From Pyrrhus to Petraeus
Right wing spokespersons are dutifully picking up Bush’s “Iraq is Vietnam” theme and trudging along with it. There are a couple of examples at the Corner. Here is the reliably inane Jonah Goldberg:
The mainstream media and a lot of liberal-leaning analysts seem to think it’s politically foolish or reckless for Bush to compare Vietnam to Iraq because they have one very specific narrative in mind when it comes to that war: America shouldn’t have gotten in, couldn’t have won, and then lost. What they have long failed to grasp is that’s not the moral of the story in the hearts of millions of Americans who believe that we could have won if wanted to and it was a disaster for American prestige and honor that we lost (whether we should have gone in is a murkier question for many, I think).
Liberal leaning = Reality based.
Murky as Turkey Jerky if you ask me.
Of course we could have won in Vietnam. Most of the country was simply not willing to pay the economic or moral price. We could have, for example, dropped nuclear weapons on the north (or continued the early policy of carpet-bombing) or we could have increased the size of the U.S. armed forces to over 2 million and deployed them all in Vietnam (at ruinous cost).
The fact is that a majority of the American people chose as a society not to pay that economic price or moral cost.
What if we did win in Vietnam? We destroyed the country, didn't we? Maybe that's the plan for Iraq, too. After ruining Iraq, we can move on to Iran.
How can we rid ourselves of our evil leaders?
Still to come: The Fall of Saigon, Reprised.
Suck on that, assclowns of the right. You asked for it. You got it.
Lived though Viet Nam...I have no words anymore that can even begin to relate my feelings...regarding Bush and what he continues to do to the soul of this country.
He does have big brass ones...
I never thought I would see the day when I would see Bush's name (or any other GOP member for that matter) in the same sentence with the name Vietnam. You know darned well that those GOPers that dodged the draft back then made sure that their names were never associated with Vietnam back then. :lol:
The sad reality is, there's a pretty vocal chunk of society that just wants to nuke everybody. I think I'm gonna look into moving to Canada. I'm embarrassed and ashamed of this place.
I sure wish people would distinguish between 'compare' and 'compare'.
'to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences' and 'to consider or describe as similar; liken'.
There is nothing wrong comparing Vietnam to Iraq or Bush to Hitler, as long you are not equating them.
Goldberg was in diapers when I was being drafted.
Start a draft and see how fast 'Mr. History' changes his tune ... what a tool.
Sure, there's absolutely nothing wrong with comparing Iraq to Vietnam, regardless of the differences. At our core, we are driven by metaphor: comparing similar and dissimilar things. Language itself is metaphor.
But when you have a lizard's brain, as the prezzildent does, the comparisons are not very useful, and the public should be protected from the morons who publicize his unique slants on the world. Narrow little fellow, W.
Rock on, Blogistan.
Wasn't Vietnam a "Democrat" war?
Didn't a conservative Republican president end it, apparently "precipitously?"
To some, war is a football game. You have to win. And we could have won in Vietnam if only Bush would have played instead of sat on the sidelines?
Bob Roberts @ 3:
Not to mention that we had had it with the dishonesty from the so called "Best and Brightest) At one point 72 or 73% of us wanted out of Viet Nam now period, regardless of the consequences. Nixon said to that " I will not be swayed by public opinion." My goodness another comparison that holds true today, a Pres. ignoring the will of the people. At least Congress started hearing us and stopped the insanity of Viet Nam.
I don't know, maybe there is some slight comparison here. Vietnam was a loss and Iraq is being considered more and more like a lost cause as well by many in the United States. The only difference now is that instead of deferments being handed out to the GOP like those given to them during Vietnam the GOP are resigning instead from the Bush Administration at a fast rate.
Just like with this war the right thinks they lost viet nam because they lost control of 'the message.' Well this time they had control of the message and they still f**ked up. Because they have never been in a war think its all about 'spin' ... think the right phrase, speech or photo op is all they need to 'win.'
F**king idiots in a noise chamber.
Jonah gets brake failure when driving past the enlistment office. He won't sacrifice anything. He won't give up his tax cut or his fatty foods
JasonS @ 12:
Sadly Jason war pulls in all regardless of politics. It is just yes, Johnson escalated it big time knowing we could not "win". Sadly Kennedy was to do the exact opposite if elected to a second term.
God I am sick of hearing that word we have to win...win what!!!!????
It was an ugly end to something that should never have been started, just as the insanity in Iraq. I can't believe the military is allowing themselves to be pulled down into the muck of this Pres. and the neocons..it took years for them to recover respect after Viet Nam.
Why do smart minds( I leave Bush out of that category) think war solves anything?
This is just another last-ditch attempt to sway an electorate that the Repugs obviously consider to be brain dead. As the Repugs become further and further divorced from reality, they look dumber and more corrupt. This time they've seriously underestimated the American public. There is only so much rewriting of history that people will allow. I imagine that when this ploy fails they'll try something even more outrageous, since they are incapable of moderation and self-discipline in their dealings with us. I can hardly wait for the next big lie.
Why didn't he just come right out and call former Commander-In-Chief Of The Army And Navy Richard M. Nixon a pussy for pulling troops out of Viet Nam? He also had a lot to say about Truman and North Korea, but nobody's following up on it. Praise be Truman for sending troops into the conflict. (I wanna be Remembered. Just. Like. Him. Someday.) I must've missed the part where he called Eisenhower a wimp for going after a NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT and pulling troops out of Korea when he realized that it was an unwinnable conflict, but that could've been one of the parts that was edited out for the Reader's Digest version of military history.
What Wingnuttia fails (or is unwilling) to grasp is that the Vietnam War was essentially an independence movement. Yes, Ho Chi Minh was a communist, and yes, China and the USSR gave military aid to North Vietnam.
Perhaps if we had abided by the Geneva Accords of 1954 which required elections in 1956, Ho wouldn't have felt the need to seek assistance from outsiders, and relations with Vietnam would have been normalized by 1964.
Think of all the bloodshed that would have been avoided.
It's like blaming the firemen for putting out the flames of your burning house because you just know - I mean really really really KNOW - that you could have handled it with your garden hose if you'd been given more time and more garden hose. And then complaining incessantly and for all time about your prestige and honor being lost.
Damn firemen.
Goldberg should be more concerned with "seller's remorse" regarding Iraq. But that would
require a brain and a heart.
jimmiraybob @ 22:
that's a great analogy - then and now!
this is picking up the ari fLIEscher mantra: "screw the truth! more should die because so many have already died!"
Anyone with a brain, which right away leaves out Jonah Goldberg, realizes that we lost Vietnam because we did not have a strategy. The tactics executed at the fighting level were superb, but the military's hands were tied when they wanted to execute higher level strategic objectives - taking out soviet-installed SAMS in North Korea while they were being installed, for instance. Basically, Vietnam was just a holding action, waiting for the inevitable.
I'm sick and tired of these ignoramus neo-cons living in this alternate reality where just wishing it were so makes it so.
He's right. That's not the moral of the story.
The moral of the story, according to people like my dad, who served during the Viet Nam era (although not in Viet Nam, thankfully), is that many of his childhood friends died for no good god-damned reason.
Period.
Comparing Vietnam to Iraq can't be a good strategy for Bush (hard to believe Rove would have endorsed it), but at least he's being sincere (which makes it even easier to discern that he's a poo poo head).
JasonS @ 12:
I get where you're going, Jason.
But just for the record, Eisenhower sent troops in.
The Vietnam war was absolutely unwinnable. Despite massive and sustained attempts at interdiction at no time during that conflict was the U.S ever able to degrade the north Vietnamese logistical train to the point where the insurgency could not continue. With China and the Soviet Union feeding the necessary support to the North (at little cost to themselves) there was no possibility of a local victory without an escalation into a global conflict. Possibly a nuclear one. This is exactly the same technique that was used to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. This is the same technique that is being used in Iraq.It is true, as Petraeus has said, that the average insurgency lasts ten years. What he didn’t say is who won. A review of the history of insurgencies is not encouraging.
"What they have long failed to grasp is that’s not the moral of the story in the hearts of millions of Americans who believe that we could have won if wanted to and it was a disaster for American prestige and honor that we lost (whether we should have gone in is a murkier question for many,"
It is a murky question only to those who think with their testicles. And only those same people believe we could have one.
Pardon me and jump on me all you want. I do not believe that staying in an unwinable war to improve prestige while our military are killed and maimed shows the kind of mind set republicans have.
So, they say, to make bush look good, we should allow our military and innocent Iraqi be killed. Damn I think what would alleviate that, is to round them up, along with their families and let them take the place of the troops now under fire in Iraq.
Well, let's see.
Word has it that Bush is working on his legacy as a 'War President' and 'winning' is essential.
Repugs are finally coming around to the truth first spoken by John Murtha, mainly because recalling 2006 they fear of losing their jobs in 2008.
If that is not using the Iraq fiasco for political purposes, I cannot think of any other reason.
Also note that they are using Murtha's 'redeployment' as their own strategy after first translating 'redeployment' into 'cut-and-run'
A despicable bunch
This entire issue is further proof of how crazy Bush and his followers are. To think that Vietnam could have been "won" is so incredibly ludicrous. I think this all boils down to a major misconception of military force. We are fully capable of winning any direct military confrontation, but we cannot maintain an occupation against the will of the occupied. No military force is capable of that without first completely destroying a country.
Long term military victory in Vietnam and Iraq would require the complete destruction of those countries, involving several million US soldiers and possibly nuclear weapons. That formula worked in WWII in Germany and Japan, but we simply do not have the moral foundation for that kind of total war against Iraq.
Otay @ 26:
I should mention that the reason we did not have a viable strategy is that strategic objectives may have dragged us into war with the Soviet Union. So it may be just as well that we didn't, but that meant we could not win.
Americans will later get buyer's remorse and feel like it was a mistake and the next generation will see things very differently than their anti-war activist parents. Karl Rove made this point.
Inane? Of course, Goldberg is quoting Rove! Jesus jumping Christ.
Want a long term curse Jonah? How about what happens to a country that claims to want peace and friendship; but instead follow the path of war for its solutions.
Romans earned the Punic curse for violating ancient treaties of friendship. America's curse will be from violating its claim to be guided by justice.
Many of the same people who now believe we can win in Iraq are the same people who thought that we could have won in Vietnam. The basic problem is that you can't win someone else's civil war. Civil wars are about ideology, not money or territory. That means that in the end, the winner must also have won the majority of hearts and minds, and you can't do that with guns.
If all it took was military victories to win such a war then we would have won in Vietnam, and the war in Iraq would have been over when Bush said it was back in 2003. We never won the hearts and minds in Vietnam, and it's not likely that's gonna happen in Iraq. We want them to be like us when they just wanna be like themselves.
As pointed out by others, those who insist that we could have "won" the wars in Viet Nam are demonstrating that they understand neither history nor warfare in the modern world. Boosh, and his ilk, seem to think that if we had only stayed a bit longer and killed a few more Vietnamese then we would have emerged from the conflict as the "winner".
One disturbing similarity between Iraq and Viet Nam is that our military seems to be, for the most part, pursuing a 3rd generation strategy against a 4th generation opponent. I can recommend "The Sling and the Stone" by Col. Hammes as an excellent introduction to 4th generation warfare.
blockquote>
I should mention that the reason we did not have a viable strategy is that strategic objectives may have dragged us into war with the Soviet Union. So it may be just as well that we didn't, but that meant we could not win.
In fact, we couldn't even bomb Haiphong Harbor because of all of the international shipping in the harbor. The Russians and Chinese both provided combat pilots as well as aircraft to the North, and we knew it at the time, but tried to keep it secret. If we acknowledged their presence, some nut would have insisted that we take some action against one or both of those countries and start WW III.
Bush could say that we are now going to start supporting al qaeda and these people would be on board.
Jonah in the Dunce's corner on the "narrative" of Vietnam (since evidently has problems seeing the bald facts):
Apparently he and his fellow chickenhawks intend to lah-di-dah this historically bad goatf*ck of a quagmire of THE biggest military and foreign policy blunder in modern memory by rekerning Vietnam!
Heaven forfend these Doughboys apply a big shoehorn to those expanded Pillsbury Kid asses wedged so snugly into their armchairs and show everyone how to hold up American prestige and honor in a quagmire.
Proud Chickenhawk Goldberg wrote,
"What they have long failed to grasp is that’s not the moral of the story in the hearts of millions of Americans who believe that we could have won [in Vietnam] if wanted to and it was a disaster for American prestige and honor that we lost (whether we should have gone in is a murkier question for many, I think)."
-------------------------------------------------
Any American who believes that we could have "won (Vietnam) if we wanted to, is either a fucking idiot, a crass liar, or like young Goldie were born long after and has been influenced by said idiots and liars. Actually, considering how Vietnam came out, the "many" who even have to question wheter we should have gotten involved in the first place deserve a seat at the head of the Stupid Table. Vietnam, according to Wingnut Goldie, was a "disaster" but there is doubt about the question of going in?
No, I can't imagine any conservative Kool Aid swiller that would answer "yes" to that question.
Why isn't Goldberg serving in uniform? The Army needs smart guys like him with big balls.
Otay said,
should mention that the reason we did not have a viable strategy is that strategic objectives may have dragged us into war with the Soviet Union. So it may be just as well that we didn’t, but that meant we could not win.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull. Blame the Russians on our stupidly getting involved with someone else's civil war? Idiotic. What do you mean by "win?" Nuke them? Viable strategy? What?
Besides, the enemy that LBJ feared would enter the fray was Red China.
Winning = When the
VietnameseIraqi people happily accept their neo-colonial status and support the US backed puppet-regime.Bob Roberts said:
Of course we could have won in Vietnam. Most of the country was simply not willing to pay the economic or moral price. We could have, for example, dropped nuclear weapons on the north (or continued the early policy of carpet-bombing) or we could have increased the size of the U.S. armed forces to over 2 million and deployed them all in Vietnam (at ruinous cost).
The fact is that a majority of the American people chose as a society not to pay that economic price or moral cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain the "win" in bombing Vietnam with nuclear weapons? Pull out and leave a big smoking hole? Just what foreign policy objective would that accomplish?
I guess a depressed fellow could cure his mental problems by shooting himself in the head? Then he'd be all better!
I find the entire idea that "prestige and honor" can be found in the horrors of war a view that borders onb the insane. What is worse is when people use those jingoistic firestarters to short-cut rational discourse and thereby justify (what is typically) the senseless slaughter of thousands, or millions.
STFU!
Carmikl @ 39:
In fact, we couldn't even bomb Haiphong Harbor because of all of the international shipping in the harbor. The Russians and Chinese both provided combat pilots as well as aircraft to the North, and we knew it at the time, but tried to keep it secret. If we acknowledged their presence, some nut would have insisted that we take some action against one or both of those countries and start WW III.
Is this an oblique reference to any particular general?
Washington ultimately ordered a halt to the planning for the use of tactical nukes out of fear that exposure of the study would add fuel to the growing anti-war protests in the U.S. As historian Stanley Karnow reports, "Westmoreland later denounced the ban, arguing that the use of nuclear weapons could conceivably have compelled the Communists to capitulate, in the same way that two atomic bombs 'had spoken convincingly' to the Japanese leaders during World War II."*
The U.S. did not, of course, resort to nuclear weapons at Khe Sanh, relying instead on conventional munitions. During the nine-week siege, B-52s dropped more than 75-thousand tons of explosives on a five-square-mile battlefield, the heaviest bombing deluge in the history of warfare.
In the end, America's emphasis on the importance of Khe Sanh proved misguided. This became clear when, shortly after Westmoreland's tour in Vietnam ended in June, 1968, the U.S. simply abandoned the Marine outpost. Yet, just a few months earlier, U.S. officials and military planners had actively debated the use of nuclear weapons in defense of the garrison.
*I would like to clarify that Japan did not, nor any of her allies, have a retaliatory nuclear strike capability.
Geazer @ 20:
In both cases what was at stake was the possibility of a much larger war against a much more powerful enemy. In both cases China and perhaps the Soviet Union could have been drawn into the fight if we took more aggressive action.
Chinese "volunteers" nearly drove our army into the sea in Korea before we finally recovered. The human wave tactics they used caused thousands of casualties. They took more casualties than we did but they had a lot more soldiers to spare.
We had to make a choice in both wars, negotiated a settlement or take that next step and start World War III. To a lot of Neocons that might not seem like a bad option, but to rational human beings we took the better option.
Viet Nam. Iraq. Iran. Win. Lose. It doesn't matter to Bush, Cheney et al. It's the perpetual war machine that they want to keep going - to fill their pockets (their own and those of their corporatist buddies) with blood money. All the while keeping the fools among us living in fear so they willingly give up our freedom and civil rights. America's work in the world stopped being honorable long ago.
General Jonah from the neoCONS Fighting 101st keyboardists. Go to Iraq Jonah, please. Take a walk down main street Baghdad. You and your buddy Kristol and leave the "green zone" dog and pony show.
Party over country, conservative vs liberal. All Jonah all the time. A real schmuck chickenhawk.
As warfare has changed from troglodytes with clubs to the middle ages and early America with their phalanx to the classic warfare employed in the 19th and early 20th century, that is all gone. Future wars will be fought clandestinely and by insurgents.
What the heck does Doughboy know about Vietnam? Was he even alive back then???
Oh, and has he finally enlisted yet? Because this writing gig of his is getting very tiresome...
From Pyrrhus to Petraeus
Gen. Petraeus has bloody gums?
Bob Roberts @ 3:
ysbaddaden @ 54:
The Vietnamese lacked carpets?
Capabilty Jones @ 43:
Um, "idiotic" would be saying that I blamed the Russians on our stupidly getting ivolved with someone else's civil war. Read again, slowly this time.
"...in the hearts of millions of Americans who believe that we could have won if wanted to"
I see. So obviously no one wanted to "win the war". Sounds kinda lame to me. I could have been president, if I wanted to. I could be a millionaire, if I wanted to. I could fly to the moon if I wanted to, but I didn't, so there (nah nah nah). Yeah, right.
Why is it America feels it rightfully should win everything, and get everything they want?
In Britain, I heard a girl get all flustered in a train station. She blurted out, "but I'm an American." A British man said, "that's very nice for you dear," and walked on. Yeah, like so what? I just thought, "What a stupid b-word."
Capabilty Jones @ 45:
Obviously, it depends on your definition of "winning". Using your analogy, if winning were defined to be eliminating depression by whatever means, then shooting every depressed person in the head would be a "win".
Oversimplifying greatly, I though we were involved in Vietnam because of several administrations' acceptance of the domino theory of communist expansion across the globe. If you accept that premise (for the sake of argument), then destroying North Vietnam's manufacturing and trade by massive destruction (either carpet bombing or with nuclear weapons) would eliminate much of the north's ability to project force into the south. For that matter, killing every North Vietnamese man, woman and child would also fulfil the policy objective of preventing a communist take over of the south.
If that's too vague, let me try this: we could have made a desert and called it peace. In purely military terms, controlling the battlefield (however defined) at the conclusion of the conflict (however defined) generally counts as a win in most definitions of the word.
As a final attempt at clarity, note that I am not advocating this strategy. My point is that American society determined that the cost of "winning" was too high in economic and moral terms.
myiq2xu @ 44:
There you are, Jones. myiq has proposed another definition of "winning".
Otay:
Read again, slowly this time.
------------------------------------
What would a "viable strategy" for victory in Vietnam have been? I am doubtful that you, or anyone else can make a convincing case on how we could have "won" Vietnam.
Call it American hubris, the march of folly or what have you. Vietnam was a puzzle that couldn't have been cracked, Russians or no Russians.
Assholes like Goldberg(and others) are why I hate the Right wingers. Total stupidity. I'm sure if we could have "won"(whatever that means) we would have. Just like in Iraq, if we could, we would. They spout such lame-ass shit nobody could even take them serious. Instead of coming up with solutions they come up with excuses. They're pathetic.
Thing Fish @ 36:
There is wisdom there.
After 9/11 nations around the world came to our assistance in finding the criminals responsible and condemning their actions. We had succeeded in our victimhood where we would later fail by making victims of others. We had united the world against the common enemy that Bush would later turn into cartoon villains.
Our curse will be that if there is a next time the nations of the world will unite in saying that we got what we deserved.
Iraq is like Vietnam: the public was given false information to justify each war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed based on an attack that never took place, and no one was ever held accountable. The Authorized Use of Force was passed based on wmds that didn't exist, and no one was ever held accountable. I doubt that's what Bush was thinking of in making the comparison.
Capabilty Jones @ 61:
Actually, my point was that without a viable strategy, there was no way we would win. Whether we would have won with a strategy is something I never broached, and do not pretend to have an answer to.
moniker @ 64:
You know what they say the first casualty of war is: the truth. Actually truth is usually assassinated prior to the commencement of hostilities. There is good reason to believe that the first gulf war was caused by Saddam's mistaken belief the the U.S. would acquiesce to his invasion of Kuwait based on information supplied to him by U.S. diplomats. This particular aspect of the thing was Whitehouse washed with great speed.
Vietnam now has a booming economy. The country still has problems, but they are on track to becoming a first world nation. And yet, idiots like Bush and Goldberg seem to be saying that it would have been a good thing for the Vietnamese if we had just kept bombing the shit out of them and dropping napalm for a few more years. These people need therapy so badly.
Plug for my favorite Vietnam book, Tunnels of Cu Chi. The soldiers that went into the tunnels had the largest brass balls. And the Viet Cong who used them were incredibly ingenius. Both had honor that Jonah and Shrub could only dream of.
Iraq is just another chapter to added to March of Folly.
History isn't predictive. But only fools fail to learn from past mistakes. Repeating them over, and over, and over, and over...
Maybe why we 'lost' Vietnam was because of cowards like bush and cheney? Maybe we will 'lose' Iraq because of cowards like goldberg? Maybe these are the questions the wing-nuts should ask themselves? Or maybe they'd ought to just face the fact that imperial colonialism is dead.
maxbaer@67, I'm not sure if that's the book I read years ago or not. But I did read about those guys. You're sure right about the size and material of their balls!!
Comments are closed on this entry