| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"G-Ride" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2006 04:16:16 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
.....are destined to repeat it.
Here's an article on the parallels between our current "situation" in Iraq
and our involvement in Vietnam 40 years ago:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0078--
Iraq through the prism of Vietnam
COMMENTARY | March 08, 2006
Those who say Iraq is nothing like Vietnam have another guess coming, says
retired Gen. William Odom. He lists striking similarities and asserts that
only after it pulls out of Iraq can the U.S. hope for international support
to deal with anti-Western forces.
By William E. Odom
The Vietnam War experience can't tell us anything about the war in Iraq - or
so it is said. If you believe that, trying looking through this lens, and
you may change your mind.
The Vietnam War had three phases. The War in Iraq has already completed an
analogous first phase, is approaching the end of the second phase, and shows
signs of entering the third.
Phase One in Vietnam lasted from 1961 until the Congress passed the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution in March 1965, authorizing deployment of large U.S. combat
forces in South Vietnam. It began with hesitation and a gross misreading of
American strategic interests. It concluded with the U.S. use of phony
intelligence that made it seem that North Vietnamese patrol boats had
attacked U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf without provocation.
President Kennedy was ambivalent about deeper involvement, but some of his
aides believed that a North Vietnamese takeover of the south would bring
Sino-Soviet dominion over all of Southeast Asia. They paid little attention
to the emerging Sino-Soviet split, which the Intelligence Community was
reporting in the early 1960s. Accordingly, the "containment of China"
became their goal, their rationale for U.S. strategic purpose - that is, not
allowing the Soviet Bloc to expand in this region. <BR><BR>Was it really in
the American interest to "contain China" in Vietnam? By 1965, Soviet leaders
were also pursuing the containment of China, in Southeast Asia and
elsewhere. Did it, then, make sense for the United States to commit large
military forces to the pursuit of Soviet objectives in Southeast Asia?
Obviously not; the White House's strategic rationale had no grounding in
reality.
Not only Soviet leaders but Ho Chi Minh also wanted to contain China. A
long-time loyalist to Moscow and early member of Lenin's Communist
International, he was never under China's thumb. Yet he cooperated with
Beijing to balance his dependency on Moscow, disallowing either to frustrate
his aim, unifying all of Vietnam under his rule.
The Johnson Administration used an apparent North Vietnamese attack on U.S.
ships in the Gulf of Tonkin on the coast of North Vietnam in the spring of
1965 to persuade Congress to support the introduction of major U.S. ground
forces in South Vietnam. We now know that U.S. special operations -
incursions into North Vietnam by Navy Seals - played a role in prompting
North Vietnamese gun boat actions that became the casus belli for President
Johnson. Thus, a misleading interpretation of the known facts, i.e., the
intelligence assessment of these events, became the critical factor in
making it America's war, not just Saigon's war.
Phase One in Iraq, the run-up to the invasion, looks remarkably similar.
Broodings about the "necessity" to overthrow Saddam's regime were heard
earlier, but signs of action appeared in January 2002, when President Bush
proclaimed his "axis of evil" thesis about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea,
countries he accused of acquiring "weapons of mass destruction" and
supporting terrorists against the United States. This became the cornerstone
of his rationale for invading Iraq, and it was no less ill-conceived than
the strategic purpose for President Johnson's war in Vietnam. It better
served the interests of Iran and Osama bin Laden.
Iran had serious scores to settle with Iraq. In 1980, Saddam Hussein
launched a bloody war that dragged on until 1988 without a decisive end.
That President Bush would destroy Saddam's regime, saving Iran the trouble,
was probably beyond its clerics' wildest dreams.
He did the same for al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden must have been ecstatic. The
U.S. invasion opened the way for al Qaeda cadres to enter Iraq by the
scores. Killing Americans in Iraq is much easier than killing them in the
United States after 9/11. Moreover, toppling secular Arab leaders -
including Saddam - was, and remains, Osama bin Laden's highest priority aim.
America is farther down his list, seen as an intermediate objective in the
long struggle to bring his version of radical Islamic rule to all Arab
countries.
As it turned out, the alleged intelligence that Iraq had "weapons of mass
destruction" and that Saddam aided al Qaeda was grossly wrong. That, of
course, became a major international embarrassment, alienating many U.S.
allies and aiding its enemies in their claims that America is an aggressor
state that cannot be trusted.
Does all of this - confused war aims and phony intelligence - sound
familiar? It should.
Phase Two in Vietnam was marked by a refusal to reconsider the war's
"strategic" rationale. Rather, debate focused only on "tactical" issues as
the war went sour.
By1965 things had begun going badly for U.S. military operations. By the end
of March 1968, public opinion was turning against the war and Johnson chose
not to run for re-election. His own party in Congress was breaking with him,
and the pro-war New York Times reversed itself that summer.
During this phase, no major leader or opinion maker in the United States
dared revisit the key strategic judgment: did the U.S. war aim of containing
China make sense? Instead, debate focused on how the war was being fought:
on search-and-destroy operations, on body counts, and pacification efforts.
This obsession with tactical issues made it easier to ignore the strategic
error. As time passed, costs went up, casualties increased, and public
support fell. We could not afford to "cut and run," it was argued. "The Viet
Cong would carry out an awful blood-letting." Supporters of the war expected
no honest answer when they asked "How can we get out?" Eventually Senator
Aiken of Vermont gave them one: "In boats."
Phase Two in Iraq reveals that the same kind of strategic denial error
prevails today. Since 2003, public discourse has focused on how the war is
being fought. Reconstruction is inadequate. Not enough troops are available.
We should not have dismantled the Iraqi military. Elections will save the
day. The insurgency is in its "last throes." And so on. Some of these
criticisms are valid, but they fail to address the fundamental issue, the
validity of U.S. strategic purpose.
As al Qaeda marched into a country where it had not dared to tread before,
the White House refused to admit that its war allowed them in. As Iran's
influence with Iraqi Shiite clerics and militias quietly expands, the
administration refuses to confess its own culpability. As Shiite politicians
appear headed to dominate the U.S.-created "democracy" in Iraq, no one is
asking "Who lost Iraq to Iran?"
Instead, after each election and referendum in Iraq, hope surges in the
media. The New York Times's reporting on the elections in February of last
year was eerily reminiscent of its reporting from Saigon on the 1968
elections.
The end of Phase Two is not yet here, but the Congress is showing signs of
nervousness about where the war is taking the country. Republican Senator
Chuck Hagel has said that by no measure can it be said that the United
States is winning the war. Republican Congressman Walter Jones is trying to
push a resolution through the House, calling on the President to begin a
withdrawal. When Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha, a highly decorated
Marine war veteran, asserted that the war was hopeless and that U.S. forces
should be withdrawn, supporters of the Bush White House attacked his
patriotism. Sadly, the Democratic leadership refused to defend him.
Does all this sound familiar? Not entirely. In 1968 the Democratic Congress
proved willing to oppose the Democrat in the White House. The Republican
Congress today has yet to show the same courage and wisdom.
Phase Three in Vietnam was marked by "Vietnamization" and "make-believe
diplomacy" in Paris, policies still ignoring the strategic realities at the
war's beginning.
The wind-down in Vietnam actually started in Johnson's last year in office,
but Richard Nixon implemented it (taking his time doing so). Rather than a
rapid pullout, he pursued two tactics. The first was turning the war over to
South Vietnam's military so that U.S. forces could withdraw. By 1972 most of
them were gone. Second, negotiations in Paris through Soviet intermediaries
with the North Vietnamese began. Both were based on transparently false
assumptions.
The key problem in South Vietnam had always been achieving a political
consolidation among anti-Viet Cong elites. It was not building effective
military and police forces. In fact, as South Vietnamese military units
became more effective, their commanders competed aggressively for political
power, insuring a weak dictatorial regime in Saigon.
The assumptions about the Paris peace talks were no less illusory. Their
designer, Henry Kissinger, believed that Moscow would "help" the United
States reach a settlement short of total capitulation. In fact, by the late
1960s, the war was not only serving Soviet purposes against China, but also
weakening NATO, hurting the U.S. currency in the international exchange
rates, and making the charge of "imperialism" believable to citizens in many
countries allied to the United States. Thus Soviet leaders had no objective
reason to help the United States find a face-saving exodus. The deeper into
"the big muddy" in Vietnam went the United States, the better for the Soviet
Union. Second, Moscow could not have compelled North Vietnamese leaders in
Paris to accept half a loaf in South Vietnam. Hanoi was playing off Moscow
and Beijing with no intention of conceding its ultimate goal for any price.
The war ended, we now know, with the abject failure of both policies. As
helicopters evacuated the American Embassy in Saigon in 1975, both illusions
vanished.
Phase Three in Iraq is only beginning. Early signs were apparent in the
presidential election campaign of 2004. Both Bush and Kerry put full
confidence in "Iraqization." U.S. forces will "stand down" as Iraqi forces
"stand up." They differed only on who could train more Iraqis faster. Nor
would they acknowledge that "political consolidation" had to come before
"military consolidation," as the Vietnam experience demonstrated.
In Iraq, we watch U.S.-led make-believe diplomacy negotiating a
constitutional deal among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Should we believe that
the Iraqi Shiites, a majority of the population with the trauma of Saddam's
bloody repressions burned into their memories, will settle for less than
full control? And why should we expect the Kurds to surrender their
decade-old autonomy after suffering no less bloody repressions than did the
Shiites? And why should we expect Sunnis to trust a Shiite-Kurdish regime
not to take revenge against them for Saddam's crimes? And why would Iran and
Syria be willing to abandon support for their co-religionists in Iraq in
order to strike a peace deal favorable to the United States?
Will Phase Three in Iraq end with helicopters flying out of the "green zone"
in Baghdad? It all sounds so familiar.
The difference lies in the consequences. Vietnam did not have the
devastating effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already having. On this
point, those who deny the Vietnam-Iraq analogy are probably right. They are
wrong, however, in believing that "staying the course" will have any result
other than making the damage to U.S. power far greater than changing course
and withdrawing sooner in as orderly a fashion as possible.
But even in its differences, Vietnam can be instructive about Iraq. Once the
U.S. position in Vietnam collapsed, Washington was free to reverse the
negative trends it faced in NATO and U.S.-Soviet military balance, in the
world economy, in its international image, and in other areas. Only by
getting out of Iraq can the United States possibly gain sufficient
international support to design a new strategy for limiting the burgeoning
growth of anti-Western forces it has unleashed in the Middle East and
Southwest Asia.
***
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"Birds fall from the window ledge above mine.
Then they flap their wings at the last second."
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
09 Mar 2006 04:43:48 PM |
|
|
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
10 Mar 2006 12:03:46 PM |
|
|
<nbatra@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1141944228.121702.206580@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
If the US stays, there will likely be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
"Birds fall from the window ledge above mine.
Then they flap their wings at the last second."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
09 Mar 2006 07:11:52 PM |
|
|
<nbatra@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1141944228.121702.206580@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
Get real. There is already a civil war in Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
09 Mar 2006 11:43:36 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:zk4Qf.906$96.87@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
<nbatra@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1141944228.121702.206580@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
Get real. There is already a civil war in Iraq.
And Marines ducking the bombs and bullets as a result of.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
09 Mar 2006 11:21:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
If you didn't want that, why did you remove Saddam?
Oh, right, you're not fighting in Iraq, are you? Why don't you sign up
and go over there to help prevent a civil war?
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
11 Mar 2006 08:47:33 PM |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2006 21:21:00 -0800, wrote in alt.atheism
nbatra@sbcglobal.net wrote:
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
If you didn't want that, why did you remove Saddam?
Oh, right, you're not fighting in Iraq, are you? Why don't you sign up
and go over there to help prevent a civil war?
No no no. One can't expect the cretin to put his 'precious' hide in
harms way! That's for *others* to do.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
11 Mar 2006 08:41:56 PM |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2006 14:43:48 -0800, wrote in alt.atheism
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
The US is the problem, Sport. You know, occupying invaders?
Please, be my guest, enter the armed forces and volunteer for service
in Iraq or Afghanistan.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
09 Mar 2006 11:04:50 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (nbatra@sbcglobal.net) made
the light shine upon us with this:
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
So what?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Atheists get to live their lives in accordance with their own desires. I
call that a win, compared to the collossal waste of time being an active
Christian. Atheist: win. Christian: lose. "No win" never comes into
play, because there are no gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
10 Mar 2006 10:19:02 AM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (nbatra@sbcglobal.net) made
the light shine upon us with this:
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
So what?
Two issues:
1. Credibility
The US, not only the government, but also the opposition, have promised
to create a better Iraq as it was under Saddam. Moving out now will be
seen as abandoning the Iraqis to a situation created by the US and
remove most of the little bit of support the West has in Muslim
countries. Not that there is much left anyways.
2. Repetition of Afghanistan
After the Taliban won the war there, the west sat back and watched what
would happen. The result was a country harboring and supporting those
responsible for 9/11. Limited military actions were unable to stop this.
After we don't know who would win in Iraq, it's speculation that this
would repeat, but the possibility is there.
And before you say it, no, I'm not saying that staying in Iraq would be
the guaranteed better solution. Just listing the two issues immediately
coming to my mind.
j.m.
#1491
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
10 Mar 2006 08:43:45 PM |
|
|
In <47dn7nFf4vrqU1@individual.net>, "j.m.1491@gmx.net" <j.m.1491@gmx.net>
wrote:
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (nbatra@sbcglobal.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
So what?
Two issues:
1. Credibility
What credibility?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
I just love this...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
Um... didn't foresee what exactly?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CA129BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
11 Mar 2006 08:46:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:19:02 -0500, "j.m.1491@gmx.net"
<j.m.1491@gmx.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Uncle Vic wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (nbatra@sbcglobal.net) made
the light shine upon us with this:
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
So what?
Two issues:
1. Credibility
The US, not only the government, but also the opposition, have promised
to create a better Iraq as it was under Saddam. Moving out now will be
seen as abandoning the Iraqis to a situation created by the US and
remove most of the little bit of support the West has in Muslim
countries. Not that there is much left anyways.
Neither the US (especially the US) or the current Iraqi government has
any credibility. Secondly, the situation was *created* by the
deliberate plan of ShrubCo.
2. Repetition of Afghanistan
After the Taliban won the war there, the west sat back and watched what
would happen. The result was a country harboring and supporting those
responsible for 9/11. Limited military actions were unable to stop this.
After we don't know who would win in Iraq, it's speculation that this
would repeat, but the possibility is there.
It's already occurring. Theocracy gets handed the prize, gratis, by
George Bush.
And before you say it, no, I'm not saying that staying in Iraq would be
the guaranteed better solution. Just listing the two issues immediately
coming to my mind.
That was understood.
Cheers.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Those who don't learn the past..... |
10 Mar 2006 09:13:16 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (j.m.1491
@gmx.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
If the U.S. leaves, there will be full-scale civil war in Iraq.
So what?
Two issues:
1. Credibility
We lost our credibility years ago.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Atheists get to live their lives in accordance with their own desires. I
call that a win, compared to the collossal waste of time being an active
Christian. Atheist: win. Christian: lose. "No win" never comes into
play, because there are no gods.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
