I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Frist?
Can you say "Dien Pien Phu?"
OK, howzabout "Dien Bien Phu?"
WORST PRESIDENT EVER
He's right. We ain't seen nothin' yet. Wait till we blow up Fallujah, wait till the Shiites see us advance on Najaf. For lack of brains, W & his henchmen are thinking with their balls. How much damage can they cause before November? Far too much for Kerry, or the rest of the world for that matter, to set right again. Damn these bastards and the jingoist media that let them get away with this.
Absolutely. I was saying this to a Bush supporter who struck up a conversation with me on the el the other day.
When I said that Iraq was potentially far worse than Viet Nam because of the instability of the region and the presence of nuclear players, I could see that he had never once thought about this. I truly feel that I made this guy question the Bush Iraq adventure for the first time.
What you need to understand is that Chris Patten is no "bleedin' heart librul". He's a former high Tory, former senior member of the last Conservative government in the UK.
He also now happens to be the European Unions 'external relations commissioner'.
At one time he was tipped for the leadership of the UK's conservative party. That all changed when he lost his seat in parliament in 1992 after (somehow) masterminding John Major's election as PM.
http://www.nationinstitute.org/t...rg/tomdispatch/
"'I want heads to roll,' US President George W. Bush told top US officials here last week following the murder of four and mutilation of two American contractors in Fallujah." (Matthew Gutman, Analysis: Will rolling heads crush rebellion, or Iraq itself? the Jerusalem Post)
Is it too late for Dubya to walk alone in a white robe from Jerusalem to Mecca?
Maybe that would help.
Check out the Move On org's bake sales in the
/">Los Angeles regiont to help defeat the Bushistas and treat yourself to a goodie.
No more 'Nams
Atrios, why do you hate america?
Absolutely. I was saying this to a Bush supporter who struck up a conversation with me on the el the other day.
The trick is to avoid making eye contact.
Of course he could have Cheney inside the robe with him...
unreal man...every time one of the Bush's ideas turns out horribly, it ends up becoming a justification for itself. we need Kerry and all of us here to point that out.
We are sick and tired of this Administration's bone-headed ideas getting us into situations we don't want to be in!
I have an idea for a prisoner exchange - we get back all the people kidnapped in Iraq while giving them the Bush Administration in return.
Seems like justice to me.
And It's One, Two, Three, What Are We Fightin' For?
Iraq is indeed much more serious than Vietnam. Vietnam was a slow escalation of an essentially defensive stand to keep North Vietnam and South Vietnam from unifying as a communist entity. The rationale grew out of the "Truman Doctrine of not giving up one inch of territory to the communists. When it was obvious that the south would have voted to unify with the north under Ho, elections were cancelled and an attempt was made to "reeducate" the South Vietnamese to vote correctly. But there never was an invasion of North Vietnam (although the US bombed the bejesus out of it).
By contrast, the Iraq war was an invasion of a sovreign state on the flimsiest and most transparently false pretenses.
The war in Vietnam could be justified as essentially defensive in nature. There is no such justification available for Iraq. The invasion of Iraq is simply a war of aggression in violation of the UN charter and the Nuremberg Principles adopted into international law by the UN, and since the UN charter is, as a ratified treaty, part of the law of the US according to the constitution, it is also a violation of the constitution of the US. It is an impeachable offense not only as a violation of law, but also as a violation of the oath of office of every federal employee.
"If things go wrong in Iraq we will be living with the consequences for a very, very long time," he added.
Consequences will be with us for a long time no matter what happens after today.A quagmire is what we are in and the "turnover" will do nothing to abate the problems this misadministration has created.There is no staying and there is no leaving.What are the alternatives then?It seems no one has the answer.That being the case it is evident we have a unresolvable issue that W has given us.
Iraq is like Vietnam in the sense that its a largely symbolic war fought to prove America can do something (stop communism, exercise controlling power in the middle-east). But no one ever tells the hawks that you need real 18 year-old poor kids even for symbolic wars.
I used to think the unintended symbolism of Vietnam was powerful enough to prevent useless displays of American power in which Americans actually get hurt.
Not even these famed Cold Warriors could draw on the lesson of the biggest failure of their outdated ideology?
As C3PO said, we're doomed.
how the fuck do you justify even vietnam? when the fuck did they attack your cuntry?
you americanos bastardos must let go of the liberation chip on your shoulder.
An administration at war with itself is never going to come up with a coherent strategy. The mess Kerry is going to inherit is on a scale that boggles my mind.
"It's not Vietnam," they say.
"In Iraq we will carry the day.
It might look like shit,
But you have to admit,
We chickenhawks won't have to pay."
If you're in the New London area, Connecticut College's own CCLeft is hosting MoveOn.org's Bake Back the White House. we have cookies, cupcakes, brownies, and tons of donation forms for MoveOnPAC.
Come to Connecticut College, 270 Mohegan Ave, New London CT 06320. The event will be on "Knowlton Green" on the soccer field.
See you there brothers and sisters!
The Iraq tragedy extends well beyond Iraq's borders. We've destabilized the entire Middle East. In Iraq, either the religious fundamentalists come to rule, we walk away & have anarchy (read Al Quaeda land), or there's a brief period of stable rule before a military coup by a strong man (think in about 5 years & son of Sadam).
Regionally, Iraq can split into 3 countries - Kurds, Sunnis, Shites with Iran then becoming the dominant power in the region, Kurds destabilizing the countries around them that have significant Kurdish populations - the whole Arab world now seeing us as the enemy with terrorism now directed at us by every disaffected Arab group.
I'm trying to be optimistic here, folks.
I said that Iraq was potentially far worse than Viet Nam because of the instability of the region and the presence of nuclear players, I could see that he had never once thought about this. I truly feel that I made this guy question the Bush Iraq adventure for the first time. tbone
Iraq is potentially Vietnam not just on the ground there -- but in the hearts and minds of those young men and women who are over there doing what they are doing to real people. It's not a just war, and can never be defended as such. This is from the Tom Dispatch link above -- it's part of a description of a U.S. raid on the mosque of Abu Hanifa in Baghdad (previously sacked by the Mongols in 1257) – the sort of story reported endlessly in the foreign press but seldom in this country:
Mr. Alber, who speaks very good English, told us that he repeatedly said, ‘Please, don't break down doors. Please, don't break windows. We can help you. We can have custodians unlock the doors.' (Alber, by the way, was imprisoned by Saddam for running a bakery. As he said, ‘Under the embargo, you could eat flour, you could eat sugar, you could eat eggs, all separately. But mix them together and bake them and you were harming the economy by raising the price of sugar and you could get 15 years in prison.') "The Americans refused to listen to Alber's pleas. We went all around the mosque and the adjacent madrassah, the Imam Aadham Islamic College. We saw dozens of doors broken down, windows broken, ceilings ripped apart, and bullet holes in walls and ceilings. The way the soldiers searched for illicit arms in the ceiling was first to spray the ceiling with gunfire, then break out a panel and go up and search.
There is in my head a huge 'cognitive dissonance' (right phrase?) when seeing the innocence and all-Americanness of the soldiers, male and female, that are interviewed often in Iraq on every channel, and then reading accounts like this. Who are these people who do this sort of thing?
Iraq ain't no Nam
Because unlike Nam um... it's...
Just don't call it Nam
How about "Noh Bush Phoyu"
Vietnam was a real tragedy... for the Vietnamese. Forget the 58,000 Americans killed there... how about the millions (conservative estimate 1 million) of Viets? Reason we don't have better figures is it's hard to estimate them from shards of bone around the edge of bomb craters.
The hypocrisy of Americans criticizing, say, the Japanese for rewriting their record of war atrocities and mass killings cannot be overstated in light of Vietnam.
Patten may be proved right; but Iraq right now isn't the focus of a large proxy war between superpowers, so the potential for escalation is less at present. It's certainly a nasty little colonial war in the style of Algeria (1950's or 1990's; take your pick) or the Boer War - the neocons are doing a very good impression of the 19th century British imperialists. And if it stays that way the world's stability is not at risk - a few dozen soldiers a week is really the admission fee for Empire.
But, if Iraq escalates into an all-out fourth generation war waged by Muslims everywhere against the USA, or if Turkey or Iran get sucked into the conflict, or if the PNAC crowd decide that "creative destruction" calls for the next invasion on their shopping list... then, yes, that's potentially much worse than Vietnam. That's the way world wars start.
If you're in the New London area, Connecticut College's own CCLeft is hosting MoveOn.org's Bake Back the White House. we have cookies, cupcakes, brownies, and tons of donation forms for MoveOnPAC.
Come to Connecticut College, 270 Mohegan Ave, New London CT 06320. The event will be on "Knowlton Green" on the soccer field.
See you there brothers and sisters!
The French are saying it _is_ Vietnam all over again
1. Action-->unilateral.
2. Pretext-->lies. (Gulf of Tonkin vs. WMD)
3. Theory-->domino. Democracy in Iraq will begin a wave of freedom.
4. Progression-->escalation.
5. Civilians -->destroy villages and towns to 'save' them for democracy.
6. Delusion--> We are the good guys. Optimism, good intentions coupled with blindness to local culture and history.
7. Fantasy-->Welcome with dancing in the streets. Intervention would produce instant harmony and consensus.
8. Exculpation-->The bad guys (VietCong/Shi'ites and Ba'ath dead enders) are the problem, not us.
I just sent off a letter to each of my senators with an excellent Guardian article on the U.S. massacre in Fallujah. What is happening in Iraq is absolutely unacceptable. I simply cannot take this anymore, and I know many of you feel the same. What do we do??? I've marched in every march, participated in prayer vigils (and I'm an atheist), called DC, written letters, sported anti-war bumperstickers--it all seems silly and hollow now. But jeebus, what do we do in order to stop this atrocity?
The war in Vietnam could be justified as essentially defensive in nature. . . . assuming the Gulf of Tonkin lies off the coast of California and something really happened there.
But Robert nails it otherwise: Iraq is indeed much more serious than Vietnam. More serious, more deadly, more wicked, more criminal, more consequential.
but Iraq right now isn't the focus of a large proxy war between superpowers
The opponent is no conventional superpower; it is the ideology of Islamic jihad.
Iraq under Saddam was NOT a part of the jihadi world. Now that W has turned it into one by committing aggression, we face the superpower of Islam as our enemy.
Mark my words: this is a fight to the finish. By attacking Iraq (and letting go the real enemy jihadis sponsored by Saudi Arabia), we have strengthened our enemy.
This is do or die, folks.
On Wednesdays I watch The Sopranos, Law and Order (if it's not a repeat) and Deadwood.
To counter MoveOn.org's illegal bake sales, the RNC has announced its own Half-baked Sales.
If a bundler brings in 50,000 brownies, he is designated, "Doughboy", if he brings in 100,000 cupcakes, he is designated an "Oveneer".
The special treat is supposedly Pineapple DownsideUp Cakes.
During the sale they will hold a debate between a pot and a kettle: "I'm White, You're Not."
Lime Rickey limerick'd,
"It's not Vietnam," they say.
"In Iraq we will carry the day.
It might look like shit,
But you have to admit,
We chickenhawks won't have to pay."
To which I add,
“The chickhawks won’t have to pay,
But that’s LIKE Vietnam, I say,
For Cheney and Bush
The poor get the push
It was then like it still is today.”
I was thinking the same thing yesterday. Our invasion of South Vietnam (ok, by invitation of the puppet regime) didn't inflame millions of Chinese or other Asians. We may have been likened to the French in Vietnam, but it wasn't the same as the European colonialists in the Mid East. And there was no thought that we were attacking Buddhism, or that religion had much of anything to do with it. The problem with Iraq is that it is set in this volatile mix of religion, history, poiitical repression, economic hardship, terrorism and, of course, the Israeli-Palestinian problem, about which we seem so naive. So what we do in Iraq is taking place on top of a pile of dynamite. However afraid some people may have been of the Chinese in the 60's and 70's, it was nothing like this. This is the big difference that everyone who focuses on the military or narrow political situation seems to miss.
so george cares more for 'contractors' than for soldiers.
what a man. um....shithead.
"If things go wrong in Iraq we will be living with the consequences for a very, very long time," he added.
IF things go wrong???
IF???
Someone's a wild eyed optimist.
During the Vietnam War, Flip Wilson's famous line was, "The Devil Made me Do it!"
Now we have Flippant Bush, "The Jesus Made Me Do It!"
Oh, and AMC is showing "Patton" tonight. Why don't they ever show that movie "Born on the Fourth of July"? Never see it in the listings.
Sam I Am--I very much agree with you. Our ever wise leader has succeeded in making this not a war against terrorist cells, but a war of far-right Christianity against radical Islam. Now we have two extremist factions facing off to the end. The question is, will we get jihad, or Apocalypse? Oh, I can't wait.
Some perspective: this is just the latest in the Christian West vs. Islma. This war has been going on for over almost a thousand years.
The Crusades were to liberate Jerusalem and the knights could get the treasure.
This Lost Crusade was meant to keep Jerusalem free (for Israel) and Halliburton could get the treasure.
We are doomed. Israel is doomed. Not this year, not next year, but in 20 years, 50 years. It is inevitable.
There is an Arab saying, "If a man waits 20 years to get his revenge, he is impatient."
Silly Americans, we are.
Paid Vacation (slightly modified)
...it's not Viet Nam
it's another oil company scam
salute that flag for Uncle Sam
get your money out, place your bets Iraq, Afghanistan
The Vietnam war did in fact destabilize a whole region, resulting in the downfall of the neutral Sihinouk regime and the eventual rise of the Khmer Rough and the death of 1M-2M people. The difference is that there was no oil to speak of, and thus the West could ignore the aftermath - not so in Iraq
Patten has a british agenda (not the first time) and is trying to drag the EU into the Iraq mess.
The EU should definitly refrain from this.
There are no sound reasons for the US to be in Iraq and all that can be done now is to get out, say you are sorry and pay the bill.
To counter the (years old) rise of Islamic fundamentalism by invading Iraq was idiotic. The only way to counter the growing movement is to set up a countering wave of liberalization by translating books into Arabic and distributing them for free, by helping economically and by getting clean from the great western drug of oil consumtion. If the western culture is really so great others can be convinced about it by seeing ist, reading its and experiencing ist - not by guns. Thats were the EU should help.
Kerry now wants the UN and NATO to help. Why the fuck should NATO help? Why should germans or french pay a €-cent for the stupidity of the US administration, congress and senat (including Kerry)?
Sam I Am - to paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the "superpower of Islam" have? How many nukes does Islam have? (Pakistan? Not while the Musharraf has anything to do with it.)
This all seems to get down to - what do we mean by "worse"?
Strategically, the situation's potentially worse than Vietnam, just because of the potential for regional spread of the conflict, which also could impact the world economy, and the spread of terrorism. Tactically, it's undoubtedly better for the USA than in Vietnam. And morally, it seems to be on a less defensible basis (which impacts the strategic position).
But, let's not pretend Islam can fight the world's greatest military power, or even claim that many of its adherents are going to fight the USA. Islam is probably the world's least organised religion - there is nothing like a formal hierarchy of clerical power for 90% of Muslims (the Sunnis). A lot of disorganised, pissed-off Muslims don't equate to an effective military opponent, or even a very fearsome Fourth Generation opponent. Israel is currently winning (holding territory) in Palestine despite massive Muslim hostility from all sides.
Don't get me wrong - the situation in Iraq is serious. But it's serious because the United States wants to control/colonize Iraq (yes, colonize - remember those "enduring bases"?) and the Iraqis are trying to throw them out. Even on a purely strategic level there is no indication, yet, the Iraq war will escalate to the sort of inter-religious bloodbath you seem to expect.
Tactically the situation is still much better for the USA than in Vietnam. It's not as though Russia or Iran or China is supplying artillery and SAMs to the resistance fighters, and the USA is not facing aerial resistance from the Iraqi resistance or any of their possible allies (VC, Red Chinese and even North Korean pilots flew sorties against Americans in Vietnam). Use of artillery, a VC mainstay, is almost unreported in Iraq.
If we left Iraq, probably nothing much would happen to us at all. Somebody would end up running Iraq, and they'd be interested in selling oil.
OpEd in todays NY Prawda
"...The failures of the Bush administration are not those of foreign intelligence but of a cerebral sort of intelligence."
Adlai E. Stevenson III is a former United States senator from Illinois.
Actually, Iraq is only a giant mess if you have delusions about controlling the eventual outcome ( nation building) .The essential American problem is that the administration insists on trying to manipulate the outcome into some sort of guaranteed friendly to the USA conclusion. Complicating the situation is questionable authority of the US to award large no bid Iraqi oil service contracts to Halliburtion, Bechtel et al....
I propose that Bushco went to Iraq with nefarious designs to hijack Iraqi oil. However, the Iraqis weren't going let themselves be punked like the Palestinians.....The only reason the Palestinian situation lingers is because the Israelis control the borders. The Iraqis don't have this problem and they will be able to resist the occupation for as long as necessary.
In conclusion, the only exit strategy for the USA will be to annouce some sort of hollow "Victory handoff to the UN" horseshit ceremony complete with the monkey in a flightsuit.
Sooner will be better...
sevenless,
I can't disagree more about the strategic impact of this war. The more we piss off young muslims, the more we have to watch our backs. What can 19 jihadists with $300,000 do to America? Or London?
I don't think we were really worried about young Vietnamese men coming to our shores with "blowback," but I sure the hell worry what the young men of Fallujah, Sammara, etc. may do in 5, 10 years from now.
Vietnam war spawned the movie, "Apocalypse Now".
Rightwing, Christian whackjobs' delusions of Apocalypse now, helped spawn the Iraq War.
Vietnam war spawned the movie, "The Deer Hunter".
An obssessed duck hunter helped spawn the Iraq War.
Vietnam war spawned the book, "A Bright Shining Lie".
A dim, dull lie helped spawn the Iraq War.
Vietnam war was a disaster for a president who came into office because of an event that conspiracy theorists still debate.
A disaster of a president led to the Iraq War.
A destruction of a
Tactically the situation is still much better for the USA than in Vietnam.
Pardon my saying so, but it all depends on your definition of "tactically."
No, we will not be defeated. Not in the "end of Nazi Germany" or "Imperial Japan" sense of "defeated."
But do we really have the wherewithal to continue fighting in Fallujah, or Baghdad, or anywhere else in the Middle East, ad infinitum? Because that's what it comes down to.
Not who "wins" or "loses," but who stops fighting first. Islam may not be structured hierarchically like the major Christian religions, but that has bugger all to do with the analysis. The willingess to fight for their own land is illustrated by the Palestinian situation. Almost 60 years on and the struggle continues, despite the fact Israel IS supported by a military superpower, and much more fully supported than ever the VietCong were (who, to my knowledge, never had an air force to speak of). Do the Palestinians seem to care?
Tactically, we have no tactics, except to bomb the crap out of them with our "superior military strength." I seem to recall during Vietnam we were going to use that same superiority to defeat the "little brown men in black pajamas." That tactic worked out well, too.
--And It's One, Two, Three, What Are We Fightin' For?--
Where's Country Joe MacDonald when we need him?
friar, I did everything you did.
we know who is making all the war/escalation/siege decisions...the president, his entourage, his heavies, the Security establishment, the strategists, and the SENATE. Naturally, they make sure Iraq is a goldmine for US businesses to ensure their aims. The people...we's jes' a focus group.
We know that for decades Congress has armed Israel to the teeth and has paid _billions_ to build those goddam fortified settler outposts (or should we say, citadels). I wonder what's in there...the Israeli version of madrasas, arsenals, schools, temples? They ain't no communal peace movement, that's for sure. Then we call it terrorist organizing when Hamas does the same thing. (Israel as occupier of the West Bank hasn't even built a school or a heath clinic for the Palestinians). Anyway, just what is the intended payout on the US investment?
I think BushCo have the comfort of knowing Bin Laden is neutralized, so they are pursuing this Iraq thing, which is likely an attempt to secure petroleum and threaten Iran and Russia. They're aiming to secure a privileged US zone around the Caspian to control the oil reserves there...even Georgia's pink revolution is part of this overarching scheme.
Conclusion: we have to move to Spain. Doesn't look like Kerry is going to change much.
I never see "Gandhi" in the TV listings.
I propose that Bushco went to Iraq with nefarious designs to hijack Iraqi oil.
smirking monkey
...
I often wonder what the real reasons were for the decision to invade Iraq. I know for sure, however, that spreading "democracy" certainly wasn't the reason. I tend to think that while control of oil, potential WMD, etc. were factors for the decision of Bush, the ultimate reason was that Bush just had some kind of psychological need to prove his manhood.
This "tough guy" syndrome - deeply rooted in some kind of mental issue (how many of us have felt the need to go "mano y mano" against our dads?) - of course dovetails nicely with Rove's early call for positioning Bush as the "War" candidate.
jr - If there was really such a thing as blowback, the Sept. 11 2001 hijackers would have been descendants of the millions of Guatemalans, Vietnamese, Laotians or El Salvadorans the USA has slaughtered.
There's no such thing as blowback, though I'm sure it makes people feel good to think there still might be some justice in the universe. (There isn't, of course.)
The hijackers were bored, wealthy Saudi kids, not even very religious - they went out to a goddam strip club and drank whisky on Sept. 11 - and from the one Middle East nation the USA hasn't severely fucked over in the last 50 years, the one Islamic government every US administration ever has been in bed with.
If history's any indication, killing millions of Iraqis is the one reliable way for the USA to avoid getting terrorised by Iraqis later on...
Conclusion: we have to move to Spain. Doesn't look like Kerry is going to change much.
nur al cubicle
Except banish neo-con thinking about additional wars.
Oops, I meant Sept. 10 in the 2nd para. Anyway.
jr I think the saber rattling over Iran and Syria is just that. The US don't have the means. Russia has players in the penalty box and the US is making a powerplay. It has already made the calculation of who gets killed in the process.
I think the neocons and the vulcans are here to stay in one guise or another. 'Course I just re-read Richard Leopold's ancient tome on us foreign policy and that's the trajectory.
The situation in Iraq seems to be so serious it's causing generals to have fainting fits at the mike:
read it here
I remember Chris Patten from Hong Kong - although our political ideologies are very different, he was the best governor Hong Kong ever had (or is likely to have in the future). He pushed through full democratic elections for the people of Hong Kong before the handover, and stood up for their rights against much jostling in Beijing over the Basic Law. His comments are typically measured and conservative, but he is a very, very smart man. I'm glad he's making statements like this. He really should be the head of the Tory Party right now - maybe then there would be a viable alternative to Blair's poodle-like insanity.
sevenless,
Again, I respectfully disagree. The roots of Islamic terrorism are varied, complex and go much beyond what we think we know about "al qaeda."
However, I don't think there is any question that there were a number of very smart individuals who were heartened by the results of their jihad against the Soviets. Many of these same individuals were also outraged by the Saud family and American military presence in Saudi Arabia. While, they were able to recruit basically losers to execute their plans, I don't think you can dismiss the plain fact that actions have reactions (this is what I mean by blowback) or argue that the thinking of al qaeda is not in any way influenced by American actions.
Well Americans are dying overseas, George Bush is kickin back. Yep, seems a little like Vietnam.
nur al cubicle
for practical reasons (essentially troop shortages) I think that it is unlikely that we will take the "fight" to Iran or Syria any time soon, but by 2007 or 8 who knows what a Bush administration would do. Neo-con thought will still be with us, but I really don't think it will have much influence on Kerry.
I'm still stunned by yesterday's outrage, during the Bush-Bliar news conference:
Q: Mr. President, if I could just ask you about Iraq again, the fact of the matter is that weapons of mass destruction have not been found and that a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida has not been proved and that a year on, troop numbers are coming up, not coming down. So however determined you are to make a better Iraq, isn't the awkward fact for both of you that you misled your peoples in taking troops to war and shedding blood as a result?
BLAIR: [Blair takes the question specifically addressed to Bush, then proceeds to filibuster.]
BUSH: Good job, prime minister.
I was listening to Faux's financial block this morning. Can't believe the ignorance of some of their panelists (yes, I can). It's like they're not even watching Faux's version of the events in Iraq. They seem to be suspended in a time warp from last spring or summer. Cavuto could only brag about how many businesses have opened up since we invaded. At least a few of them seemed to be aware that Bush has lied; but of course, they were drowned out by the idiots.
Haven't seen any comments about Stevenson's op-ed in today's Times. I think it's a great summary of why we're in this mess.
There really are two types of war: an all out country-versus-country battle the end result being the winner removes the government of the loser nation. Like US versus Japan. The other type is a battle where one or both of the enemies have no central government to displace, somewhat like our own revolutionary war. Billions of dollars spent on defense over the years failed to stop an attack of the second type of war on 9/11 and shows ineffectiveness to battle it. It was able to remove Saddam but can't resolve things now in Iraq. The only way to win type 2 is total genocide and one better not miss anybody. The other answer: leave them the hell alone, which, of course is to late now. The root causes of Arab hate for the west have to be discovered and resolved for there to be any peace. Bush has helped generate a huge army for a second type of war. No easy answers now.
I agree that Iraq has the potential to be worse than Vietnam in significant ways. I think that has been obvious for months.
More than seven months ago I wrote in my blog how the Bush administration's pig-headed refusal to recognize reality was causing it to repeat some of the strategic bluners of the Vietnam War. As I said back in September:
Given the Bush administration’s denial of reality, I am not optimistic about our efforts to build a peaceful society in Iraq. While America is obviously in a far stronger position, and facing a far weaker foe, in Iraq than in Vietnam, our current strategic thinking suffers from the same basic flaw as four decades ago. Rather than having any realistic plan of how to achieve our goals, we just plan to hang around – bleeding money and actual blood – until America wins.
Ironically, though its own ineptitude, the Bush administration has maneuvered America into repeating the Vietnam policy of bloody endurance without any strategic vision of how to actually win.
Bush’s Vietnam Syndrome is primarily a self-inflicted ailment. The arrogance and incompetence of this administration led it to war in Iraq without significant international backing. That same arrogance and incompetence leads it to believe that it can succeed in creating a peaceful Iraq without any substantial international contribution.
If you want to read the whole piece, check out BUSH'S VIETNAM SYNDROME:
http://
selfmadepundit.blogspot.c...365145430730247
Oops. "[B]luners" is a blunder.
I am so disgusted by what I've been reading about Fallujah. American snipers who say "I don't really see them as people anymore." and act accordingly. Taking potshots at old men gardening. Shooting old women in the neck. Blowing up people's houses.
The two hundred Iraqi troops who rightly refused to shoot against the civilians of fallujah are now imprisoned and are being fed one meal a day acording to one of them who escaped.
All this collective punishment for the death of two scum-of-the-earth mercenaries. One thousand Iraqi civilians dead. One hundred Americans dead. All for four mercenaries lives. Is that a fair trade?
Or are we acting this way because we are trying to free them?
I have never been so disgusted with my own country.
OT: American and Jordanian cops fight it out in Kosovo.
This is whacked...7 American _female_ cops and a bunch of Jordanian police had a shootout in Kosovo over Iraq! At least one of the Americans is dead, the rest are in a Serbian hospital. Story at Reuters UK.
What if we fail in Kosovo?
War criminals all of them. In an illegal war.
True. If things go wrong. That's why we must make sure they go right. so support Bush!
I myself have become convinced that we need to pull out immediately, in order to keep the fallout to the minimum. The fallout will mainly fall on Israel, but, sadly, in these types of situations, we need to think of our interests first.
Let's look at the region to try and assess the impact of a pullout.
Moving clockwise, we see Syria, Turkey and Iran. Each of these states is fairly ancient, and, in the main, is likely to survive intact, albeit with violence in the Kurdish areas of all three, with, probably, most of the violence being in Turkey. Kuwait has already proved that it can handle heavy weather, and his likely to survive the fallout. Although I would say that Kuwait since it's so small will have end up flooded with refugees and others that will strain its social and police services to the max. Saudi Arabia and Jordan fortunately have deserts between their population centers and the Iraqi population centers, so, WITH ANY SORT OF LUCK AT ALL, these two brittle states won't collapse. I look for Jordan to be the Iraqi neighbor under the most strain.
It'll be bad for a couple of years. The main impact will be on Jordan and, indirectly, Israel.
As far as I'm concerned, Israel isn't our problem.
More surreal news...
OT: Swedish minister assaulted.
Mona Sahlin, Minister for Integration, a friend of Anna Lindh, was punched out by an unknown assailant during a political forum in Norrkoeping. Her condition is said not to be critical.
I am so disgusted by what I've been reading about Fallujah. American snipers who say "I don't really see them as people anymore." and act accordingly. Taking potshots at old men gardening. Shooting old women in the neck. Blowing up people's houses.
Gives a whole new meaning to 'democratic.'
1. Action-->unilateral.
2. Pretext-->lies. (Gulf of Tonkin vs. WMD)
3. Theory-->domino. Democracy in Iraq will begin a wave of freedom.
4. Progression-->escalation.
5. Civilians -->destroy villages and towns to 'save' them for democracy.
6. Delusion--> We are the good guys. Optimism, good intentions coupled with blindness to local culture and history.
7. Fantasy-->Welcome with dancing in the streets. Intervention would produce instant harmony and consensus.
8. Exculpation-->The bad guys (VietCong/Shi'ites and Ba'ath dead enders) are the problem, not us.
nur al cubicle
So true I had to repeat it.
One thing that has been very perplexing to me is that there hasn't even been a public discussion about what "victory" may mean in the context of Iraq.
What is our mission? What does it mean when the preznit says we will be there for as long as necessary but not for one day more? How do we know when we "won"?
Perhaps most importantly, what happens if we lose the patience of Sistani and he feels we have crossed a "red line"?
It really is sad that there has been no political discourse addressing this issue.
Bush, the man with the fecal touch. Iraq is, without doubt, far more serious, with ramifications far more consequential, than Vietnam. This asshole has royally fucked up the world just like everything else he has ever touched in his miserable goddamned life. He and his crew should be in the dock at the Hague right now for crimes against humanity. And as for Kerry, he says we need more troops! How is he going to ask some poor kid to be the last to die for a mistake?
And as for Ricky Vandal, you sir, are a fucking moron. We can't "win" or "succeed". Have you never read any goddamned history you jackass?
Dear Mr. and Mrs. America,
I am saying this as a friend of the US (well, of the US I thought I knew): I think that most US citizens have not realized that your country is fast becoming a symbol of oppression, comparable to the former Soviet Union, in large parts of the world. I shudder to think what will come out of this in a few years' time, and I fear for my friends in the US.
You have (or had?) a great country, but it is not necessarily always the best in everything, and it cannot offer a one-size-fits-all 'solution' for the world's problems. Get rid of Bush, or you will wonder what keeps hitting you - not militarily, but think political isolation, think economy, think terror. Don't you see that old, old Europe has made some sad experiences you don't want to make?
Ah...this should help quiet things down in Iraq.
Israeli missile-launching helicopters just assassinated Abdel Aziz Rantisi, new leader of Hamas.
Should we conclude that Bush and Sharon want the place to blow?
On a roll...Iranian crisis team fails to negotiate hostage release and persuade al Sadr to back down.
One thing that has been very perplexing to me is that there hasn't even been a public discussion about what "victory" may mean in the context of Iraq.
What is our mission?
To liberate Saddam's terrorist allies from weapons of democracy-building mass destruction rape trailers not for oil tried to kill his daddy buying uranium from Africa...
dave...
I wouldn't quite call recent events the Dien Bien Phu of Iraq. It's easy to trot out Vietnam comparisons and while there may be some similarities, for the most part, these are quite different wars.
What I would compare this to is the Buddhist uprisings in the South during the early period of the war, say, 63-66.
The fact that religion played a part in Vietnamese resistance is conveniently forgotten within the US propaganda machine...
Not just Buddism, but many other religious groups including the Catholics, if not directly affiliating themselves with, then they sympathized with the NLF in South Vietnam...
So it's important not to forget this...
So if you do want to make a comparison, we're at about that stage in the Iraq war.
The "Tet"s or "Dien Bien Phu"s are probably a way down the road. The Iraqi resistance is in it's infancy and just now orgainizing itself...
BTW,
Over at the NYT, David Brooks has a barf column entitled "A More Humble Hawk"
He says that he didn't think things would be this bad and that Bush has made mistakes. But, of course, Bush, the neo-cons, and he were correct about the "big picture" of Iraq becoming the leader of transforming the Arab states into democratic ones. Puke!
However, something perhaps worth reading at the NYT is tomorrow's A1 story already posted entitled, "9/11 Files Show Warnings Were Urgent and Persistent"
Nothing really new, but it puts things in perspective and, simply by relating the public record, makes Bush and his administration look incompetent.
Iraq is shorely not Vietnam. There was no world-wide pan-Vietcong movement!
(Un)Intended Neo-Consequences
Three die in U.N. Kosovo police shooting
(Reuters) - Two Americans and a Jordanian were killed on Saturday when violent emotions over Iraq boiled over into a shootout between members of the U.N. law enforcement mission in Kosovo.
U.N. police spokesman Neeraj Singh confirmed two American police officers and a Jordanian were killed. The deputy head of the Serb hospital in Mitrovica, Milan Ivanovic, said one of the dead was an American woman, hit along with four U.S. female colleagues.
U.N. police sources said four Jordanian police officers had been arrested in connection with the shooting, but could give no further details on the cause. Other police sources said it began with a row over Iraq followed by gunfire.
04/17/04 13:36 ET
dave...
The US propaganda machine likes to portray the "Viet Cong" as nothing more than Communists when, in fact, it was a quite diverse resistance...
Your raising of Dien Bien Phu was accurate in this sense: I won't say that US elites didn't know their history lessons, it's just that they ignored them. So there's another comparison to be made between Iraq and Nam.
Elites knew the Vietnamese rejected foreign occupation, but they refused to admit it.
It was a classic case of "facts observed, but not seen."
The same is happening now.
US elites have a general understanding of Iraq history that reveals a long history of fighting foreign occupation, but they don't wish to see it.
Once again, facts observed but not seen - voluntarily.
McGeorge Wolfowitz, Colin Rusk, Spiro Cheney, John Abaziad Westmoreland and Henry Cabot Bremer arent' stupid men. They just voluntarily ignore history when it suits them.
Lyndon Milhous Bush?
That's another story...
Elias,
the Iraq situation is hyper-fast and we could see complete chaos at any moment. It sounds like the U.S. is having a cooler head regarding Najaf and Karbala, but with one fatwa by Sistani the U.S. would be rendered impotent in Iraq.
Jesus - 3 (Saddam, Yasin, Rantisi)
Allah - 1 (9/11)
I'm sure they read their history but they believe since Russia is out of the equation, it'll work this time.
Iraq doesn't have an industrialized nation-patron to keep turning out those AK 47s and RPGS. US strategists figure they can cut off any suppliers. They'll just shoot those resistance fish in a barrel, and damn the petulant outcries of the EU, UN, Arab League, the US left, etc.
The Iraqis are going to have to be very imaginative to boot the US out of there.
Will I be allowed a dispensation to ask Ricky, once again, why he isn't in uniform, in Iraq? Why aren't Jenna, Little Babs, Noelle, George P, John (Jeb jr.), Little Laura, ... and all the rest of the Republican Chickenhawk chicks?
Ok, some of them have police records but I'm sure they could get some charecter references, this kind of thing can be worked around.
Patten is right on the mark and he's far, far from being a liberal. He knows that this is the beginning of a disaster. Read "The March of Folly" this is one for a revised and updated edition.
jr, you may be right, but my guess is that the US will crush this early resistance, install a Diem-like figure, possibly Chalabi, and convince itself that all is right in Iraq.
Massive atrocities by the US and it's ARVN-like puppet forces will go largely unreported as Pheonix Progam style operations go into effect.
Then in a few years, after the Iraqi resistance has grown, we will see the massive uprising most feared by US elites...
But, then again, it could all be over in a year. But, my guess is, and every indication is, that whoever the President is - L.B. Bush or J.F Kerry - we will still be in Iraq in 4 years, and Americans and Iraqis will still be dying...
What a tool:
http://www.townhall.com/
columnis...n20040416.shtml
-- if they're looking for folks to take hostage....
there is no comparison. the vietnam conflict sprang from the loins of french colonialism in southeast asia.ho chi minh would have been our friend if we had coaxed the french out of the place. we stood in their shoes and the rest is a very sad history.............sep 11 2001 changed the world and we will be at war for the next 50 years. our involvement here is necesssary and justified. to think otherwise is to whistle as you walk by the graveyard.
there is no comparison. the vietnam conflict sprang from the loins of french colonialism in southeast asia.ho chi minh would have been our friend if we had coaxed the french out of the place. we stood in their shoes and the rest is a very sad history.............sep 11 2001 changed the world and we will be at war for the next 50 years. our involvement here is necesssary and justified. to think otherwise is to whistle as you walk by the graveyard.
Whether it's Lyndon Milhous Bush or J.F. Kerry, does anybody (EPT?) really believe that this war will end? Do the Kerry supporters believe that Kerry will dismantle military bases in Iraq?
Do the Kerry supporters really believe that he will end all secret assasination programs and other aspects of the covert war in Iraq?
And when, in the 3rd or 4th year of Kerry's presidency, these crimes are still being committed, what will the liberals who voted for Kerry say then?
I'm anxious to know? Will they say "ABK"? Anybody But Kerry?
Elias,
Bush and the Neo-Cons (sounds like the name of a very bad band) would love to have Chalabi as a strong man leader, but this is impossible. He would be assasinated even before he could be installed.
The U.S. vastly underestimated the power of the clerics in Iraq and are at their mercy. That is why I think they are sincere in trying to place responsibility over to the U.N.
They thought that Sadr had no power, but he was able to call up thousands of supporters which left most of the south in turmoil. Sistani, while more moderate, also has lines which can not be crossed by the west, and he has the ability to make Sadr look like a small-time burglar ring. If he calls for resistance, the game is over for the U.S.
john jansen...
A very important question to you:
It's 1964. In a few months, the US will invade South Vietnam in a massive way and conduct a massive bombing campaign against the North.
In cities across the US, a series of car and truck bombs are detonated which kill a few thousand Americans.
IT's discovered that a group of Vietnames sympathizers set the bombs as an act of retaliation for covert US operations in Laos and Vietnam that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Southeast Asians. They also claimed it was for the US support of the Frence...
My question is: Would this make the slaughter of 3 million Vietnamese, the use of Agent Orange, the use of napalm in villages, free-fire zones, the massacres by Tiger Force and the soldiers at My Lai...
...Would that have made it all right?
Good cartoon by Steve Bell on Bush's Mission Accomplished/Major Combat Over in retrospect. While there at the Guardian, check out his other ones.
Dilip Hiro, an exc. scholar has new bk. out on the region. He says that what makes situation sooo dangerous is that for the first time it is uniting MaleMuslim theocrats & nationalists. There's yr. domino effect, as it could bring down most every govt. in the region & tip the balance in Saudi Arabia to the theocratic wing of ruling family - the wing that has bankrolled Pak. madrassas etc. SA in the hands of the M-F- Fundies....
jr...Which is exactly why I said "Diem"...you do know what happened to him, don't you?
john jansen, I agree that there will be a war on terrorism for years, if not decades, but what we need to do is make sure we fight wisely. Invading Iraq - and also f**ing up the "post-war" situation - was perhaps the worst thing we could have done.
Chalabi probably would suffer Diem's fate as well...
Elias,
My point only is that while the U.S. did install Diem, it can't (although might like to) install Chalabi.
sep 11 2001 changed the world and we will be at war for the next 50 years.
i think this religious war thing is fabricated. after all, israel supported hamas at the outset because they were at war with the palestinian secularists. so now they are at war with hamas and they will be a war with anything that replaces it.
So behind the whole thing is the desire of israel to expand beyond its borders and the desire of the US to control the petroleum rich region...israel and the us are in a symbiotic relationship and feed off of each other's aims.
Chris Patten is one of the few politicians I actually like besides Mo Mowlam. If he's saying the Iraq war is becomming a global menace, he's probably understating it.
one way it's diff. is this war is at least in part a result of revenge. not that the architects don't mostly want the oil and as rumdick calls it a "footprint in the region" (i'd like to put a footprint in his septugenarian ass) but Revenge was why they could sell it to the people.
it's bad that a few thousand islamic fundies killed a few thousand innocent civilians. god forbid any other nation state could exact revenge on the U.S. commensurate with some of the damage we have done around the world. of course i just say that 'cause i live here.
bush took a risk on a pie in the sky theory. thinking he could make it work out.obviously he did not consider what to do if it did not work. and now we are all fucked. if we walk away fundies start training for the revenge we deserve, if we stay fundies keep training for the revenge we deserve.
hey President DUMBASS the guys who attacked us were in afghanistan. many still are.
So, Elias, did you ever answer my question of last week? Who do you advise people to vote for in November. Please make it someone we can all vote for who will ensure that George W. Bush will not be living in the White House. Other wise it will be Anyone, But It Will Be Bush.
Would like an answer, please.
I'm beginning to believe that no one is more cynical than an idealist purist who believes that their ideals matter more than the results that they produce. Run away ego.
"Bush, the man with the fecal touch. Iraq is, without doubt, far more serious, with ramifications far more consequential, than Vietnam."
Vinnie, they say little george calls karl, turd blossom. i'd like to see him pull this one out of the crapper.
nur al-cubicle, we agree on the US-Israel thing being worse than it appears, but it is also true that religious extremism is a major force: it got to be such, as in Iran, because the US and our Saddamite cronies forbade any other opposition. What is not being told is the major gaps between religious groups: the Muslim Brotherhood wants a Sharia-gripped Egypt, but they consider Saudi Arabia and Iran to be too extremist! Also, al-Qaeda cannot really be understood as a Muslim Meinhof-Baader or a religious movement. It is very much a kind of celebrity cult (witness Laden's bestselling books). But because it supports other groups regardless of their smaller differences (with obvious exceptions, like Godless secular types who have violently persecuted them), it is no more fabricated than Hamas. This kind of question, while important and needed for all the idiots who think God is on our side, amounts to little more at a time like this than the kind of finger-pointing which to Washington is invisible.
I think it's going to be like the Opium Wars, but without the opium (except in Afghanistan). I think there were some strategic minerals at stake in Viet Nam, but nothing as important as oil.
Iraq is a textbook imperialist expansion for control of a particularly valuable resource (look at the need for a period of "sovereign" puppet government to get all those illegal contracts signed for Bechtel & co), and at the moment the resistance is based on religious ideology. Al-Sadr reminds me of the 19th century Tai Ping and Boxer rebellions in China.
It wasn't until Mao and Zhou & co came along (from the 1920s onwards) that the Chinese resistance to imperialism really got going, and it took them 30 years to get control and kick out the jams. But in the end they did it.
We're in the 21st century now, and everything's speeded up, so after a few years of failed Islamist insurgency, Iraqis (a significant proportion of whom are already socialist and secular) will get fed up and take a more analytical and revolutionary path. The Iraqi Communist Party, for example, smashed by Saddam (although he was close to the Soviets at certain points), is already making a comeback in Baghdad.
Just a thought.
and kick out the jams
("and" makes it five syllables) indeed
Funny you should mention Patten; he's a Tory but he did go to my alma mater.
k&y: You are right Bin Laden + AQ is a _millionaire's_ celebrity cult. AQ is along the lines of Aum Shin Rikio. I also understand that Yassin was once a member of Muslim Brotherhood, but the oppressed Palestinians on the West Bank considered them too pragmatic, hence Hamas.
I believe Sharon is a racist "genocider" and he and cronies are behind assassination of Rabin. Edward Said said that during the success years of the Palestinian state, Arafat turned over anybody and everybody on the Israeli Wanted list. But that wasn't good enough...Sharon et al. wanted them killed and they couldn't do that under Israeli law when the "evildoers" were in prison. So they took out Rabin which permitted them to become an extraterritorial killing machine.
No answer to the most important politican question of the year, who we should vote for. It's April 17th the candidates are known, it's obvious what the choice is. Yet no answer.
We don't know that Sharon-who is by the way a former Commando/terrorist and personally responsible for the deaths of thousands both by his command and by his own hand-would go anywhere near actually assassinating a standing Israeli politician (or a retired one for that matter), but there is no question that the people who did do it and their supporters also support/expect a lot from Sharon.
Haaretz was giving some voice to the outrage some non-barbarian Israelis felt that Rabin's assassination was being prettified and in some textbooks altered, and that the guy who did it was treated better than say a certain 12-year-old Arab boy who hadn't killed any heads-of-state, can't find the link.
But there are definitely extremists (who like the extremists here must not be imagined less powerful for their nuttiness: witness Moon, Robertson, etc) who actually embraced the Rabin assassination and were happy about it and talk about it like a good thing.
"The war in Vietnam could be justified as essentially defensive in nature". . . . assuming the Gulf of Tonkin lies off the coast of California and something really happened there.
In calling the Vietnam war "essentially defensive," I wasn't referring to an actual defense of the "Homeland," but rather to the defense of the "free world" from "the communist menace." The simple fact that the South Vietnamese were on the verge of voting to join the North tripped all the alarms. When unification by democratic means was blocked, the government of South Vietnam became a target of the NLF and the US involvement grew slowly from military "advisors" to train and support the ARVN to direct involvement of the "advisors" in combat situations to a massive infusion of combat troops to try to stop the infiltration of men and weapons from the North. US forces were always "defending" South Vietnam from the "invasion" by the communist North. This is the only grounds on which the Vietnam war could be justified as "defensive."
but rather to the defense of the "free world" from "the communist menace."
This is too stupid to bother with, but what the hell. When did "South Vietnam" have a democratic government? When did Vietnam vote to partition itself? When? In the United States at least there was some "democratic" process when the south tried to leave union. Funny thing is that the North here didn't think much of the idea either.
The Vietnam was was a war to rid itself of colonial rule, first by France then by the United States. Do you learn all of your history by watching 1980s era fascist-chic movies?
An aside:
Chris Patten had a big run-in with Murdoch in 1998 over the publication of Patten's Hong Kong memoir, East and West, which was critical of the Chinese authorities.
Murdoch, who was negotiating satellite TV rights in China, forced HarperCollins to drop the book in order to suck up to Beijing.
It was a huge scandal in the UK publishing industry, with Patten's editor resigning and authors abandoning HarperCollins in protest.
In the end, Murdoch apologised to Patten and paid an out-of-court settlement. The book has been published by Macmillan.
So don't expect the Murdoch media to treat Patten's remarks kindly if quoted. Or am I paranoid?
but rather to the defense of the "free world" from "the communist menace."
This is too stupid to bother with, but what the hell. When did "South Vietnam" have a democratic government? When did Vietnam vote to partition itself? When? In the United States at least there was some "democratic" process when the south tried to leave union. Funny thing is that the North here didn't think much of the idea either.
Your problem isn't stupidity, it is ignorance. If you don't know the answers to these questions, you should find them out before posting.
A clue:
Edwin E. Moïse
The Vietnam Wars, Section 4
The Geneva Accords
By the middle of 1954, the French realized that they had lost. The US, which by this time was paying most of France's war expenses, was unable to persuade the French to fight on. An international conference was held in Geneva, Switzerland to discuss the problems of Indochina. On July 20 and 21, 1954, this conference produced a number of agreements that were supposed to settle the war.
The Geneva Accords stated that Vietnam was to become an independent nation. Elections were to be held in July 1956, under international supervision, to choose a government for Vietnam. During the two-year interval until the elections, the country would be split into two parts; the North and the South.
The Vietnam was was a war to rid itself of colonial rule, first by France then by the United States. Do you learn all of your history by watching 1980s era fascist-chic movies?
Until you learn the significance of the 1954 Geneva Accords for the development of the Vietnam conflict, there is no point in discussing the matter. There is no point in asking where you learn your history because you obviously don't know any.
It is a long time since I've seen any mention of how old Iraqi culture is. There are strands going back several thousand years. During that time, they have seen so many empires fall. What makes anybody think that the American Empire will be any different particularly if the Iraqis give it a helping hand. Neo-con hubris is just unbelievable.
Robert's historical perspective is correct except that I would have noted it was Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles who personally blocked reunification elections that would have brought stability to the region. The twisted reasoning was in fact that they were defending the world from the Communist menace, hence "defensive war". Recall this was the '50s and residual McCarthism was prevalent.
The irony was that stability in Vietnam followed the failure of our politicians to impose their will. In fact, it was the reunified Vietnam that attacked Cambodia and stopped the genocide of the Khmer Rouge!
A second irony is that the ideological equivalents of those who foolishly believed that Cubans would rally behind the Bay of Pigs action and Communist populations anywhere would rise up against their governments with a US nudge, are now in charge in Washington. The pathetically naive claim by Bush that the problems of the world are based on a "desire to be free" even conflicts with his own claim that terrorists "hate us because we are free"! Rephrasing the old EST axiom...Rats, but not Right-wingers, seem to learn by trial and error.
The Geneva Conference of 1954, coming at the time of the dramatic French defeat at
Dienbienphu, salvaged something for the puppet government of the French by assigning
them temporary control of Vietnam south of the 17th parallel, pending results of a
nationwide election to be held in 1956. In the meatime, the United states (mainly,
Secretary of State Dulles and Admiral Radford) had been trying to persuade England to
support a massive Unites States military attack on Vietnam to safe the French cause.
[Some things never change, EPT] But Eisenhower insisted he would not do it without
allied backing, allied backing, and England would not go along. Consequently, the
United States half-heartedly accepted the Geneva settlements - not signing them, but
issuing a separate declaration that it would “refrain from the threat or the use of force to
disturb them.”
...., The heart of the Geneva Accords was the expectation of elections to unify the country
by July 1956.
Vietnam The Logic of Withdrawl Howard Zinn p. 39
Notice where the division came from. This business of dividing and uniting countries for the benefit of other places has a less than stellar history. Tanzania comes to mind as a place where unification seems to work, take your pick as to where it hasn't. As to dividing a country. Well, things didn't turn out as Dulles and Radford imagined, did they.
Thank's Robert, haven't opened that book for more than 25 years. Looks like a lot of it will be useful until Mr. Zinn gets around to writing Iraq The Logic of Withdrawl
Robert's historical perspective is correct except that I would have noted it was Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles who personally blocked reunification elections that would have brought stability to the region. The twisted reasoning was in fact that they were defending the world from the Communist menace, hence "defensive war". Recall this was the '50s and residual McCarthism was prevalent.
Not even residual. McCarthy's censure in the Senate didn't come until December of 1954, half a year after the Geneva Accords on Vietnam.
And yes it was Eisenhower and Dulles who blocked the elections under the accords, but it was still part of the "Truman Doctrine" and it was Truman who recognized the "State of Vietnam" in 1950 and provided military aid and assistance as well as a mutual assistance pact with France, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.
The "State of Vietnam" was nothing more than a French puppet, but since the inhabitants were basically as anti-French as the Viet Minh of the North, the French made sure that the State of Vietnam had no real power. The really decisive event for the French was the communist takeover of China in 1949. This provided supply and support lines for the Viet Minh that the French, even with US financing, could not hope to match. It was all downhill to the fall of Dien Bien Phu
The irony was that stability in Vietnam followed the failure of our politicians to impose their will. In fact, it was the reunified Vietnam that attacked Cambodia and stopped the genocide of the Khmer Rouge!
I think the real irony is that the communists had made such a mess of the North that if the elections had been held as scheduled by the Accords, it is quite likely that the North would have lost and the South would have won the right to form the government of the new state. By cancelling the elections, the US put itself on the same long, painful road that the French had followed.
Speculating about what would have happened isn't the same thing, is it? Now more than fifty years later there isn't any way of telling if you're right or not.
The partition was supposed to be temporary and was a face saving gesture made to the French. The purpose of the proposed election was a unified country.
The United States should have butted out.
You wouldn't happen to be a friend of electrolux, would you? Hoover institute?
Thank's Robert, haven't opened that book for more than 25 years. Looks like a lot of it will be useful until Mr. Zinn gets around to writing Iraq The Logic of Withdrawl
You're welcome. But back to the original topic, Iraq is both different from and more serious than Vietnam. In my mind the proper comparison for the US invasion of Iraq is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (unilateral, install puppet government, military disaster with no exit, etc., etc.). If anything, that was a clear indication that even superpowers aren't omnipotent. The Soviet involvement in Afghanistan drained its troops and treasure for a policy goal that was never obtained. It hastened (if not led directly to) the collapse of the Soviet Union and left Afghanistan in a state of civil war that was resolved by the takeover by the Taliban. Those who think there is not a lesson for the US here should consider the following:
The war was regarded by many as an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country by another. The United Nations General Assembly passed United Nations Resolution 37/37 on November 29, 1982, which stated that the Soviet Union forces should withdraw from Afghanistan. However, others supported the Soviet Union, regarding it as coming to the rescue of an impoverished ally, or as a pre-emptive war against Islamist terrorists. The CIA invested US$2.1 billion over a 10-year period to create an anti-Soviet resistance.
I agree about there being no exact comparison. There never is. It is primarily those sections of Zinn's book dealing with duplicity and excuses for an illegal war that are instructive in the case of Iraq.
I can't agree that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a useful comparisoneither. To begin with, they shared a border. An unstable Afghanistan could credibly be called a danger, though the invasion itself was as dumb as could be.
Massive power and wealth don't seem to be able to defeat a determined nationalist movement. Not in the past fifty years, not reliably. It didn't even defeat the Afgan war lords. There isn't, again, any way of knowing if the United States hadn't supported them if the war lords might have defeated the Soviets or not. I suspect they would have.
I'm not sure if the Soviet installed government wasn't better than what came after it. I'm pretty sure a number of women wouldn't think so.
Speculating about what would have happened isn't the same thing, is it? Now more than fifty years later there isn't any way of telling if you're right or not.
That's the problem with history. There's no way to go back and change a variable and see what happens. Speculation about what might have happened if something had been done differently can never be verified. But one has to speculate on the effects of changing the variables or else one is locked in a Santayana loop.
The partition was supposed to be temporary and was a face saving gesture made to the French. The purpose of the proposed election was a unified country.
The United States should have butted out.
Seems to me that this is speculation with no way to tell if it's right or not as well. But as a matter of principle it is a valid statement in any case. The point that I was suggesting is that if the US had butted out it very well might have achieved its goal of having the South control the government of the unified country anyway. In my view it is always dangerous to thwart a people's right to determine their own destiny and form of government.
You wouldn't happen to be a friend of electrolux, would you? Hoover institute?
If you are talking about the Hoover Institution, I wouldn't like to be associated with anything that Newt Gingrich is associated with. Anyway, I'm not much of a joiner. Like Groucho Marx, I wouldn't want to belong to any organization that would have me as a member. 
I can't agree that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a useful comparisoneither. To begin with, they shared a border. An unstable Afghanistan could credibly be called a danger, though the invasion itself was as dumb as could be.
Yes, that's what made it a more or less legitimate pre-emptive war (an excuse the US doesn't have).
As to the world's greatest military power being able to defeat nationalist movements, one only has to remember how the US got its independence in the first place to realize the futility of a superpower trying to impose its military will on a native population when the population doesn't want it. The only way to do it is requiring unconditional surrender or genocide.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
