of the old Confederacy, which meant bringing superior manpower to bear on the South, which Grant did, which is why the North won. The South could have won, had they learned from their history and followed George Washington's example. But Bobby Lee would have nothing to do with a defensive strategy, so they lost.

For the US to have won in Vietnam, they would have had to root out every guerilla hiding in the trees and taking potshots at Americans. As things worked out, the Viet Cong wore the Americans down until they decided to go home. Ho Chi Minh was quite historically literate.

The Iraqi insurgents' objective paralells that of the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War, the South in the Civil War, and the Americans in the Revolutionary War: wear down the superpower and convince them it's time to go home. The American objective in Iraq paralells that of the Brits in the Revolutionary War, the North in the Civil War, and America in Vietnam: quell the rebels.

Learn your history!

 

Hi Ted

You seem to be ignoring the HUGE differences. As previously pointed out the Vietnamese had been fighting wars against invaders for over 100 years by the time our advisors showed up in the fifties. In both the Revolutionary war and the Civil war it wasn't neccessary to control every square inch. It was more important to make a decisive victory and NOT alienate the populace. We can win in Iraq IF we connect to the majority and have reasonable control over the terrorists.

If your request was to me to "Learn your History", I would suggest you may not have perfect knowledge yourself.

 

Actually, we should probably define "winning".

For us, the establishment of a more-or-less democratic government that is friendly to the U.S. and able to maintain itself in power without American bayonets would be "winning", I think.

It's not impossible.

 

Wow,

Quite a statement. I don't Robert E. Lee was stupid in the least and I guess I could be considered a Northern Yankee!

 

It IS a bit of an overstatement.

I understand the reference. General Lee made two invasions of the North that proved horribly expensive but yielded meager gains.

But even if he hadn't, the South would still have lost. The North enjoyed OVERWHELMING superiority in wealth, manufacturing plant, transportation, and available manpower. Sherman was correct at the outset.

The North also unquestionably occupied the moral high ground. The South was fighting in considerable part to defend slavery. That stuck in the craws of most of the rest of the Western world and its peoples.

 

Could it be Lee was hoping to shock the North and force a quick settlement?