Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iraq is indeed another Vietnam for America
reefdiver    2/24/2007 12:41:08 AM
I'm convinced that Iraq has indeed become America's new "Vietnam". How so? * The US is again fighting an enemy counting more on manipulating the US media in destroying American stamina and morale than in winning battles. They don't win any battles - they just win television sound-bite time. A very small minority has their (horrific) vision and hopes televised. Its once again looking like a good strategy. * The US is fighting a proxy war with a foe being largely funded and provided arms by another country or countries. Such a war has the potential to go on indefinitely ala Vietnam. * A liberal anti-war congress is once again looking to assure that American does not win, but rather decides to give up. They're putting more effort into fighting the President and the military than they're willing to put into fighting the enemy. And the enemy, noticing their actions, will only ratchet up their efforts - killing more Americans and Iraqi's (in ways to attract the most media attention). I believe this last fact is impossible to deny at this point. Congress is directly endangering American soldiers. * Politics are dictating the war, resulting in ROE's dangerous for American soldiers (e.g. the Shia militia's have been largely left alone until recently and will probably never be disarmed and dismantled.) * The US is unwilling to attack the source of the continuing problem at this point - Iran - just as they were for the most part unwilling to directly attack North Vietnam for most of the Vietnam war. * Once again the US may simply pull out - abandoning people the US promised hope to. Its possible another million civilians could be killed - just like in Vietnam (although Saudi-Arabia has promised to intercede if this starts happening - talk about trouble...) Its a proven formula the enemy is using. Its almost guaranteed to work. They know this and have told us so. So I say - quit denying its another Vietnam because it is. I believe the liberal Democrats are trying to do their best to assure it is. They want another Vietnam, its in their power to assure such, and they're going to do it. They'll do anything in their power, at any cost, to attempt to shame Bush and the Republicans. They're determined to see their predictions come true. So please tell me I've got it all wrong...
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
Bigfella2       2/24/2007 2:52:25 AM

I'm convinced that Iraq has indeed become America's new "Vietnam". How so?

* The US is again fighting an enemy counting more on manipulating the US media in destroying American stamina and morale than in winning battles. They don't win any battles - they just win television sound-bite time. A very small minority has their (horrific) vision and hopes televised. Its once again looking like a good strategy.

* The US is fighting a proxy war with a foe being largely funded and provided arms by another country or countries. Such a war has the potential to go on indefinitely ala Vietnam.

* A liberal anti-war congress is once again looking to assure that American does not win, but rather decides to give up. They're putting more effort into fighting the President and the military than they're willing to put into fighting the enemy. And the enemy, noticing their actions, will only ratchet up their efforts - killing more Americans and Iraqi's (in ways to attract the most media attention). I believe this last fact is impossible to deny at this point. Congress is directly endangering American soldiers.

* Politics are dictating the war, resulting in ROE's dangerous for American soldiers (e.g. the Shia militia's have been largely left alone until recently and will probably never be disarmed and dismantled.)

* The US is unwilling to attack the source of the continuing problem at this point - Iran - just as they were for the most part unwilling to directly attack North Vietnam for most of the Vietnam war.

* Once again the US may simply pull out - abandoning people the US promised hope to. Its possible another million civilians could be killed - just like in Vietnam (although Saudi-Arabia has promised to intercede if this starts happening - talk about trouble...)

Its a proven formula the enemy is using. Its almost guaranteed to work. They know this and have told us so.

So I say - quit denying its another Vietnam because it is. I believe the liberal Democrats are trying to do their best to assure it is. They want another Vietnam, its in their power to assure such, and they're going to do it. They'll do anything in their power, at any cost, to attempt to shame Bush and the Republicans. They're determined to see their predictions come true.

So please tell me I've got it all wrong...

 
You are an idiot. The only thing worse than your understanding of history is your grasp of current events. This war was a screw up from day one. The only people to blame are the morons in the Administration who planned & ran it. They ignored any advice or information that disagreed with their preconcieved ideas on how this should go. Your desperate attempt to blame everyone but those actually responsible are sad, but entirely predictable. When you begin from the premise that the people you support are incapable of error then this sort of thinking is inevitable. Look up 'dolschtoss theory' and you'll see what fine footsteps you follow in. Some people (myself included) have been grownup enough to admit that they wildly overestimated the ability of this Administration to competently run the war. Apparently you are not among them. 

 
Quote    Reply

anuts    BigFella   2/24/2007 3:57:53 AM

You are an idiot. The only thing worse than your understanding of history is your grasp of current events. This war was a screw up from day one. The only people to blame are the morons in the Administration who planned & ran it. They ignored any advice or information that disagreed with their preconcieved ideas on how this should go. Your desperate attempt to blame everyone but those actually responsible are sad, but entirely predictable. When you begin from the premise that the people you support are incapable of error then this sort of thinking is inevitable. Look up 'dolschtoss theory' and you'll see what fine footsteps you follow in. Some people (myself included) have been grownup enough to admit that they wildly overestimated the ability of this Administration to competently run the war. Apparently you are not among them. 
>>"They ignored any advice or information that disagreed with their preconcieved ideas on how this should go."<<-Bigfella
 
Pure speculation. Unless, of course, you were involved and present during prep/presentation of the relative NIE (not to mention actual 'game plan'-for lack of better term). In which case, I would understand not being allowed to address this point. You'll pardon if I have my doubts.


>>"When you begin from the premise that the people you support are incapable of error then this sort of thinking is inevitable."<<-Bigfella
 
Herein lies the problem. I don't see any indication that Reefdiver claims the 'people who he supports are incapable of error.' In fact, I would be floored to hear for the first time anyone anywhere claimed no mistakes were made...in any war for that matter. But what is the point? The importance of it is akin to arguing whether we should have gone to war 3 1/2 years into it. That thinking and debate does nothing to advance any interest.
 
Quote    Reply

shek       2/24/2007 12:46:53 PM


>>"They ignored any advice or information that disagreed with their preconcieved ideas on how this should go."<<-Bigfella

Pure speculation. Unless, of course, you were involved and present during prep/presentation of the relative NIE (not to mention actual 'game plan'-for lack of better term). In which case, I would understand not being allowed to address this point. You'll pardon if I have my doubts.

>>"When you begin from the premise that the people you support are incapable of error then this sort of thinking is inevitable."<<-Bigfella
 
Herein lies the problem. I don't see any indication that Reefdiver claims the 'people who he supports are incapable of error.' In fact, I would be floored to hear for the first time anyone anywhere claimed no mistakes were made...in any war for that matter. But what is the point? The importance of it is akin to arguing whether we should have gone to war 3 1/2 years into it. That thinking and debate does nothing to advance any interest.
Anuts,
Bigfella is right on.  The Administration (read, the political apointees at the helm of DoD) failed to properly consider and plan for winning the peace.  Instead, the command attention focused almost exclusively on the march to Baghdad.  The marginal benefit of this near exclusivity?  According to GEN Franks, he always believed that it would take four weeks IIRC.  Actual time to march to Bagdad?  Three weeks.  A gain of one less week of war.  The marginal cost of over a year's worth of refinement for a decrease in one week of war. 

When you look at the opportunity cost of our failed winning the peace strategy, the above is an abyssmal failure of the civilian leadership in the administration, namely within DoD.
As far as the tired "mistakes are made in every war" argument, it's lame.  There's a difference in making mistakes versus just plain failing.  The administration made some huge mistakes that are just plain failures.  DeBaathification that cut too deep.  Disbanding the military, and doing it in a fashion as to be completely insulting.  Failing to deploy enough troops such that Iraq has never been secured.  Senior leaders on the ground counseled against these moves.  Pre-war studies and planning made it clear that some of the above policies were abysmal failures from the get go (and the ensuing strength and depth of the insurgency bore this out).  Instead to heeding counsel, the administration instead offered a stiff arm and pursued tactics that would silence constructive criticism and tried to paint anyone who opposed them as unpatriotic and politic.  How ironic is it that the Administration is now fighting a political battle over making sure that they can fund and support Iraq, when it was the Administration that failed to fund and support Iraq at an adequate level during the first years of the war? 
Lastly, while many decisions are water under the bridge, they speak to the competence of Administration policy in Iraq and fairly open up any current decisions to a microscope. 
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver    BigFella   2/24/2007 1:25:16 PM
Ok, I'm an Idiot. I've been called worse - usually by fellow idiots.  I don't think there's any denying that substantial mistakes were made by the Bush administration. I challenge you to show me a war where mistakes haven't been made. We could argue all day about whether they should have gone to war or not. Many here can present good arguments for both sides of the issue. Thats not the point.
 
The US is involved in a war - that like it or not was for whatever reason initially approved by most of Congress.  You can't take that back. Once you're in a war you (Congress and the public) have a responsibility to the solidiers and public to win it. There is little doubt in my mind that the US has the military strength to win (if thats even definable).  However, if you don't have the political fortitude to win - then you lose.
 
I draw the parallels to the Vietnam scenerio in that the US does not have the political will to win a this point. My reasons were detailed. Instead of working to help correct mistakes and win, I see Congress wanting to once again simply bail out. Worse yet, they're simply being destructive for political gain rather than providing ideas. They have no determination to win. In so doing so, they are assuring defeat. I am saying that the US cannot win without the support of Congress.  And Congress no longer supports winning.  They are assuring another Vietnam.
 
If you want to talk about whether the US should have entered the war or not - go be an idiot somewhere else please. 
 
Otherwise tell me how the military can win without the support of congress. Maybe help define what a win really would be. Maybe tell me how a win can happen with Iran still intact.
 
I content that War is frequently, and especially today, a battle not so much of military might as of political will and determination.  I believe that the US Congress no longer has sufficient will to take any war to a satisfactory conclusion.
 
I'm nearly to the point of saying - go ahead and pull out. If Congress won't support our troops in a time of war - then get-em out as quickly as possible since they can't win with Congress against them.
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    shek   2/24/2007 1:40:55 PM
 
 1} Littlefella is not right,Littlefella is a hypocrite!. So please get that part right!. Oh and littlefella, i have already proven this the case when i confronted you Aussies about "That Lost Generation". And that's right i do know just where littlefella resides!.
 
 2} I myself have stated that our major flaw was driving straight to Baghdad and leaving way to many to fight another day!. However since both parties wanted war "They both went ahead as is!". So tell me just where was GW going to get the 350,000+ most estimate they needed for police work? Please, Mr Bill cut our active duty and moved to National Guard and Reserves in large numbers,and also cut our transport,and active logistic support.
 
 3} Now shek, all i can say is if you wish to omit real truth "Then i guess you also are a hypocrite" or as i have already stated to littlefella "The Ultimate In Hypocracy"
 
                                                                              Have A Nice Day!!!
          
                                                                                        tigertony
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       2/24/2007 1:46:29 PM
Most of the early advice and information consisted of: Illegal war!!!"...millions of starving refugees..., why are you allowing looting?...why are you killing and not liberating Iraqis?
Either you don't like it to a point where you want more troops and more money...more war... or you don't like it to a point where you'd readily be a handmaiden to the Saddam Hussein regime. It's so wrong that it needs fixed, or it's so wrong that it shouldn't have happened.
Keeping the peace between 2 strangers is usually a failure...especially if you're stepping into domestic violence. When those who don't like it the most express anything more than contempt for the capture of Baghdad; the capture, trial, conviction, and death of Saddam Hussein, the next best thing for his sons, the brand new Iraqi election process, the brand new Iraqi constitution, etc, then I'll start believing a word or two that they say.
 Peace is on a list of objectives. My big suprise let down? Holy cow! Those Iraqis are some corrupt, rascist bastages!
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    shek   2/24/2007 2:09:39 PM
 
 Oh and btw "Iraq will never, or can never, be the same as Korea or Vietnam". Now proof of this?
 
 1} We never united Korea under a democratic banner!
 
 2} We never captured one square inch of North Vietnam!
 
 3} And we never hung both nations leadership on the end of a rope!
 
 Opp's i do stand corrected about it being nothing like Korea and Vietnam:
 
  1} The USA will lose in Iraq because of men like John Kerry,and women like Sheenan and Fonda!
 
  2} Our brave will come home as baby killers,rapists,and war criminals "And be spat on as losers!".
 
                  Well as long as GW is in office "We will not come home any of the above!"
 
                                                                        tigertony
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews    Bigfella & Shrek   2/24/2007 2:24:59 PM
What really frost me about you guys is that you both fire off statements that the only people that agree with them are the ones who wrote the slogan's you guys use in the DNC like 'Win The Peace" etc.
 
Show me a war where mistakes were not made, and many of them and I will show you a good movie, not reality
 
I suppose that you all want the chamberlaineon theory of warefare to rule.
 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia    Bf   2/24/2007 3:26:38 PM



I'm convinced that Iraq has indeed become America's new "Vietnam". How so?

* The US is again fighting an enemy counting more on manipulating the US media in destroying American stamina and morale than in winning battles. They don't win any battles - they just win television sound-bite time. A very small minority has their (horrific) vision and hopes televised. Its once again looking like a good strategy.

* The US is fighting a proxy war with a foe being largely funded and provided arms by another country or countries. Such a war has the potential to go on indefinitely ala Vietnam.

* A liberal anti-war congress is once again looking to assure that American does not win, but rather decides to give up. They're putting more effort into fighting the President and the military than they're willing to put into fighting the enemy. And the enemy, noticing their actions, will only ratchet up their efforts - killing more Americans and Iraqi's (in ways to attract the most media attention). I believe this last fact is impossible to deny at this point. Congress is directly endangering American soldiers.

* Politics are dictating the war, resulting in ROE's dangerous for American soldiers (e.g. the Shia militia's have been largely left alone until recently and will probably never be disarmed and dismantled.)

* The US is unwilling to attack the source of the continuing problem at this point - Iran - just as they were for the most part unwilling to directly attack North Vietnam for most of the Vietnam war.

* Once again the US may simply pull out - abandoning people the US promised hope to. Its possible another million civilians could be killed - just like in Vietnam (although Saudi-Arabia has promised to intercede if this starts happening - talk about trouble...)

Its a proven formula the enemy is using. Its almost guaranteed to work. They know this and have told us so.

So I say - quit denying its another Vietnam because it is. I believe the liberal Democrats are trying to do their best to assure it is. They want another Vietnam, its in their power to assure such, and they're going to do it. They'll do anything in their power, at any cost, to attempt to shame Bush and the Republicans. They're determined to see their predictions come true.

So please tell me I've got it all wrong...


 

You are an idiot. The only thing worse than your understanding of history is your grasp of current events. This war was a screw up from day one. The only people to blame are the morons in the Administration who planned & ran it. They ignored any advice or information that disagreed with their preconcieved ideas on how this should go. Your desperate attempt to blame everyone but those actually responsible are sad, but entirely predictable. When you begin from the premise that the people you support are incapable of error then this sort of thinking is inevitable. Look up 'dolschtoss theory' and you'll see what fine footsteps you follow in. Some people (myself included) have been grownup enough to admit that they wildly overestimated the ability of this Administration to competently run the war. Apparently you are not among them. 


"You are an idiot" is not a very intelligent way to carry on a debate and does your credibility no good.

"They ignored any advice or information that disagreed with their preconcieved ideas on how this should go." They did not ignore any advice or information - they chose to follow something else. Why does the left claim that if the right is not blindly following their demands then the right is ignoring the left?

The US administration stuffed up the planning for post-invasion Iraq. I don't think anyone denies this. However, I don't believe the situation in Iraq is as bad as the MSM describe or that it is unwinnable. The points that reefdiver made in his opening post are all correct. The fact of the matter is that we are in Iraq, wars are not fun things to lose, we have a lot to lose by surrendering to the bad guys, we don't need to surrender because we can win and the Democrats should stop giving moral aid and encouragement to the enemy purely to score political points back home.

Cheers.

 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       2/24/2007 4:21:37 PM




The US administration stuffed up the planning for post-invasion Iraq. I don't think anyone denies this. However, I don't believe the situation in Iraq is as bad as the MSM describe or that it is unwinnable. The points that reefdiver made in his opening post are all correct. The fact of the matter is that we are in Iraq, wars are not fun things to lose, we have a lot to lose by surrendering to the bad guys, we don't need to surrender because we can win and the Democrats should stop giving moral aid and encouragement to the enemy purely to score political points back home.


I think this "stuffed up the planning for pos-invasion Iraq", brings up another point. That is that the US military brilliantly executed the actual "war".  They were "damn good" (quoting 'Storm'n Norman'). They defeated the Iraqi military, overthrew Saddam, and managed to have have a majority of the country show up and vote for a democratic govenment. That was and still is an amazing accomplishment. Yep - unfortunately they didn't plan for keeping the peace during what has proved to be an inordinately and unpredictably long incubation period of the new democracy. 
 
Amen to the thought it time the Democrats stop giving encouragement to the enemy.  Its time the Democrats stop dwelling on the problems and instead start using their collective minds (gratituious slur: however feeble they might be...) to help find solutions that will assure America and democracy prevail in Iraq.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics