Is Iraq like Vietnam?
Iraq, is it Vietnam? Paz, one of my liberal commenters, whom I am grateful to for his passion and commitment to the positions of his side, made some points in a comment yesterday that are worthy of a detailed response in a post. Conservatives have criticized liberals in the past for their positions on Iraq. Yet, it appears that some of us now agree with what liberals said a year ago—namely, that Iraq is similar to Vietnam, and so on.
My opinion is that Iraq was not similar to Vietnam a year ago, but now it is.
The reasons it has become similar are:
1. The Iraqis are not fighting hard enough to win their own freedom.
2. The liberal press has undermined the war effort, and prevented us from fighting to win.
3. We don’t have a President Truman or FDR in office who will ignore political correctness and do what it takes to install democracy in Iraq, using overwhelming force like we did in WWII with Germany and Japan.
Stay the Course
Basically, those of us who welcome the national debate on Iraq being conducted now because of the Iraq Study Group, are presumably pitted against those who are steadfast in their Stay the Course opinion. I don’t see it this way. I am still for Stay the Course, as I always was, except I want more troops and more vicious fighting to effect it. On this, I agree with Senator John McCain, at least on the more troops part of the equation.
I am a pragmatist, though. I don’t see this congress, and this president, and this American public, propagandized by liberals, agreeing with Senator McCain, nor with me. We aren’t going to get more troops in Iraq, and we certainly aren’t going to be allowed to fight the war the way it ought to be fought—the way we fought in World War II.
click to show/hide the rest of the post
Therefore, leaving our troops basically as standing guard in streets that are descending into civil war, in target zones for foreign insurgents, without allowing them to really fight, is cruel and unwise. Do I want to Stay the Course in Iraq? Yes, if we are allowed to Stay the Course and Win. Otherwise, we need to do some kind of pullback, and let the Iraqis kill each other if they choose this way of behaving. In this case, we must still remain in the region, in safer zones, to prevent the complete domination of the Middle East by Iran.
Did We Make Mistakes in Iraq?
Yes. I know some of you are fans of Donald Rumsfeld, and I can agree that the man was courageous in trying to change the nature of our armed forces to meet the challenges of the 21st century. On the other hand, I believe Colin Powell was right in saying we ought either to have not invaded Iraq, or gone in with overwhelming force—including an overwhelming force for the post invasion phase. We simply never had enough troops to deal with any insurgency. We can’t police the borders with Iran and Syria with the numbers we have. We can’t stop trouble spots and then hold them. Our present number of troops could be sufficient if the Iraqis were fighting with us, but they’re not.
Was It a Mistake to Invade Iraq?
No. Saddam Hussein was a villain who needed to go; and he was intent on causing serious trouble for the world. We are better off with him gone, regardless of civil war in Iraq. We just need to be nimble, to adjust to the changing situation there.
Did our American Soldiers Die in Vain?
No. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have altered the worldwide equation for peace in a dramatic fashion. 9/11 has been answered in a way that ensures future terrorists will think hard about an unprovoked major attack on our soil. Terrorists know now that should they drop a nuke on us, for example, we will hunt them down and kill them, and go beyond this—we will take their countries away and send them into the hills and caves.
Plus:
A major villain is off the world stage.
The Iraqis have been given a chance for democracy.
Democracy is at least being considered in other parts of the Middle East.
Libya is no longer a threat.
Renewed efforts at peace for Israel and Palestine are being promoted with a new urgency.
The last reason why our soldiers did not die in vain is that invading Iraq was simply the right and moral thing to do. We stood up to a bully who was killing innocents, and who would kill other innocents in the future. It is never wrong to do the right thing, regardless of consequences.
The Strategic Situation Now
The major threat now is Iran. The failure in Iraq can give Iran an opening to expand its hegemony in the Middle East; or, we can handle this problem wisely. Since we have a base in Iraq, we are still in a good position strategically to keep Iran from overrunning the area. We don’t need to stay in the middle of the Iraq civil war in order to do this; merely being in the area would be enough.
The nuclear question is another matter. I don’t see that there is any worldwide will to stop Iran from getting the bomb, thanks to the liberals’ beloved U.N. Ideally what should we do? Invade Iran and effect regime change, and shut down their nuclear operations. Will we do this? No. Why? Because of the touchy feely liberals in our country, and because of the lack of will in the U.N.
What is for sure, given the present political situation, is that Iran will get the bomb. Then what? I’m not smart enough to say. What do you think?
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Subscribe to my feed
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)
13 comments:
God bless Gene Kirkpatrick.
Good afternoon Mr Rock.
Another good post, is Iraq like Vietnam, there are some things common to the two parts of our history, In Vietnam we had Russia and China supporting North Vietnam, today we have Iran and Syria supporting the insurgents. Without that support this thing would have finished a long time ago.
I agree that overwhelming force would have been a better answer, however I take exception to giving General Powell a pass. He was in high places in 1991 when we had overwhelming force in place, his recommendation was stop, half way through the war.
The old Sarge
Bravo! I ALMOST caught you in a contradiction but you sneakily fought out of it with sound logic. Nice. I'll never say you're bad with words Rock, BUT there are a few errors in your assessment:
1. I'm no liberal. I do share some liberal views (like you) and some conservative views (like you) so "moderate with slight liberal leanings" would be a best fit, although I hate labels due to their confining nature, but to make it clear, no offense was taken.
2. A year ago, Iraq was no different than it is today. Innocent Sunni and Shia were dying by the hundreds or thousands (will we ever really know?) due to sectarian violence, US troops and civilian leadership were trying to figure out how to take out the insurgency, the Iraqi government was essentially ineffective and Bush was still giving his, "we're not leaving till the job is done" speeches without having a REAL viable plan to actually get the results! The fighting is more INTENSE now, but the situation in general is still the same.
The differences I have with your 3 examples of why it's 'Nam-like now but not a year ago are simple:
1. "The Iraqis are not fighting hard enough to win their own freedom."
You can't blindly just BLAME the Iraqis for not fighting "hard". If you think about it, a) They didn't start this war, nor did they ask for it. That's like China invading the US and expecting Americans in New York to fight us Atlantans because they said so b) Considering the dismal state of the Iraqi economy, some of the Iraqi military are there for a paycheck/meal and emotionally side with the insurgency c) Iraqi soldiers have it in their minds that they may be shooting at their relatives who ARE insurgents. It's a bit hard to build morale with that thought going on, no? and d) Some of the insurgents are more well-equipped than the Iraqis (blame Iran and Syria for that, I know). These may seem like sorry excuses (and in some respects they may be) but it's a reality on the ground....
2. "The liberal press has undermined the war effort, and prevented us from fighting to win."
The media is not what has kept the war from being waged effectively, a lack of a successful war strategy IS (as you pointed out! Gotcha.) CNN news anchors aren't the ones in the war rooms. Bush, Cheney, 4-star Generals and Mickey Mouse are!
3. " We don’t have a President Truman or FDR in office..."
#3 you got right.
Just a side note, you STILL made no mention of the fact that it's possible the Dems were actually correct in their complaints about how the war was being fought, a year ago, two years ago, what difference does it make? C'mon, Rock you can do it....Just say it one time....just once....I know it's hard....I'll say it with you, "thhhhheeee"......"Deemmmmms"....."weeeeerre"......"r....rr....rrrr_________"
The problem stems from Bush mistakenly thinking he's a tactician and trying to make clean sanitized decisions to fight a filthy war. Our enemies over there are fighting a WAR while we have been fighting a damned INFOMERCIAL.
BTW, I like the site and will link to you from mine if you have no objections.
-Sepp
Well now Mr Rock, I am impressed by my friend Paz. He made a clear statement of facts and as usual made his point very well, I was almost ready to agree with him. I thought we had won a new voice in our quest to make the world agree with us. So sad, I was with him right down to Mickey Mouse. That is when his true colors flashed before my eyes.
There is a reason that we have been unable to complete the mission in Iraq, he nailed it himself, the Democrats and their willing friends in media are so intent in destroying George W. Bush, they have painted a picture of doom and gloom in order to sway public opinion. It happened in during Vietnam and it is happing again, that is where the parallel is found. No Paz, I can say it clearly the Dems were wrong because their only goal was power, to hell with the country.
Mr Paz has not mentioned that the only way they seized power in DC was by running a lot of Blue Dog Democrats because the USA has moved to the right, as it should.
Charlie, nice to hear from you. After working on my blog today, I'll have a few minutes to come see your blog again. I look forward to it. You said:
God bless Gene Kirkpatrick.
From me too.
Another good post
Thanks Charlie.
Is Iraq like Vietnam, there are some things common to the two parts of our history, In Vietnam we had Russia and China supporting North Vietnam, today we have Iran and Syria supporting the insurgents. Without that support this thing would have finished a long time ago.
I think you're right.
I agree that overwhelming force would have been a better answer, however I take exception to giving General Powell a pass. He was in high places in 1991 when we had overwhelming force in place, his recommendation was stop, half way through the war. The old Sarge
You've got me here. You're right. I judge that if Bush Sr. had gotten rid of Saddam in the first place, quickly, then we had enough troops there to contain any insurgency.
Good points, thanks Sarge.
Rock
Paz, thanks for your comments. They are so charming that I'm instinctively led to try to agree with you, but I can't my friend. You said:
Bravo! I ALMOST caught you in a contradiction but you sneakily fought out of it with sound logic. Nice. I'll never say you're bad with words Rock, BUT there are a few errors in your assessment:
This is about the closest I've ever gotten from you to a compliment, so I'm honored.
1. I'm no liberal. I do share some liberal views (like you) and some conservative views (like you) so "moderate with slight liberal leanings" would be a best fit, although I hate labels due to their confining nature, but to make it clear, no offense was taken.
This is interesting. I think a rational person will have both liberal and conservative views, so I'm glad to agree that we are both rational.
2. A year ago, Iraq was no different than it is today. Innocent Sunni and Shia were dying by the hundreds or thousands (will we ever really know?) due to sectarian violence, US troops and civilian leadership were trying to figure out how to take out the insurgency, the Iraqi government was essentially ineffective and Bush was still giving his, "we're not leaving till the job is done" speeches without having a REAL viable plan to actually get the results! The fighting is more INTENSE now, but the situation in general is still the same.
Until today (see today's post), I would have said that things are worse in Iraq than they were a year ago. The number of killings and bombings have increased to a daily affair.
The differences I have with your 3 examples of why it's 'Nam-like now but not a year ago are simple: 1. "The Iraqis are not fighting hard enough to win their own freedom." You can't blindly just BLAME the Iraqis for not fighting "hard". If you think about it, a) They didn't start this war, nor did they ask for it. That's like China invading the US and expecting Americans in New York to fight us Atlantans because they said so
Remember Valley Forge? Our soldiers had no food, no supplies, and no shoes in the dead of winter. Yet, we fought hard and won, against great odds. Our soldiers were motivated. They wanted freedom. The Iraqis don't want freedom. They want a cozy life under some new dictator who will make their women stay submissive. They want the good old days of kickbacks and bribes. We can't force them to want democracy. They aren't willing to die for it. I do blame them.
b) Considering the dismal state of the Iraqi economy, some of the Iraqi military are there for a paycheck/meal and emotionally side with the insurgency
Yes, this kind of thing should have been considered by Bush and Rumsfeld. This was one of the mistakes they've made. They disbanded the Iraqi army and left them without jobs. Big mistake. The difference a year makes is that now these soldiers have found "jobs" as insurgents, and there are more of them "working."
c) Iraqi soldiers have it in their minds that they may be shooting at their relatives who ARE insurgents. It's a bit hard to build morale with that thought going on, no?
I agree. It's like what we experienced both in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Brother against brother. Father against son. Yet, we fought on, in both wars, for our causes, and won. We wanted freedom so bad we were willing to die for it, and/or kill our friends for it. Not pleasant, but the only way to bring peace and freedom. We don't live in Oz. Unfortunately, there's a price of blood for freedom, peace, and security.
d) Some of the insurgents are more well equipped than the Iraqis (blame Iran and Syria for that, I know). These may seem like sorry excuses (and in some respects they may be) but it's a reality on the ground....
You're right. Why won't you let us bomb the hell out of Iran and Syria? Blast them into the Stone Age. Bush is not following the Bush Doctrine, which was "If you're not with us, then you're against us." Instead, we've taken the touchy feely Democratic route. Now, with the Baker Commission (the Iraq Study Group), we're supposed to talk with Syria and Iran.
2. "The liberal press has undermined the war effort, and prevented us from fighting to win." The media is not what has kept the war from being waged effectively, a lack of a successful war strategy IS (as you pointed out! Gotcha.) CNN news anchors aren't the ones in the war rooms. Bush, Cheney, 4-star Generals and Mickey Mouse are!
You're right. Bush and Cheney listened too much to the liberal press and waged a politically correct war, which was predestined to fail. But, the liberal press are the advocates of this failed policy. Bush and Cheney were not courageous enough to ignore them.
3. " We don’t have a President Truman or FDR in office..." #3 you got right.
Thanks. We agree on something. Let's look out our windows; maybe pigs are flying at this very moment!
Just a side note, you STILL made no mention of the fact that it's possible the Dems were actually correct in their complaints about how the war was being fought, a year ago, two years ago, what difference does it make? C'mon, Rock you can do it....Just say it one time....just once....I know it's hard....I'll say it with you, "thhhhheeee"......"Deemmmmms"....."weeeeerre"......"r....rr....rrrr_________"
Cute, Paz. Very charming, and with some nice humor. The only problem with your wish is that Dems, yes, were complaining about the war, but they never, ever, not in a million years, would have advocated fighting tougher, with more troops and less political correctness. They wanted withdrawal back then as they want now, not more effective fighting.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. It's enjoyable to me to have someone explain your side of things in such detail, as I believe a dialogue is healthy. I continue to look for a liberal blogger to regularly post on my site. Maybe someday I'll find one.
Take care, Paz, and have a nice weekend.
Rock
Sepp, thanks for your comments. You said:
The problem stems from Bush mistakenly thinking he's a tactician and trying to make clean sanitized decisions to fight a filthy war. Our enemies over there are fighting a WAR while we have been fighting a damned INFOMERCIAL.
My feelings exactly. Bush's major problem, in my judgment, is his need to be liked by everyone. Unfortunately, this has led to his 30% approval rating. He would have been liked more if he was brave enough to ignore political correctness, and utterly destroyed the insurgents and the neighborhoods from which they operate, plus follow the money and guns back to the countries that are supporting the insurgents--namely, Iran and Syria.
BTW, I like the site and will link to you from mine if you have no objections.
Thanks. I'll visit your site and we'll swap links. Thanks again for commenting.
Rock
Well now Mr Rock, I am impressed by my friend Paz. He made a clear statement of facts and as usual made his point very well, I was almost ready to agree with him. I thought we had won a new voice in our quest to make the world agree with us.
Yes, Paz is intelligent, and he makes great points. I have to put my thinking cap on to engage him. Also, I appreciate him explaining how the other side sees these important issues. Plus, he has stuck with it, and continues to comment. I think it's important for the world to engage on the issues he brings up, which are on the mind of many Americans.
So sad, I was with him right down to Mickey Mouse. That is when his true colors flashed before my eyes. There is a reason that we have been unable to complete the mission in Iraq, he nailed it himself, the Democrats and their willing friends in media are so intent in destroying George W. Bush, they have painted a picture of doom and gloom in order to sway public opinion. It happened in during Vietnam and it is happing again, that is where the parallel is found.
There is no doubt in my mind that Democrats and liberals are enablers of everything bad in this world, from terrorists to communists, and they undermine legitimate war efforts against evil. I wish this weren't true. It wasn't always true, as I've said—FDR, Truman and Kennedy were great on matters of defense. How far have the liberals strayed from their roots!
No Paz, I can say it clearly the Dems were wrong because their only goal was power, to hell with the country. Mr Paz has not mentioned that the only way they seized power in DC was by running a lot of Blue Dog Democrats because the USA has moved to the right, as it should.
Yes, I think this is important to keep in mind. It's interesting that the Blue Dog Democrats were meeting the other day to strategize while Pelosi was in Europe, literally, for a socialist conference. The European socialists were overjoyed to have "America friendly again" to their cause. Funny stuff.
Thanks Sarge.
Rock
I'll agree with Paz in the fact that the "liberal press" isn't what has undermined the war effort but...they do undermine morale and support for not only the war but, the troops fighting it. Could you imagine todays press reporting WW2? Could you imagine people dressed up like nazis denouncing the government on the whitehouse lawn in 1943? Been to a protest in the last year? I covered one for my blog last month... people dressed up like suicide bombers and advocating support for the insurgency and killing US troops. This happened in the USA, not Syria, or, Palestine but in our country.
The problem is that war is dirty, deadly and, people come home in boxes. Trying to fool everyone that war can be a clean, everybody-comes-home scenario is bogus. Bush is trying to fight a war of popularity polls instead of killing and subduing the enemy. Unlike wars of the past, we have a media savy enemy who utilizes civilians as cover and then exploits the force used on TV's around the world. The Germans didn't have the luxury of Al-Jazeera showing the burnt bodies of kids in Dresden, Berlin or, Koln and, the crying mothers of the innocent and the broadcasts of masses turning out to protest FDR's handling of the war.
But to get to the main question, "were the democrats right?" Which ones? It seems to me that a crapload of democrats voted to go to war...and then spoke out against it when their constituents piped up.
Did Saddam have to go? Probably yes. Should every nation in the UN who voted for sanctions been required to get involved? Hell yes! At this point, I think that Saddam HAD to be a brutal dictator to keep the country under control. His defiance and, our invasion were ego driven by two fools...IMHO.
Sepp, nice to hear from you. You said:
I'll agree with Paz in the fact that the "liberal press" isn't what has undermined the war effort but...they do undermine morale and support for not only the war but, the troops fighting it.
Granted.
Could you imagine today's press reporting WW2? Could you imagine people dressed up like Nazis, denouncing the government on the Whitehouse lawn in 1943?
We could never have won WWII with today's press.
Been to a protest in the last year? I covered one for my blog last month... people dressed up like suicide bombers and advocating support for the insurgency and killing US troops. This happened in the USA, not Syria, or, Palestine but in our country.
The left hates all the good guys, and loves all the bad guys.
The problem is that war is dirty, deadly and, people come home in boxes. Trying to fool everyone that war can be a clean, everybody-comes-home scenario is bogus. Bush is trying to fight a war of popularity polls instead of killing and subduing the enemy. Unlike wars of the past, we have a media savy enemy who utilizes civilians as cover and then exploits the force used on TV's around the world. The Germans didn't have the luxury of Al-Jazeera showing the burnt bodies of kids in Dresden, Berlin or, Koln and, the crying mothers of the innocent and the broadcasts of masses turning out to protest FDR's handling of the war.
Armies are created to break things and kill people, period. The WWII crowd understood the value of propaganda. We worked hard to sell the war to the world. We kept the Tokyo Rose's marginalized. Today, most of the media think they are being heroes by being anti-American. What you choose to show on your TV show is an editorial comment. Show a dead soldier and you're saying, "The cost of this war is too high." Show a village of women and children hit by shells, and you are saying, "See how evil our enemy is." It all depends on your editorial viewpoint.
But to get to the main question, "were the democrats right?" Which ones? It seems to me that a crapload of democrats voted to go to war...and then spoke out against it when their constituents piped up. Did Saddam have to go? Probably yes. Should every nation in the UN who voted for sanctions been required to get involved? Hell yes!
Agreed.
At this point, I think that Saddam HAD to be a brutal dictator to keep the country under control.
Unfortunately, you may be right.
His defiance and, our invasion were ego driven by two fools...IMHO.
This acronym I don't understand.
Thanks.
Rock
Why do you give the press such credit? I don't understand.
It is soldiers who are fighting in Iraq - are you saying that bad press at home makes them work less well? Really?
There have been pacifists around all wars - won or lost - and I find it hard to blame wins or losses on them! They're doing very little.
Are you saying that people are SO sensitive and soft that they start to question their actions whenever they're criticised?
Of course, if those criticisms hit home, one should question one's actions. But if the criticisms are wrong, who cares? We're adults! We can take a bit of criticism!
The "war in Iraq" is difficult to "win". It's not exactly clear what winning is - originally it was deposing Saddam, and his WMDs. Now, it seems to be "bringing peace and democracy to Iraq".
That's a tough one. Deposing Saddam so brutally has left a huge power vacuum, currently being fillled by weak government.
It won't last.
Iraq is also overrun by Foreign Soldiers.
The UK's head of the Army says our continued presence is exascerbating security problems in Iraq. Iraqi's probably want their country back.
Do you think we can let them get on with making their own democracy - whether that democracy is on "our side" or not? Because unless Iraqi people feel in control of their own destiny, which they hardly can at the moment, the country will not find peace.
And so I guess I must, with this criticism, say "sorry" to soldiers fighting in Iraq, who'll be saddened and depressed by my comments. But I don't really believe that's the case.
Disco, have you ever been deployed? Have you ever been sent into a combat zone and tried to do your job... all the time wondering if back home, your wife and kids are ok? On top of all that, having anything you do scutinized by our own press? If some Iraqi pops out from around a corner holding something and you decide to fire only to find out afterwards it was a broomstick, you have to live with not only the guilt for taking a life but, deal with the slaughter you'll face in OUR press the next day...meanwhile, the insurgency can set off a car bomb in front of a church and face no condemnation in OUR press. How does that effect morale? To save face in these politically correct times, the soldier who made a mistake under combat conditions will look at going to jail for murder...during a war. So, yes the press does effect morale.
The Iraqis have never, ever had been in control of their own destiny...they have no idea how that all works. When Lincoln freed the slaves, many of them didn't want to be free and thought it was simply a trick to starve them all to death (read "Bullwhip days" former slaves interviewed) many Iraqis may feel the same way since they have never had western style freedoms and cannot understand it due to propaganda or, lack of a government entity to make their decisions for them.
The foreign soldiers are there for the prestige of killing Americans, pure and simple. When the Americans leave, they will find another "enemy" to go and fight...probably IDF soldiers again.
Well, I think it's patronising to imply a nation won't know how being in control works.
Look at the end of the old empires, post WW2; plenty of countries picked up democracy pretty quickly.
The Iraqi people did not bring violence into Iraq, and nor did these insurgents.
And the press doesn't make law, it is the government, elected by the body politic. And also, I think the occurrency of soldiers going to jail for murder due to in combat mistakes is VERY low.
Some soldiers may do things which are not mistakes, and should be punished accordingly. The vast majority don't make mistakes, and it appears that it is understood for the most part when a mistake is a mistake.
You must understand that, for a civillian, it will be diffficult to understand when a loved one is killed, by mistake, by a soldier in a war this civillian never asked for.
We should leave, because we weren't invited. Our pride is not an issue when it's not our country.
Post a Comment