Iraq is like Vietnam -- Shame on us

[TOVisitor]

From: http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2005/06/chronicles-of-deaths-foretold-quoth.html

Like Viet Nam, we are losing in Iraq. That's a fact. You cannot beat an insurgency that seems to have an unlimited amount of "martyrs" willing to walk into the public square and blow themselves up taking twenty or so citizens with them. The American military is bunkered into the Green Zone behind blast-proof walls and razor wire because if they walk out into the streets...they're going to die. It's Fort Apache the Bronx. Those who are supposed to be in control of the streets are the Iraqi policemen, but if they are in control, then why do they have to wear masks? Because, if they don't the insurgents will come to their houses and kill them. Iraq is probably the only country in the world whose entire police force is in the Witness Protection Program.

With every American death, with every request for more billions for Iraq, the American public that initially supported the war starts to edge away from it as if it smells like last week's garbage. Military recruiters are currently doing everything short of shanghaiing high school kids and they still can't meet their recruitment goals. Soldiers are being kept in Iraq for too long. We are running out of money, soldiers, patience, and more importantly, the will to fight in Iraq.

Which is exactly what happened in Viet Nam.

So when we finally bow down to public opinion and admit defeat (only we won't admit defeat...we'll just call it a tie) and pull out of Iraq, and the power vacuum that ensues results in tribal warfare and more death and destruction, who do you think the rightwing echo chamber is going to blame? Not the neo-cons who sent us on this fools errand. Not the generals who were whistling past the graveyard when they should have been telling Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to fuck off. Not the 101st Fighting Keyboarders who waved their little flags and their well-thumbed copies of Sun Tzu and pointed out that it looked a hell of a lot easier on the Risk board.

No. They're going to blame us because we didn't wear little flag lapel pins and slap yellow ribbon magnetic stickers on our SUV's and we subverted the cause of democracy in the Middle East and that's why 1600 and counting American soldiers are dead, and the blood of every Iraqi killed in the wake of our leaving will be on our hands.

And it's all because we didn't stop them before they killed again.

Shame on us.

 

[Mcluhan]

... Iraq is probably the only country in the world whose entire police force is in the Witness Protection Program.....

I have to admit to a belly laugh here

 

[Keebler Elf]

To be honest, my perception has been that things are improving in Iraq. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that's indeed the case as I may have been watching a little too much CNN of late (shame on me). I thought the number of insurgent attacks were down? Same with casualties? And the Iraqi election must have been a positive step.

I think the US is just trying to hold on by its fingernails long enough to train Iraqi security forces so that the US can cut and run without there being an extreme risk of civil war. I can't see the US maintaining its presence in Iraq for a decade or more...

 

[newguy27]

The Vietnam / IRaq comparison is one of the most misleading and false comparisons being thrown out there by the left-wing to mislead people. Those who are doing the comparisons are the ones who have no idea what Vietnam was really about and how horrible the casualty rates were.

The war in Iraq is in effect over. I think everyone in their right mind would agree that the US administration would LOVE to bring back the troops to a ticker tape parade and end the constant sniping by the leftist "elite" but the Iraqi GOVERNMENT has asked them to stay and help stabilize their country. Free elections within 20 months from being freed from decades of dictatorship is amazing compared to say, the decades it took the US to elect its first president after the war of independence or the eons it took Canada to establish its democracy. The 1600 american soldiers lost are tragic but to copare it to the contless lost in Vietnam is disrespectful to that war in the least. I think more people died in the US falling off ladders than in iraq...i dont hear ladders being compared to the vietnam war! Iraq is writing its own constitution of enshrined rights, a groundbreaking moment in their freedom...i dont remember vietnamese decalring themselves the "enemies of democracy" and bombing their own churches and their own police stations in their PR campain.

Billions being spent? Absolutely, for security and builing roads, hospitals, civil engineering projects, etc. LIke spending billions on Africa or other poor countries modernize their infrastructure. Was ethiopia like vietnam too because people spent billions on foreign aid.

I'd compare it to either the rebuillding of Europe after WWII or after the US civil war. 12 years after the South lost the war and the right to keep slaves..the die hards were still bombing police stations, killing civil servants, etc. Should people give up because the work is hard? NO. That's why hundred of Iraqi citizens line up at recruiting centres each day despite the threats of terrorists.

The war on Terror wont be won by giving up.

 

[Keebler Elf]

When people compare Iraq to Vietnam, they're usually doing so in relation to the perception that an American presence in Iraq is a fruitless and ultimately hopeless venture. Most people aren't aware of the details of the Vietnam War, nor do they care (sad but true).

In fact, there are striking similarities between the two conflicts (e.g. a native population largely hostile to the presence of foreigners, a conflict for the "hopes and minds" of Iraqis, a stark divide of American/Western opinion on the justification of the war and the chances of success, an ideological struggle, etc.). It's not surprising that the right-wing tries to disassociate Iraq and Vietnam, what with the miserable failure that came out of the latter.

 

[cyrus]

"newguy27" I think you misunderstand the true meaning of war, or at least thinking of it in a very conventional or narrow view!
I am afraid the IRAQ is as much war as it could get, both in terms of similarities/ human cost and $

http://costofwar.com/

 

[Mcluhan]

Opinion Verses facts

By News Dissector Danny Schechter, editor of Mediachannel.org, who reported from Vietnam in 1974 and 1997.

The Unreported Vietnam-Iraq Parallel

l. Both wars were illegal acts of pre-emptive aggression unsanctioned by international law or world opinion. Earlier, U.S. interventions involved successive US administrations. JFK's CIA helped put Saddam in power, Reagan armed him to fight Iran. George Bush, 41 led the first Gulf War against him. Clinton tightened sanctions. George Bush, 43 invaded again. Five Administrations--Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford fought in Vietnam.

2. Both wars were launched with deception. In Iraq it was the now proven phony WMD threat and contrived Saddam-Osama connection. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident and the elections mandated by the Geneva agreement that were canceled by Washington in l956 when the US feared Ho Chi Minh would win.

3. The government lied regularly in both wars. Back then, the lies were pronounced a "credibility gap." Today, they are considered acceptable "information warfare." In Saigon military briefers conducted discredited "5 O'Clock Follies" press conferences. In this war, the Pentagon spoon-fed info at a Hollywood style briefing center in Doha.

4. The US press was initially an enthusiastic cheerleader in both wars. When Vietnam protest grew and the war seen as a lost cause, the media frame changed. In Iraq today most of the media is trapped in hotel rooms. Only one side is covered now whereas in Vietnam, there was more reporting occasionally from the other. In Vietnam, the accent was on progress and "turned corners." The same is true in Iraq.

5. In both wars, prisoners were abused. In South Vietnam, thousands of captives were tortured in what were the called "tiger cages." Vietnamese POWs were often killed; In North Vietnam, some US POWs were abused after bombing civilians. In Iraq, POWs on both sides were also mistreated. It was US soldiers that first leaked major war crimes and abuses. In Vietnam, Ron Ridenour disclosed the My Lai Massacre. In Iraq, it was a soldier who first told investigators about the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. (Seymour Hersh the reporter who exposed My-Lai in Vietnam later exposed illegal abuses in Iraq.)

6. Illegal weapons were "deployed" in both wars. The US dropped napalm, used cluster bombs against civilians and sprayed toxic agent orange in Vietnam. Cluster bombs and updated Mark 77 napalm-like firebombs were dropped on Iraqis. Depleted uranium was added to the arsenal of prohibited weapons in Iraq.

7. Both wars claimed to be about promoting democracy. Vietnam staged elections and saw a succession of governments controlled by the US. come and go. Iraq has had one election so far in which most voters say they were casting ballots primarily to get the US to leave. The US has stage-managed Iraq's interim government. Exiles were brought back and put in power. Vietnam's Diem came from New Jersey, Iraq's Allawi from Britain.

8. Both wars claimed to be about noble international goals. Vietnam was pictured as a crusade against aggressive communism and falling dominos. Iraq was sold as a front in a global war on terrorism. Neither claim proved true.

9. An imperial drive for resource control and markets helped drive both interventions. Vietnam had rubber and manganese and rare minerals. Iraq has oil. In both wars, any economic agenda was officially denied and ignored by most media outlets.

10. Both wars took place in countries with cultures we never understood or spoke the language, Both involved "insurgents" whose military prowess was underestimated and misrepresented. In Vietnam, we called the "enemy" communists; in Iraq we call them foreign terrorists. (Soldiers had their own terms, "gooks" in Vietnam, "ragheads" in Iraq) In both counties, they was in fact an indigenous resistance that enjoyed popular support. (Both targeted and brutalized people they considered collaborators with the invaders just as our own Revolution went after Americans who backed the British.) In both wars, as in all wars, innocent civilians died in droves.

11. In both countries the US promised to help rebuild the damages caused by US bombing. In Vietnam, a $2 Billion presidential reconstruction pledge was not honored. In Iraq, the electricity and other services are still out in many areas. In both wars US companies and suppliers have profited handsomely; Brown &Root in Vietnam; Halliburton in Iraq, to cite but two.

12. In Vietnam, the Pentagon's counter-insurgency effort failed to "pacify" the countryside even with a half a million US soldiers "in country." The insurgency in Iraq is growing despite the best efforts of US soldiers. More have died since President Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" than during the invasion.

 

[WoodPeckr]

11. In both countries the US promised to help rebuild the damages caused by US bombing. In Vietnam, a $2 Billion presidential reconstruction pledge was not honored. In Iraq, the electricity and other services are still out in many areas. In both wars US companies and suppliers have profited handsomely; Brown &Root in Vietnam; Halliburton in Iraq, to cite but two.

Add to the above the fact Ronnie Reagan along with Cheney and Rummy, had promised their Ally Osama Bin Laden the US would aid & rebuild Afghanistan once the USSR was driven out. When the Afghan/USSR War ended and the USSR pulled out in defeat Osama was abandoned by his Ally Reagan. Osama felt he was betrayed, merely used to get at the USSR and stabbed in the back by Reagan and has hated the USA ever since.

This brings to mind a few notable quotes from the past:

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it."
~ General Douglas Macarthur, 1957

"Yes, many people will die when the New World Order is established, but it will be a much better world for those who survive".
~ Henry Kissinger (War Criminal)

 

[newguy27]

I agree with bbking (great screen name by the way). Vietnam was different as it was shadowed by the cold war and the eastern block influences. NOt that I profess to be an expert on the Vietnam war mind you, but i tink a lot of people just jump to the conclusion that they are similar to try an besmitch any efforts in Vietnam. MY point is look at a lot of other difficult periods where a country was being freed and the semmingly "unending resistance" like in europe after WWII and the Civil war way back when. There is deinfitely progress being made in Iraq. While the US and USSR stand off resulted in a no-win situation for the US in Vietnam, there is no such backdrop here. The US is not worried about hurting OSama's feelings or reaching a stand off with him. Al-Qaeda's commend structure has been severely hit and they ares spending every once of resoursec to try and slow the IRaq reconstruction down because they know that if Iraq goes to full democracy, their days are numbered. Compare 2 years into the Veitnam war vs. 2 years into the Iraq war (which is one country by the way and not South/NOrth) and you will see vast differences.

Not to mention that Saddam signed a treaty with the free worlk at the end of the frrst Gulf War to stay in power and failed to live up to those terms! I dont remember NOrth Vietnam signing a treaty which they clearly broke.

 

[newguy27]

I also note that people who do the comparing to Vietnam usually only refer to articles written by left-side writers instead of outlining their own views. Those articles sometimes have crazy logic. For example in the item #6 quoted above, they list illegal weapons used in Iraq. I dont remember cluster bombs being listed as illegal weapons and what the heck are "napalm-like" bombs? Vague descriptons hide the fact that the weapons are not illegal I would bet, given the intense scrutinty the US military is under for sure. Also depleted uranium is extremely common for munnitions because it's inert weight allows the shells to punch through enemy tank armour. Not sure what point the writer was trying to make except to falsly/wrongly imply that the US is using toxic materials.

You can find similarities to a lot of wars especially in the middle of combat. LIberals keep trying to stretch the Vietnam war for this purpose instead of trying to help the Iraqis who have asked the US to stay and help.

 

[Mcluhan]

dick-headed

I also note that people who do the comparing to Vietnam usually only refer to articles written by left-side writers instead of outlining their own views. Those articles sometimes have crazy logic.

There's the right-brain, the left-brain, and the dick-brain.

 

[Cinema Face]

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.

 

[TOVisitor]

The US is winning in Iraq? Ask people who really know ...

To be honest, my perception has been that things are improving in Iraq. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not that's indeed the case as I may have been watching a little too much CNN of late (shame on me). I thought the number of insurgent attacks were down? Same with casualties? And the Iraqi election must have been a positive step.

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060401506_pf.html

Bush's Optimism On Iraq Debated
Rosy View in Time Of Rising Violence Revives Criticism
By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Sunday, June 5, 2005

President Bush's portrayal of a wilting insurgency in Iraq at a time of escalating violence and insecurity throughout the country is reviving the debate over the administration's Iraq strategy and the accuracy of its upbeat claims.

While Bush and Vice President Cheney offer optimistic assessments of the situation, a fresh wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis last month alone and prompted Iraqi leaders to appeal to the administration for greater help. Privately, some administration officials have concluded the violence will not subside through this year.

The disconnect between Rose Garden optimism and Baghdad pessimism, according to government officials and independent analysts, stems not only from Bush's focus on tentative signs of long-term progress but also from the shrinking range of policy options available to him if he is wrong. Having set out on a course of trying to stand up a new constitutional, elected government with the security firepower to defend itself, Bush finds himself locked into a strategy that, even if it proves successful, foreshadows many more deadly months to come first, analysts said.

Military commanders in Iraq privately told a visiting congressional delegation last week that the United States is at least two years away from adequately training a viable Iraqi military but that it is no longer reasonable to consider augmenting U.S. troops already strained by the two-year operation, said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). "The idea that the insurgents are on the run and we are about to turn the corner, I did not hear that from anybody," Biden said in an interview.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), who joined Biden for part of the trip, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others are misleading Americans about the number of functional Iraqi troops and warned the president to pay more attention to shutting off Syrian and Iranian assistance to the insurgency. "We don't want to raise the expectations of the American people prematurely," he said.

<snip>

"I am pleased that in less than a year's time, there's a democratically elected government in Iraq, there are thousands of Iraq soldiers trained and better equipped to fight for their own country [and] that our strategy is very clear," Bush said during a Rose Garden news conference Tuesday. Overall, he said, "I'm pleased with the progress." Cheney offered an even more hopeful assessment during a CNN interview aired the night before, saying the insurgency was in its "last throes."

Several Republicans questioned that evaluation. "I cannot say with any confidence that that is accurate," said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), a member of the House International Relations Committee. "I think it's impossible to know how close we are to the insurgency being overcome."

TOV translates that last one: Chabot just said, "Bush is full of sh*t."

It is not unusual for a president to put the most positive spin possible on U.S. policy, especially during a time of armed conflict when public support is crucial. But the administration's assertions about Iraq have been a source of controversy since the earliest days of the operation, from the insistence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to Cheney's claim of links between Iraq and al Qaeda to the rosy forecasts about how welcome U.S. troops would be.

<snip>

"We are just paying a heavy price for mistakes made before," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

TOV translates that last one: McCain just said, "Bush is full of sh*t."

"It's dangerous when U.S. officials start to believe their own propaganda," said David L. Phillips, a former State Department consultant who worked on Iraq planning but quit in frustration in 2003 and has written a book called "Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco." "I have no doubt that they genuinely think that Iraq is a smashing success and a milestone in their forward freedom strategy. But if you ask Iraqis, they have a different opinion."

More at the link.

 

[TOVisitor]

Get your facts straight ...

... MY point is look at a lot of other difficult periods where a country was being freed and the semmingly "unending resistance" like in europe after WWII ...

There was NO Resistance to the US occupation EITHER in Germany or in Japan after WW II.

Get your facts straight.

 

[TOVisitor]

... the decades it took the US to elect its first president after the war of independence

The War of Independence was over in 1781 and Washington took the oath of office in 1787. Decades? Get your facts straight.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html

I think more people died in the US falling off ladders than in iraq...i dont hear ladders being compared to the vietnam war!

Fool.

You don't lie to people to get them to climb ladders.

 

[onthebottom]

This is a silly comparison; the insurgency in Iraq has nowhere near the power that the North Vietnamese had, so safe harbor..... I can understand why those who are anti-war would like to make this comparison but it simply does not fit this situation. I bet if we go back to the Terb archives we could find ill informed posters who were comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam....


Quick question, how many US troops were dieing a month in Vietnam, how many are dieing in Iraq? That should sort it out for you.

OTB

 

[Vietor]

I find it encouraging that the Iraqi's are winning their own peace against insurgents who are largely either terrorists from other countries or Baathists trying to regain the power that they lost. The Iraqi government and the large majority of Iraqi's that elected them are making their investment in their country in terms of blood, sweat and tears - an investment that will pay dividends as they gain control over their country.

At the same time, the US and its allies have been able to concentrate the efforts of Islamic terrorists in Iraq. The radical Islamists doubted our staying power and expected that the likes of TO and Peckrhead would be able to weaken our resolve. We have not experienced anywhere in our hemisphere a repeat of 911. Comparatively, the "investment" in Iraq and Afganistan have borne strong returns: the potential for peace in those countries and security at home. Bless our troups.

 

[TOVisitor]

I think he was referring to the complete destruction of Germany and Japan, both economicaly and socialy.

<snip>

The newguy does make a good point and time will only tell if this occupation works as well as those in WW2.

Bbking:

I have to disagree with you vehemently on this one. Our friend newguy is an uninformed nincompoop who doesn’t even bother to check his facts without blathering his ill-informed opinion.

MY point is look at a lot of other difficult periods where a country was being freed and the semmingly "unending resistance" like in europe after WWII and the Civil war way back when.

No resistance after WW II. Actual resistance after the Civil War was almost non-existent; however, flying the Confederate flag over southern state capitals in 2005 would be construed by some as ongoing resistance.

There is deinfitely progress being made in Iraq.

Did I just fall into a Dick Cheney talking-point zone?

Al-Qaeda's commend structure has been severely hit and they ares spending every once of resoursec to try and slow the IRaq reconstruction down because they know that if Iraq goes to full democracy, their days are numbered.

The insurgents are from several sources: Al Qaeda, former Baath officers, and Sunni Muslims. The elections effectively put in place clerics who are supported by Iran (remember the Axis of Evil?). And if newguy is gung-ho about democracy being spread over the ME, how does he feel about Hizbollah winning elections yesterday in Lebanon? I, for one, am not too crazy about that.

Not to mention that Saddam signed a treaty with the free worlk at the end of the frrst Gulf War to stay in power and failed to live up to those terms!

Now we have it. Reason #423 for going to war with Iraq finally sticks with the nincompoop.

For example in the item #6 quoted above, they list illegal weapons used in Iraq. I dont remember cluster bombs being listed as illegal weapons

Cluster bombs are NOT illegal when used on the military. They are illegal when used on civilian populations. The US military has used cluster bombs against civilian populatoions -- inadvertently or not. Just googling the words “cluster bomb illegal” would have straightened out this nitwit.

and what the heck are "napalm-like" bombs?

Googling “mark 77 bomb”, which is the context of this reference, would find that Mark 77 bombs use napalm. What is this? If he has never heard of it, it doesn’t exist?

NOt that I profess to be an expert on the Vietnam war mind you,

… or anything else, I dare say.

TOV

 

[TOVisitor]

We have not experienced anywhere in our hemisphere a repeat of 911.

Let's see ...

Largest single loss of miltary life before 911. Bombing of barracks in Lebanon. President? Reagan. Perps found? No. What did he do? Cut & run.

Attempted bombing of WTC in early 1990s. President? Clinton. Perp found? In jail now.

Terrorist attack in Oklahoma by right-wing nuts. President? Clinton. Perp found? Yup. He's in jail.

Attack on WTC. President? Bush. Perp found? Still at large. What does he do? Outsouces search for Osama to warlords, who get paid off by Osama to not search. Then goes on attack Iraq (which had NOTHING to do with 911), creating wonderful recruitment opportunity for Al Qaeda and sours the entire ME on US motives.

Well, praise God for the Shrub & the Repubs. I feel a lot safer with the Dems not in power.

 

[Mcluhan]

Numbers on 2 wars more similar than not

This is a silly comparison; the insurgency in Iraq has nowhere near the power that the North Vietnamese had, so safe harbor..... I can understand why those who are anti-war would like to make this comparison but it simply does not fit this situation. I bet if we go back to the Terb archives we could find ill informed posters who were comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam....


Quick question, how many US troops were dieing a month in Vietnam, how many are dieing in Iraq? That should sort it out for you.

OTB

Right, troop loss is about 10% of Vietnam, say 2.1 per day compared to 21 per day in 'Nam on a straight line average. However if you add in the number of walking brain-dead from injuries to the casualty list, the number is likely closer to 25% of 'Nam's GI death toll

Different tactical situation by both sides. Iraqi resistance are fighting a war of attrition same as the Viet cong, but without conventional engagement. The American troops are more-or-less barricaded up in strong holds that they occupy. The technology of the war is also different.

The financial cost of Vietnam is estimated at $150 billion dollars. Expressing the value of 1969 dollars (the mid point year ) in today's dollars, the value 150 billion dollars adjusted by an annual inflationary index value of 3.5% comes to about 500 billion 2005 dollars. The first combat troops arrived in 1965 and the war lasted until the cease-fire in January 1973, roughly a seven-year war. Dividing seven years into one 500 billion , the Vietnam War cost on average about 75 billion per year measured in 2005 dollars.

The annual cost of Iraq so far is running at about 90 billion per year. Indications are it will run for about another 5 years minimum. So the war chest will be tapped for about the same dollars, if continued on the same timeline.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE NUMBERS.

It's hard to find agreement among experts on the number of Vietnam civilian deaths. Combining both North and South Vietnam civilian deaths the total number is somewhere between one million and two million. The number 1.4 million often surfaces as a civilian body count, a number in size about one-quarter third the size of the Holocaust. Yet where's the outrage?

Pentagon officials estimated that 200,000 Iraqis had died in six weeks during the first Gulf War. The estimate ranges but experts generally agree that damage to Iraq's civilian infrastructure and ongoing sanctions during the last decade have cost the lives of at least several hundred thousand children. In the last year, the civilian carnage is in the range of another 10,000. The total number can be reasonably rounded off at about 400,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the first American round was fired. It's another equally appalling number. The fact remains a lot of innocent people died in both wars and the number civilian deaths in Iraq is picking up steam. Nothing different here. With some luck, the numbers will cap before they reach a half million Iraqi civilian deaths.