Deja Vu All Over Again...

Does it seem to anyone else that Bush is heading the same way in Iraq (on a much lesser scale of course) that LBJ did in Vietnam? In a recent Gallup poll conducted in Iraq (which you may have seen over on CNN) I believe that 70% of Iraqi people now consider the United States/British forces as an occupational force as opposed to a liberation force. I'm not exactly sure of the numbers, but the fact remains that the United States needs to get out of there and soon, before we get some major backlash; and with the recent pictures of tortured Iraqi people circulating through the media, I fear that this backlash may not be internal, but international.

I have to say, it''s hard for me to imagine a situation in which American troops will not be in a combat position anytime soon. We''re in a dismal cycle now where resistance is forcing us to act with military might, and our response is damaging our relationship with the citizens of Iraq which is inciting further violence.

I don''t like the full comparison to Vietnam, as I think the political and military situations and objectives are so different as to not be analagous, BUT in the sense of entering into a cyclical and escalating conflict, I think that''s a real possiblity if not likely.

I think we are in the usual American dilemma - we tilt too much towards solving the military problem, and don''t pay enough attention to the political and diplomatic context. Of the recent military actions, seems like only Panama, Macedonia and perhaps Bosnia turned out properly both for the soldiers and the politicians; every other time, we''ve ended up with at least as many problems as we solved. For the record, I''m thinking of the Central American conflict (mostly El Salvador), Haiti, Grenada (poor showing by the military), Somalia, Gulf War 1, Beirut and Afghanistan, as well as Iraq.

Where will this leave us in regards to the Middle East? Diplomatically, we are no better off than before the war, and probably worse. Militarily, it''s a sinkhole for troops that could be chasing terrorists, but instead are fighting religious and nationalist opponents. Economically, it''s distracting from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and the Balkans, as well as Iraq. The troops that were going to rest up and proceed to a new area in the War on Terror are now slated to cycle back into Iraq, indefinitely.

I don''t think it''s Viet Nam. I think it''s a category we''ve not entered since the days of the occupation of Nicaragua and Haiti. I''m not sure we remember how to be occupiers, and the institutional memories are not going to be a lot of use.

We need a plan. It''s pretty obvious the one we have is being changed; let''s see what is proposed in the next few weeks.

I hope we are in for the long haul to stabilize Iraq, but in order to do that, we have to get past the idea that we can always just swoop win, fight fast and hard, and get out again quickly. Heck, our whole military realignment could end up being redefined in response to the need for a trained force of occupation. Likewise, diplomatically we have to realize that if Americans don''t want to do all the nasty scutwork, we need to make nice with people who eat garden pests or make fine precision tools, even if they speak out against our plans at times. That''s the real world.

Robear

Has anyone done anything statistically to try and guesstimate when they will run out of ammo/RPGs etc?

Are the insurgents still able to purchase weapons and ammo?

I wonder how successful Wild Weasel style attacks performed on the ground would be? Or even if they are plausible...

Are the insurgents still able to purchase weapons and ammo?

One of the problems is that Iraq was seeded with millions of weapons and small (and large) hidden depots all over. Since we don''t have enough troops to even guard the places we have found, or to seal the borders, the supply of small arms and light weaponry is probably endless. Heavy weapons, that''s a different story, but so far we''ve had to fight for those. Right now, it''s deemed untenable to go into the problem areas and clear them out, so those remain in insurgent hands.

What do you mean by Wild Weasel attacks on the ground?

Robear

"asands2" wrote:

Does it seem to anyone else that Bush is heading the same way in Iraq (on a much lesser scale of course) that LBJ did in Vietnam?

I wouldn''t know: I wasn''t born until 1970.

I would be interested in hearing the opinions of GWJ readers who were alive and politically-aware at the time, though.

Secondhand opinions are about as useful as secondhand gum.

mmmmmmm... second-hand gum from hot girls....

*blinks* uh... forget I said anything...

Can we expect, then, that you''ll make no comments, comparisons, or statements about anything occurring before 1970?

Further, since we''re so solidly against secondhand opinions, I''d only like to hear comments about the Bush administration or Kerry campaign from those working in those insititutions.

"asands2" wrote:

Does it seem to anyone else that Bush is heading the same way in Iraq (on a much lesser scale of course) that LBJ did in Vietnam? In a recent Gallup poll conducted in Iraq (which you may have seen over on CNN) I believe that 70% of Iraqi people now consider the United States/British forces as an occupational force as opposed to a liberation force. I''m not exactly sure of the numbers, but the fact remains that the United States needs to get out of there and soon, before we get some major backlash; and with the recent pictures of tortured Iraqi people circulating through the media, I fear that this backlash may not be internal, but international.

I think many people don''t put enough of what is happening into context. Remember when the war started, many here said that we were going to lose big time and we stopped the war I think for 24hrs. I could find the posts. Anytime things get hard people say VIETNAM! VIETNAM! I think it is time to get over that war. Not everything is Vietnam. This is Iraq and things are very different. Things are not going well now but when things get better, and they will, and most likely things will get worse again, it will go back and fourth.

many here said that we were going to lose big time and we stopped the war I think for 24hrs. I could find the posts.

I read every post in this section (god help me) and I don''t recall anyone suggesting the US would ""lose"" in Iraq. Find them posts!

"Certis" wrote:
many here said that we were going to lose big time and we stopped the war I think for 24hrs. I could find the posts.

I read every post in this section (god help me) and I don''t recall anyone suggesting the US would ""lose"" in Iraq. Find them posts! :)

I couldn''t find any posts from April of last year. It seems the posts only go back a year.

I think he''s referring to a lot of us, including myself, who suggested we would find ourselves buried in exactly the kind of turmoil we have now, seen as an occupying invasion force with little credibility and an increasing unrest among the people of Iraq.

"Elysium" wrote:

Can we expect, then, that you''ll make no comments, comparisons, or statements about anything occurring before 1970?

Like I said: secondhand opinions are as useful as secondhand gum. I said nothing about the need to withold them.

In this particular case, the original poster asks for comparisons between something that we all are living through now versus something which took place before most GWJ regulars were born (or at least aware of anything beyond the scope of their own homes).

The perception of the first can be clouded by emotion, the details of the second are heavily dependant upon the historical source (books, movies, secondhand accounts from relatives/neighbors, etc.)

But I fundamentally disagree. That''s essentially saying the study of history is useless, almost admitting that hindsight and perspective is fundamentally flawed. I''d counter that secondhand opinions are often much less biased than firsthand opinions, because they have the flexibility to have a wider worldview. Looking at the Vietnam war from a historical, cultural, and clinical point of view with the advantage of decades of perspective on either side of the event makes a secondhand opinion extremely useful.

You know? Wild Weasels? The crazy ass squadron that causes a huge rucus to trigger SAM''s to launch and give away their launch locations.

You know send in a target of opportunity so juicy to lure the enemy out of hiding so that they can be mopped up.

The Trojan horse... works as good as the old give n go in basketball. Simple yet so effective if you let your guard down for an instant.

"Elysium" wrote:

But I fundamentally disagree. That''s essentially saying the study of history is useless, almost admitting that hindsight and perspective is fundamentally flawed.

I would agree with you, so I guess I''m not effectively communicating my point. I do not wish to imply that history teaches us nothing.

I''d counter that secondhand opinions are often much less biased than firsthand opinions, because they have the flexibility to have a wider worldview.

My thought is that a secondhand opinion isn''t even a regurgitated firsthand opinion: that people basing opinions upon other''s opinions are going to have a wildly skewed view of the topic at hand. What''s worse is that subsequent opinions may be based upon only selected elements of the parent opinion...like eyewitness accounts at an accident, the human mind tends to be a recording device of questionable accuracy.

Take, for example, the Rodney King beating. In this case you had four firsthand opinions: those of the cops, of King, the guy running the video, and the video itself. We got an eyeful of the video and I''d say most of the L.A. rioters based their opinion off of that. We also heard King''s opinion. I''m sure at some point the videographer was interviewed but his story didn''t have ""legs"" and was eventually considered one and the same as the video. It wasn''t until the trial that we heard the cops'' opinions, and learned that King was aggressive, violent and way out of control.

These things weren''t captured on tape, and thus those people who based their opinions upon that tape didn''t take that into account. The firsthand opinion was flawed, thus any derivative opinions would be equally ill-informed, if not more so.

Which brings us to Vietnam.

Vietnam was a milestone in American history. Poorly executed and wildly unpopular, it has given rise to a whole niche market in movies, books (fiction and nonfiction), television shows, veteran memorabilia, etc. It was also the point around which anti-war, anti-military, and anti-American groups rallied. The failure of Vietnam was often interpreted as validation of the counter-culture''s beliefs.

Thirty years later there''s still a lot riding on Vietnam. Many veterans strongly believe that they were doing the right thing, even if the manner in which it was done was wrong. Many protestors strongly believe that the Vietnam war was wrong from start to finish, for varying reasons.

There aren''t too many people alive today who could passionately defend Albert Fall''s position in the Teapot Dome Scandal, assuming that any would want to. While books may continue to be written about it, the issue is essentially dead: few -- if any -- people living now had a stake (financial or otherwise) in those happenings. Future analysis of what happened will not only focus on the events themselves but will quite likely provide analysis and critique of previous accounts. Consider it a Darwinian process for historians.

Vietnam isn''t like that. Many former protestors are still alive, and a lot of pro-American involvement folks are too. Accounts of what happened can range from Francis Fitzgerald''s Fire in the Lake to Norman Podhoretz''s Why We Were In Vietnam. There''s a lot of ground between those two accounts. A lot.

I guess my point is that because Vietnam was a relatively recent event in American history, it has not had the benefit of a historical Darwinian process to shake out the b.s. (on both sides) from the substantive...yet enough time has passed that at least one entire generation has been born that has no firsthand knowledge of the thing.

Thus, my problem with fishing for opinions about a 30+ year old event from a group that is predominantly in their early 30s and 20s. Sure, you could ask teenagers about the 80s, but most of what they know about it will likely be colored by VH1''s ""I Love the 80s"" shows and sitcom reruns.

I find it interesting that 1/4 of all the war''s casualties have come since the Democrats finalized their decision to run an anti-war candidate. Maybe this is like Vietnam, in that the prospect of seeing the Americans lose resolve - a prospect made more likely by John Kerry''s criticism of Bush and the war - is causing increased resistance and coalition deaths.

This of course is very similar to Kerry and the anti-war movement during Vietnam emboldening the enemy and keeping them fighting and killing Americans.

Deja vu indeed.

Well I do not think this and Vietnam are same for many reasons.

I can say though currently Iraq is a bit of a mess. I just do not see any sort of pro U.S. feelings being generated out of this in the Arab world at least in the short term.

As far as a war goes it has been relatively easy one. Our casualties are nothing like Vietnam for example. We also been there a relatively short time.

I was a supporter of getting rid of Sadam and still am. I do think we should have waited till we were done with Afganastan but that is just my belief in not having a 2 front war and focusing on one enemy at a time.

The prisoner abuse scandal is big time egg in our face. I am almost of the mind that we should turn over the people responsible to the Iraqi people. It infuriates me to no end as a previous member of the military and a rather patriotic person to see this done.

Well I am done rambling for now.

I find it interesting that 1/4 of all the war''s casualties have come since the Democrats finalized their decision to run an anti-war candidate. Maybe this is like Vietnam, in that the prospect of seeing the Americans lose resolve - a prospect made more likely by John Kerry''s criticism of Bush and the war - is causing increased resistance and coalition deaths.

Hooey. You really think domestic American politics matters at all to Iraqis? Do you wander around saying ""Gee, it''s great Sistani didn''t support Sadr in the latest council, I feel like we can win now?"" They have next to no idea what the issues or stakes are, just as we have little actual understanding of the undercurrents of Iraqi politics. Not to mention that Kerry is no more gonna pull troops out than Bush is, so from their perspective, it''s a wash.

This of course is very similar to Kerry and the anti-war movement during Vietnam emboldening the enemy and keeping them fighting and killing Americans.

The Vietnamese had a tradition of fighting invaders for over a thousand years. They had been fighting continuously during the entire 20th century, and probably before that, against the Chinese, Japanese, and French. After Dien Bien Phu, Ho Chi Minh congratulated General Giap, and remarked that ""You still have to face the Americans"". They absorbed huge casualties while the US was in the war, and executed many diplomatic plans to keep us as confused and weak as possible. They probably helped *sponsor* some aspects of the anti-war movement - it was not some surprise to them.

But you think American domestic politics played a bigger role than the Vietnamese character and national experience? I find that hard to swallow.

Robear

They have next to no idea what the issues or stakes are, just as we have little actual understanding of the undercurrents of Iraqi politics.

Ridiculous. You think that the leaders of the insurgency, like the leaders of Al Qaeda don''t know who George Bush is and that this is an election year? Of course they do - and they are kind of like you guys - ABB...

But you think American domestic politics played a bigger role than the Vietnamese character and national experience? I find that hard to swallow.

Then get a glass of water. In the 80''s various N. Vietnamese generals and leaders went on the record stating that the anti-war movement in the states gave them the hope that they could outlast us, and that otherwise they probably would have surrendered.

You think that the leaders of the insurgency, like the leaders of Al Qaeda don''t know who George Bush is and that this is an election year?

Oh, you meant the *leaders*. I don''t buy the argument that Al Qaeda attacks, or domestic Iraqi unrest, is tied somehow in intensity to internal American politics. Al Qaeda also attacked under Clinton''s tenure. And the internal Shi''ite revolt is related to other issues. It''s those folks (since Al Qaeda involvment is said to be minimal) that I was referring to as not knowing or caring about our election.

Your assumption is that they fear Bush and will, what, increase their attacks because of that? Isn''t that the opposite effect we are trying to achieve by taking Iraq? Are you saying then that the Iraqi invasion has increased the likelihood of terror attacks against US interests?

In the 80''s various N. Vietnamese generals and leaders went on the record stating that the anti-war movement in the states gave them the hope that they could outlast us, and that otherwise they probably would have surrendered.

Where did you find out about this? I''m curious to see this for myself.

Thanks,

Robear

Your assumption is that they fear Bush and will, what, increase their attacks because of that? Isn''t that the opposite effect we are trying to achieve by taking Iraq?

Nope. I''m saying that they are emboldened by a split in US opinion.

Are you saying then that the Iraqi invasion has increased the likelihood of terror attacks against US interests?

No, I am saying that Democratic failure to unite with the country in a time of war will increase the likelihood of terror attacks and increased deaths in Iraq, just as Clinton''s actions caused bin Laden to consider us a ""paper tiger"" and led to 9/11.

Where did you find out about this? I''m curious to see this for myself.

Various news sources over the years. I''ll hunt down some links.

No, I am saying that Democratic failure to unite with the country in a time of war will increase the likelihood of terror attacks and increased deaths in Iraq, just as Clinton''s actions caused bin Laden to consider us a ""paper tiger"" and led to 9/11.

Just like they failed to unite the country in 1941 and 1965, I guess. Whatever.

Various news sources over the years. I''ll hunt down some links.

Thanks. I''m genuinely interested. I''m familiar with Giap and others claiming the anti-war movement helped with American public opinion slowing the tempo of the war, but not with any assertion that they were ready to quit otherwise.

Robear