Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout

Originally posted by Vitchilo
... if Hillary gets in... she'll stay in Iraq that's for sure. And to stop Iran killing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, what she'll do? Nuke Iran or invade it, which means a draft.

Can we look at Hillary Clintons speeches or anything? Im pretty sure she is all for the removal of our troops from iraq, her and Obama, which is why one of those two will win the democratic vote. Its all polotics man, the next president will probably be democratic, and they have to please all the democrats by pulling our troops from iraq.
While i think the invasion of Iran will happen under the Bush administration (not the next presidents), i think we are all actually smart enough not to use a nuke... we are past that now. the only thing that would invoke us using a nuclear weapon now would be the use of one on american soil.

I think I'll take issue with that assertion. Hillary will bring the Iraq mission to an end during her first term in office. The act of bringing the Iraq war to an end will earn her enough good will with the American people to ensure a second term. Bear in mind that she knows the economy will tank on her watch. She'll want to discontinue Iraq spending so that she can divert those funds in to domestic programs.

reply to post by xpert11

The legacy of the Vietnam war is a war that was lost by incompetent civilian and military leaders. Many Americans most of who come from the right of the political spectrum don't understand the nature of counter insurgency warfare. Counter insurgency warfare is about who controls the territory and who has access to the local population. Such wars are fought with a daily grind over a period of years before they are won. Vast amounts of resources . manpower and time are often needed to win an counter insurgency war.

My friends, I grew up in an insurgency counter-insurgency world. I can recall the Dutch fighting in Indonesia. The British fighting in Borneo, in Rhodesia - now Zimbabwe - and in Kenya. I recall the Belgians fighting in Congo. The French fighting in Algeria after they had fought and lost in Vietnam. I recall when the Greeks were fighting each other. I remember with sadness the Hungarian Revolt of 1956. Hey, I had just been Honorably Discharged after 4 years in the US Air Force when it happened. I remember the Chinese Communist versus Nationalists War. 1949. I was in Korea in 1953. All of this to let you know that I believe I know smelting about insurgency and counter insurgency wars.

I cannot recall an instance (insurgency) when I did not support the cause of the underdogs. The native peoples yearning to be free. Hey, that's what I thought America was all about? See Foot Note. I’ve watched as the British left Singapore, the Dutch left Jakarta, the French left Saigon and Hanoi, and for the fist time in 300 years, 250 million East Asian people were FREE of foreign domination.

The instances I mentioned were examples of nationalism triumphing over colonialism. That is the simple reason America was beaten in Vietnam. We were taking the place of France. It was not Jane Fonda. It was not tying the hands of the military. It was because 99.44% of Vietnamese wanted foreigners OUT of Vietnam. And I think there is a similarity in Iraq. Mr al Maliki showed that last week when he told Americans to SHUT UP. He said he could find friends ELSEWHERE. Maybe in the mountains of northwest Pakistan? Hmm?

Did the insurgencies turn out the way we would have scripted it? No. But it did turn out. In all too many insurgencies the foreign devils were replaced with home grown devils. That was a totally predictable consequence of colonialism. In some instances, I’m thinking especially of the Belgians, the departing colonialists purposely destroyed the paperwork on which modern societies are based. The Congo. And Congo is still suffering. The West has a very high level of tolerance for human rights abuse by African leaders. I’m thinking of the likes of Edi Amin in Uganda.

Now we are witnessing the last of the great insurgencies. The Middle East is about to turn out the foreign devils. It may - and most likely will - replace those with home grown devils. To name the devils is why we are suffering dead GIs every day and why we are spending $12 b. a month of money we will not tax ourselves to pay. We want to script the outcome! With the bunglers we now have in the WH, that is very unlikely. We can look forward only to more DEAD GIs and countless more billions flushed down Halliburton’s toilet. But I have warned you, that is what you get when you vote Republican. It’s like night follows day.

History of ME in 200 words. In the 1890s, as warships were converting from coal to oil, the Germans built a Berlin to Baghdad railroad to compete with the French Paris to Istanbul railroad. Agatha Christie made that one famous with murder on the Orient Express. By 1914, the Germans were in deep consultation with Persia to run an extension from Baghdad to Teheran. The 1914-1918 war delayed that. The Germans and their late coming ally, the Ottomans (now Turkey) lost the war and the German interests became the British interests as a prize of war. The Ottoman’s territory was divided between the UK and France. France took the prize of the Mediterranean, Beirut, along with Syria which goes with Beirut since time immoral, and the Brits got the rest. Which included Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait.

Now we hear the same litany, STAY the course, defeat the insurgents from Bush43. The very same words Richard Nixon and his flunky Henry Kissinger used as they prolonged the Vietnam War more than 5 years, killing 22,000 American soldiers to save Nixon’s image. Legacy. Iraq is a re-run for Bush43 and his image. Lelgacy. Everyone concedes Iraq is a lost cause. We are now arguing how to get out with some national face remining. How many more will die in Iraq? I do not want to trade death for face.

Today, no one will tell us just what THE COURSE really means. No one in power will tell us and the sycophants who pose as journalists don't know or don't care. I will tell you. It means a subservient Iraq government that will allow foreign capitalists to exploit the country's natural resources and its people. This usually means the lackeys we install in power will get a small share of the wealth that is expropriated by the foreigners. Hush money. In Iraq’s case, the exploiters will be the likes of ExxonMobil and British Petroleum. BP. Royal Dutch Shell. Etc. One hand washes the other. With Halliburton now removed to the UAE as the overseer under the control of US interests.


Foot Note. Realizing that a world war was inevitable, and that the US would necessarily be involved, President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously articulated the goals of the United States in his State of the Union Address delivered to Congress on January 6, 1941. He recited our national purpose in the now famous “Four Freedoms” speech which is abbreviated here:

1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of every person to worship in his own way
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear

Although lots of other patriotic speeches were made by dozens of leaders, this speech remains a monument to brevity and clarity and is filled with timeless content, much like Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

The concept was endorsed later in the year at the mid-Atlantic meeting of FDR and Winston Churchill and finally, it furnished a guide post to the framers of the United Nations Charter. These briefly expressed ideals remain as worthy goals for any nation.

[edit on 8/26/2007 by donwhite]

As a historian, I can find no reason to disagree with what Don says here. I think his analysis is on target. For my part, I think we dropped the ball when we failed to leave in a timely fashion. Indecision and imcompetence has ruled the day. the very last time we had any real chance to leave with dignity was the day AFTER we'd caught Saddam. We might have still pulled out with some pride after Saddam was executed, but even that slim shot at a satisfactory ending was thrown away.

British and Commonwealth forces in Malaysia set the tone for counter insurgency warfare with the Briggs plan and as of 2007 the Malaysia Emergency is the only post war counter insurgency operation that could come close to being called successful and is often ignored by those who support so called liberators and by those who say that a counter insurgency war cant be won .

There are of course a lot of factors at work that go off topic but it worth bearing in mind what I pointed out. Naturally it doesn't seem practical to implement the Briggs plan in Iraq but that were new ground should have been broken but instead incompetent ruled the day.

(CNN) - President Bush will try to put a twist on comparisons of the war to Vietnam by invoking the historical lessons of that conflict to argue against pulling out. On Wednesday, Bush will tell members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end . . "

IN TRUTH that is exactly what did happen. All American fighting forces left Vietnam in 1973 excepting a few embassy guards and some non-military US AID personnel. The South Vietnam Army was defeated in 1975. The US had to flee Saigon on short notice causing the unseemly evacuation off the US embassy rooftop by helicopters. Tv cameras showed 1000s of Vietnamese clamoring to get over the walls lest they be left behind. They were. Left behind. (Actually, about 200,000 were brought here as "boat people" and rich RVN Army types. Those Army types flew in First Class).

The NVA - North Vietnamese Army - did indeed try a few War Criminals and some were executed. Probably fewer than if the South Vietnamese had broken the NVA instead. The remainder of RVN personnel were sent to re-indoctrination camps for various terms, usually 1 or 2 years. Forced labor such as digging draining ditches and building roads in the AM was followed by pro-communist “teaching” in the PM. This was the method of re-indoctrination. There was NO bloodbath in Vietnam.

posted by china12
If the US forces are seen by the world to cut and run again, do you honestly think that you will find allies next time?

Allies are usually available if you pay enough money or special deals. That is how we got the Coalition of the Willing this time and we’ll get it next time because Uncle Sam is too big to let him fail altogether.

There will be a next time, you know that don’t you? They want to be seen to win the war against you, the greatest military power on earth! They will stop at nothing. Can you also imagine the damage to your credibility throughout the world. I don’t think it matters anymore who or why WE got into this mess but it certainly matters what we do now.

I disagree about not worth knowing why or how we got to the mess we are in today. That was the problem then, we acted without knowing. Let is try to quit that bad habit and begin to act smart, not fight dumb.

We have the military capability to bring this war to an end and we should not shrink from using it. Used wisely it would ultimately save lives, a great many lives.

I don’t think so. That we have the military capability to bring the war to an end. We had 550,000 fighting men in Vietnam and we “could not bring the war to an end” as we learned in January, 1968, in the Great Tet Offensive. The 35,000 Surge Troops were our reserve Reserves. There are no more. We have NO allies.

Oh, don’t count NATO in Afghan an ally. They are there on temporary duty but will not take casualties. That must have been our promise to get them there at all. We promised the coalition forces in Iraq that American men would do the dying; your men must be standing there to make it more acceptable to the folks back home. By Secret Executive Order, of course.

posted by Justin Oldham
There is a definite difference between a war and nation-building. We won the war. Now, we are inadequately prepared for the chore of building a nation. To make matters worse, we are not prepared to intervene in a civil war.

Shucks, Mr J/O, look at the West “By God” Virginia HATE crime reported today. We ain’t bilt no respectable nation here yet.

If we had more troops, I'd say send 'em. If we had the will to grit it out for the next ten years, I'd say do it. but, we don't. It hurts to say, but we need to learn from this, and we need to do it sooner rather than later. It will take a generation to restore our good name in the eyes of world opinion. We don't have to like it, but we do have to do it. We can't make the Shia and the Sunni get along. We could force the issue and make the Sunni leave Iraq, but even that would take more will than we have now. With this in mind, I say its time for the Iraqis to be the masters of their own fate.

Yes, Mr J/O. That’s indeed a somber diagnosis and a sobering prognosis. I also believe you are correct. I join you in saying the sooner we get about swallowing this false pride “purgative” the better off we’ll all be.

If we could have all watched the PBS broadcast last night on “How We Got Here From There”* showing the underlaying causes of Islamic resentment of the West as epitomized by the US and Israel, we’d at least know what has gone wrong. It is fairly easy to see the problems, but it’s several orders of magnitude more difficult to implement the obvious solutions.

*My title, I don’t know theirs.

[edit on 9/12/2007 by donwhite]