Bush puts his foot in his mouth?

[D. Allan]

Quote:

"The question now before us comes down to this: Will today’s generation of Americans resist the deceptive allure of retreat and do in the Middle East what veterans in this room did in Asia?"

PRESIDENT BUSH, speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

this seems an inconsiderate way of speaking to one's hosts!

[D. Allan]

excerpts from a New York Times Editorial

The Problem Isn’t Mr. Maliki

Published: August 24, 2007

"Blaming the prime minister of Iraq, rather than the president of the United States, for the spectacular failure of American policy, is cynical politics, pure and simple. It is neither fair nor helpful in figuring out how to end America’s biggest foreign policy fiasco since Vietnam."

"The real lesson of Vietnam for Iraq is clear enough. America lost that war because a succession of changes in South Vietnamese leadership, many of them inspired by Washington, never produced an effective government in Saigon."

"If Mr. Bush, whose decision to inject Vietnam into the debate over Iraq was bizarre, took the time to study the real lessons of Vietnam, he would not be so eager to lead America still deeper into the 21st century quagmire he has created in Iraq. Following his path will not rectify the mistakes of Vietnam, it will simply repeat them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/opinion/24fri1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[Dr. Shane]

The New York Times is not known for its objective coverage of politics.

Bush did mis-speak. Instead of "Will today’s generation of Americans resist the deceptive allure of retreat and do in the Middle East what veterans in this room did in Asia?" He should have said, "Will today’s generation of Americans resist the deceptive allure of retreat and do in the Middle East what a generation did to the veterans in this room in Asia?"

Saigon stood for about two years after America pulled its troops out of Vietnam. It was only when America withdrew all aid from Saigon that it fell. We will never know if we could have kept it propped up long enough for it to have become stable.

I see very little comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. They were both wars. That is where the comparison ends. Those trying to compare them seem to have political motives that appear very transparent to me.

[John317]

Agree, Shane.

It wasn't the fault of our military in Vietnam. The fact is that the war there was lost in Washington, DC. In Vietnam, our troops won every battle and in doing it killed the enemy at something like 10 to 1. North Vietnam considered the 1968 Tet offensive a military defeat and catastrophe, yet most Americans thought (wrongly) we were losing the war because of all the bodies they saw coming back and because of the way the war was reported in the press and on TV.

The Tet offensive "is widely seen as a turning point in the war, but although it was a military defeat for the Communists, media reports were misleading in America, where televised war footage showed the Americans retreating through the grounds of the US embassy in Saigon making for a profound psychological impact on the US public."

The real difference in that war, like the difference in this one, is that the enemy doesn't care how many of its own people die, whereas Americans count and mourn over every casualty. That is no way to win a war.

As a Vietnam-era vet and one who helped organize anti-war demonstations, I don't see any comparisons between the war in Vietnam and the war in Iraq. There are, however, comparisons to be seen in the American reaction to them. Vietnam was lost on the streets of American cities and in committee rooms in Washington, D.C., not on the battlefields of South Vietnam. Unfortunately, the same may happen in regard to Iraq.

[John317]

Quote:

"The question now before us comes down to this: Will today?s generation of Americans resist the deceptive allure of retreat and do in the Middle East what veterans in this room did in Asia?"

PRESIDENT BUSH, speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

this seems an inconsiderate way of speaking to one's hosts!

As Shane said, Bush misspoke here-- badly. However, I am sure that the veterans understood what he meant. He didn't mean the troops in Vietnam did anything bad but that they were forced by the US Congress to retreat when they were winning on the battlefields. Congress bowed to the will of popular opinion. (This is both the weakness and the strength of a republic: it finds it almost impossible to deny indefinitely the will of those who hold its purse strings.)

But interestingly, today even some of the democrats, such as Mrs. Clinton, are admitting that the "surge" in Iraq is having some positive results.

[Neil D]

Quote:

The real difference in that war, like the difference in this one, is that the enemy doesn't care how many of its own people die, whereas Americans count and mourn over every casualty. That is no way to win a war.

I have neither the time nor the energy to refute this....In this case simply put, infinate resources will not deter infinate resistance...In Vietnam, we could not stop the flow of supplys to the communists. There were major cases where we became the abuser, not the compassionate occuper [sp]...The PR machine there in Vietnam was found to be more hype than reality, and the local inhabitants knew it.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Saigon stood for about two years after America pulled its troops out of Vietnam. It was only when America withdrew all aid from Saigon that it fell. We will never know if we could have kept it propped up long enough for it to have become stable.

We did a lot of good in Vietnam. I served with veterans that were there. We did a lot of humanitarian work there and accepted thousands of refuges after we left.

Looking back with hindsight we can see our obvious errors. It is disingenuous for us to be overly critical of such errors today. Honest men honestly fear the spread of communism. Mistakes were made with good intentions.

The real lesson from Vietnam is to let the military, and not the politicians, fight wars. That is one of the reasons I was so disappointed that Rumsfield was kept on so long.

[D. Allan]

Eisenhower did a good job as president, refusing to carry on the war in Korea (it is over and unwinable he said after going over to check it out before he was elected even), and refusing to enter into middle eastern war. And he was a republican. But he was a military man who knew war is something to avoid.

[John317]

Quote:

The real difference in that war, like the difference in this one, is that the enemy doesn't care how many of its own people die, whereas Americans count and mourn over every casualty. That is no way to win a war.

I have neither the time nor the energy to refute this....In this case simply put, infinate resources will not deter infinate resistance...In Vietnam, we could not stop the flow of supplys to the communists. There were major cases where we became the abuser, not the compassionate occuper [sp]...The PR machine there in Vietnam was found to be more hype than reality, and the local inhabitants knew it.

A big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is the fact that Vietnam was covered by jungle and was therefore a place where it was impossible to stop the flow of supplies. Iraq is desert and offers greater advantage in the way of halting supplies and people entering the country if we have the will to do it.

In any war, soldiers can become abusers. Northern soldiers certainly became abusers during our own Civil War, as in Sherman's march through the South to the sea. The fact is that nothing the US or South Vietnamese military did was even close in comparison to the ruthlessness of the VC. I never heard of the VC putting its troops on trial for killing civilians. On the contrary they awarded them with more rice.

My only point is that in any war, it's a bad sign when you become focussed on how many of your soldiers are being killed. War is all about dying, not killing. Anyone can kill; the true test is if you're willing to die. You have to be willing to die as often as it takes to win and if you aren't, then it's best not to even begin to fight. Notice how Russia and the US won WW2. Both they and we did it by determining that we were out to win it no matter what the cost. No cost was too high. That was our level of committment. The Iraqi insurgents and the Muslim extremists (like the VC before them) are happy to die for their cause and therefore they will almost certainly win. It depends really on which side is the most determined to win. We're obviously not.

[Neil D]

My only point is that in any war, it's a bad sign when you become focussed on how many of your soldiers are being killed. War is all about dying, not killing. Anyone can kill; the true test is if you're willing to die. You have to be willing to die as often as it takes to win and if you aren't, then it's best not to even begin to fight. Notice how Russia and the US won WW2. Both they and we did it by determining that we were out to win it no matter what the cost. No cost was too high. That was our level of committment. The Iraqi insurgents and the Muslim extremists (like the VC before them) are happy to die for their cause and therefore they will almost certainly win. It depends really on which side is the most determined to win. We're obviously not.

Absolute horse fertilizer....

A country must decide for itself what type of goverement it needs to self govern. I am not interested in selling myself nor my children's lives for another country, whose own interests do not include mine. Nor am I interested in getting involved in another country's civil war.

[Dr. Shane]

Saddam was supporting terrorists. We know that.

In 1996 Saddam planned to use terrorists and WMDs to attack the US on US soil. We know that. Prior to the invasion we thought these plan was much more recent and we were wrong about that.

Saddam had plans to resume his WMD program after sanctions were lifted. We know that.

Saddam was bribing members of the UN's Security Council in order to get sanctions lifted. We know that.

OK, that is all in the past. We felt Saddam posed an immediate threat. He was in violation of the cease-fire. We invaded.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Iraqis have chosen their own government. No government has been forced on them. Insurgents and civil conflict threated their government. If the US pulls out, the Iraqi government may well fall to the terrorists and civil factions. The oil wealth will fund whichever terrorist groups prevail and they will most definitely want to get revenge on the US.

Invading Iraq is not something we can walk away from. If we do, those we leave behind will be wealthy, well-armed, angry and coming after us. Pulling out of Iraq is not a viable option. We must remain and we must prevail.

[John317]

I completely agree with you, Shane. We have to think very seriously about the consequences of leaving Iraq before its government is strong enough to stand on its own.