Bush finds Iraq lesson in Vietnam

"We'll succeed unless we quit"??? What is that supposed to mean? I thought it was full speed ahead - let's send in more troops...victory is ours, their in their last throes...etc.

Mumbo Junbo Mumbo Jumbo stay the course.

President pinhead seems to think Viet Nam is peaceful now because we won the war there. Does this guy have any contact with reality?

"Are there lessons here for the debate over Iraq, Bush was asked?

"Yes, I mean, one lesson is, that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while,'''

Man, this guy is slick. Let's see; the lesson to him in Vietnam was that instant success didn't occur after a mere 18-20 yr. (appox) active involvement, so we 'cut and run' in Nam?

I would imagine Bush's "succeed until we quit" comment meshes with the "Dems will cut and run" line.

Since you are there GW why don't you look for some of my brothers still missing.

What's that supposed to mean? Bush envisions the US staying in Iraq for 15 years? More? Permanently?

Bush really truly believes in the Green Lantern theory of governance, doesn't he? Anything can be done with enough willpower. We only lost in Vietnam due to a lack of willpower. If it were up to Bush, we'd still be there, getting our kids killed, getting their people killed.

Has anyone ever asked Bush to actually define what Victory will look like? How will we know we have won? When will we win?

You make many good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:

I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being usedby our forces as we speak.

If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armements”

The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.

How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the Sec. Def. to be - Mr. Gates- understand such complexity, particulary if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?

Answer- he can’t. Therefor he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.

From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.

This situation is unfortunate but it is ablsolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.

This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen unitil it hits a brick wall at high speed.

We will then have to run a Volkswagon instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.

I don't get his logic at all.

We left Viet Nam before "the job was done," yet it's become a thriving, peaceful society.

How is that a lesson that we should not leave Iraq?

If anything, it's a lesson for just the opposite.

Bush's ideolical outlook has made him immune to any kind of deductive reasoning.

This is why I don't trust ideologues from either side--they don't think, they just "believe."

So, W has finally made it to Vietnam, where he has once again demonstrated his inability to draw the right lesson from anything.

Very peculiar reasoning here, and I don't just mean from Bush. While the US was in Vietnam, and even long after, the "Right" always argued that we should have just used more muscle. Had we just given it enough effort, they argue, we would have won. That's the origin of the Powell Doctrine -- go in with overwhelming force or don't bother.

Sadly, these logicians are forgetting the second part of the Powell Doctrine -- have a clear goal and a clean exit strategy once you meet it. The oft-stated goal of the US occupation of Iraq is creation of a stable state that can protect itself. It's the same error that was made in Vietnam -- WHAT does such a state look like? How do you know when you have it?

I find it more than a bit ironic that a Vietnam vet like John McCain is essentially arguing that we should apply the same strategy now that the "Right" argued for then -- just give it more effort, by golly, and we'll win! Wouldn't you think he'd know better?

If we ask the Vietnamese will they keep him? On second thought, I think they know better than to give Bush a chance to screw up another country.

We withdrew from Vietnam. Vietnam is now a thriving economy open to the markets of the world.
Lesson: Withdraw from Iraq let the folks there figure out how their own bread is buttered.

We want to win not quit?! Win what?

What we should be doing is sitting down with the people DIRECTLY involved and figure out what is BEST for all the people involved. What is best for the Iraqis and what is best for our country. That is the ONLY win there is.

We told this man back before 2003 that Iraq was going to be complicated. We spoke of our concerns of getting caught in a quagmire! We even said…this would be another Vietnam.

The biggest similarity between the two wars so far? The politicians with their simplistic minds and the thousands of people their policies murder. Bush has done this all at the expense of innocent lives on all sides, our military heroes and our country’s dignity.

"We'll succeed unless we quit" is a lesson from Vietnam?

I thought Vietnam became the "young tiger" Bush is visiting now because we did quit. Vietnam may not be a pillar of freedom and Democracy, but they certainly seem to be better off since we left.

Bush should stick to the lessons he learned in the Air National Guard:

1) Daddy can fix the problem.
2) Somebody else can do the real work.
3) Drink heavily.

Very sad day for the 58,148 young men who unselfishly and bravely sacrificed their lives, the many solders who remain missing, those who served, and all of their families, that our government these fine young men so proudly served is willing to entertain economic relations with the very government and leader that caused so many Americans to suffer. Although time does pass, the immeasurable pain to the American families that lost their loved ones, and those who served, does not. May our government never forget.

Ken- extremely interesting.
Having served in the armed forces, and then worked within the 'complex', what would you suggest we can do to educate the average taxpayer?
How can the US believe that it can enter direct conflict in a region of the world that hasn't seen peace in over 1500 years? Why do we feel that direct engagement is the path to "democratic enlightenment"?
The US is a lightning rod in Iraq and the Middle East. Without the US in Iraq, who would the insurgency be targeting? Take the enemy away from the battlefield, and the "victors - or those claiming to be victorious", have to then take care of the populous.
See Hamas, they have "won" the right to represent the people, but they are finding that task is more difficult than fighting the 'enemy'. Give them a little bit of what they claim to be fighting for, and the destruction will take place from within. You will never defeat an ideology by attacking it from the outside. When these lunatics prove that they cannot provide this 'glorious life of Islam' for their own, then the cancer of discontent will grow from that population. It has already shown signs of life in Iran in the younger generation. It is there.

I wonder if W. told the crowd in Vietnam that he would have liked to have visited their country during the war,but he was busy getting drunk as a skunk in the Bama National Guard at the time,and he had to "stay the course."

And another thing, Mr McCain --

Even if pumping up troop numbers were a good idea, there's one teeny-tiny hitch: WE DON"T HAVE ANY MORE TROOPS TO SEND!

"We'll succeed unless we quit"

Success (to dubya) equals war profiteering and making enemies so that there can be more war profiteering and compliant, 'patriotic' (read 'lemming-like') masses.

c.morris:

Hey buddy - good comment. I'd like to altar just one letter of the alphabet in the first line:

Man, this guy is slick.
Man, this guy is sick.

There - I feel better now.

The Iraq War is being waged (I would say "has been waged" but the original reasons for the war was something about mushroom clouds, WMD and links to Al Qaeda) as essentially the Reverse Domino Theory. I'm assuming most of the readers here understand the original Domino Theory of Communist expansion so I won't elaborate further.

By toppling Saddam and removing a mean dictator, as well as pushing for democracy with "allies" such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan (and how is that going exactly, Mr. President?), the theory goes that we would supposedly usher in a new era of democracy as the waves of freedom washed over the people of the Middle East and they forgot that they hate Israeli and American imperialism. This would then spill over to neighboring hostile countries and we could all sing Kumbaya together. This theory is as flawed and ridiculous as the original Domino Theory.

bb exposes the deeply flawed logic effectively. Nixon "cut and ran" from Vietnam, yet they are now full trading partners. Vietnam is now a peaceful place and Communism did not expand beyond its borders. All that blood, treasure and prestige was squandered needlessly, just as it is currently in Iraq. But I'm sure there're no connections between the two wars as the pontificators would like us to believe.

Personally, I'm starting to think that we need to just let the Iraqis fight this thing out. We can't stop or limit the sectarian warfare, so we are just interlopers standing around waiting to be killed or maimed. Since every theory that the NeoCons have brought forth about Iraq, from being greeted as liberators to nuclear development to "last throes" to radical de-baathification and on and on, why do we assume that a pullout will make things worse, as they keep saying? I'd say their credibility was destroyed long ago, so maybe its time to stop listening to all the propaganda and thinking for ourselves. If we're fighting over there so they don't fight us over here, I imagine the ensuing civil war will keep them busy for at least the next generation.

For Bill H.

What do you mean "we won the war there" referring to Vietnam. We didn't win any war in Vietnam...and you think Bush is out of touch with Reality? Take a look in the mirror buddy.

Connect the dots:
A) We started a stupid war in Vietnam.
B) A Republican President cut and ran from that disaster. (Which was a good thing.)
C) Almost 30 years later (without our mucking around) and we are "speaking of greater economic cooperation and peace".

How the (insert favorite explicative here) does he get to the conclusion that: "We'll succeed unless we quit."????

We lost Vietnam and now it looks like we are finally on the verge of suceeding over there. (Unless of course we let the wrong people start mucking around over there again.)

The real lesson is: if we stop mucking around with other peoples countries, they'll eventualy come to grips with the real world. Success can be gained from many different avenues, *not* just the military one. As a matter of fact, the military option is the one that led to complete failure. And history bears this out over and over again, not just in Vietnam.

Bob Dylan captured the irony/hypocrisy of America's military conflicts in a 1964 song at the height of the Cold War -- predating the escalation in Viet Nam and our current muck in Iraq. It seems particularly pertinent when the President is quick to invoke his personal spiritual views/ideologies into foreign policy. And besides, it's Friday:

Artist: Bob Dylan
Song: With God On Our Side

Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.

Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.

Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.

Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.

When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.

I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.

"We'll succeed unless we quit,'' No lessons learnt. Maybe he is yet to understand the subject.

Just how did we come to be led by such a clueless fool? Really, really it's time to take a very long look in the mirror, less such a tragedy occur again in our lifetime, or ever.

Bush is right! Stop the whining! I'm a VN vet who saw it all and deplore the Iraq war and all war. But, guess what, we whine no matter what's going on. so, let's stop the whining and work for peace within the structure of NOW, how it is!
It's simple, we are evolving! What you see is what evolving looks like. It's good! Get behind your elected leaders and work for change. Ride ther horse the way it goes.

How many Americans and Vietnamese died in that travesty...and the lesson we learn is..."not to quit"??? How many deaths and/or casualties are acceptable collateral costs to justify the support or prevention of ideology?

Hey Dubya,
Glad to hear you can finally say "I served in Viet Nam".
While you are there take a quick flight over the old DMZ. It is a short flight, about 200 miles. Now try to learn a lesson, we had 500,000 troops, B-52's, thousands of helicopters and yet we could not stop up to 60,000 troops per month and all their supplies from crossing a 200 mile border into South Vietnam.
Now please explain how this fence thing is going to work!

Bush wants a lesson? Here you go: 3 million Vietnamese people killed during the American war. 300,000+ American soldiers killed during the American war. The estimates so far are that 100,000 people have already been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lesson learned? Hardly. Bush/Rummy/Cheney = Master's of War. All they know how to create is death and destruction. Good job boys!

Tom Smith,

Are you a blind,robot,Neocon??

"Ride the horse the way it goes."???

Tom, W. killed that horse a long time ago,and Cheney had it for dinner.

Do you live in a parallel universe??

Thankyou for yor Nam service thou.

Interesting posts.

I would point out that those who suggest that these middle eastern countries will "rot from within" if we leave them to their evil ways sure don't pay attention to history.

The US has never voluntarily allowed a country that doesn't follow its model and its rules to just experiment with its own thing. After the Vietnam war ended, US involvement did not. The US kept sanctions and tried to destabilize Vietnam for a very, very long time. The cost in death, disfigurement, destroyed arable lands, buildings, birth defects, broken families, it is incalculable.

Often times the goal is not to have a "stable democracy" at the end. The goal is to teach people a lesson if they don't do what they are told. Vietnam was taught a lesson, but they bloodied us very badly in return. Their lesson was that if you don't accept US policy and a US back government that you are going to pay dearly. Hardly anyone mentions that Vietnam was in the process of "democratic" elections that international observers found free and fair at the time the US installed its puppet government in the south -- the reason was the Ho Chi Minh was clearly going to win nationwide free and fair elections. And we didn't want him.

In many senses we did win the Vietnam war. We made Vietnam and example like we are making Iraq an example. You do what you're told, or we will kill you, your sons, and your grandsons and plunge your country into chaos for generations. That's a powerful example when a US official shows up in some foreign country to talk about loans, trade deals, etc.

Look at Hugo Chavez. The US didn't like his "populist" talk and playing hardball with the oil majors. (understand that "populism" is a codeword for a democratic process that has too broad a section of the public voting!) They tried to overthrow him and are doing everything they can to get him out. They spend millions on private interests plotting to overthrow a democratically elected government. They publicly call him a strong man and a dictator. They pushed for a referendum and funded the opposition and Chavez still won.

That doesn't sound like democracy to me. That sounds like, "we're going to put on a show here and you clap at the end. If you don't clap, we're going to kill you."

Agreed Bush is clueless. But I have a feeling that the war surrounding Iraq is of a different kind. Communism is an ideology that could have been defeated one way or another but a religion (Islam) which is going through some growing pains in order to shed its barbaric side has to go through violent wars such as these for reformation. I guess christianity had to go through the same. So what we are seeing now whether it be the Iraq war or the Iran confrontation all adds up to the push and pull of cultures to agree on a middle ground. We all know who will win and it will take time but without the grand posturing you will be left out of shaping the future. This is the play of our times and they will be many more.. just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Mark Silva was desperately looking for a story and all he got from Bush was: "history has a long march to it" and "it's hard work in Iraq." Political one-liners that make no sense but people are supposed to relate to them so Bush says them over and over again.

I think it is about time the senior Bush takes W to the woodshed and gives him the whipping he deserves.

Kenny b,

Thanks for breaking out the Dylan tune. Nice.

One must realize that if we had simply stayed out of Vietnam, or lived up to Wilson's words that so impressed Ho Chi Minh (about all of us being equal), the country could have come to it's own conclusions by its own means much earlier and with much less carnage and suffering for Americans. Sure, there would have been carnage for the Vietnamese, but probably not as much as there was with our intervention, and today's nearly modern Vietnam would have been attained much earlier.

Which brings us to any lessons that can be applied Iraq: In looking at the experience of Vietnam, it is undoubtedly time for us to leave and let the country decide its own fate. Sure, there will be much bloodshed (but there is too much bloodshed already--more Iraqis have died under Bush than under Saddam) but probably less bloodshed than if we continue our present path because now the conflicting parties are simply fighting a civil war between gaps in the US forces, much like two young siblings, arguing with their mother between them while using her as a shield to get their licks in. And the excuse about defeating terrorism is pretty lame after giving every terrorist in the area a reason to rush to Iraq and hone their skills. When the dust settles in Iraq, they will deal with the terrorists in their own way, including any Al-Queada who may be left. With the US out of there, the conclusion will come much quicker.

One must realize that if we had simply stayed out of Vietnam, or lived up to Wilson's words that so impressed Ho Chi Minh (about all of us being equal), the country could have come to it's own conclusions by its own means much earlier and with much less carnage and suffering for Americans. Sure, there would have been carnage for the Vietnamese, but probably not as much as there was with our intervention, and today's nearly modern Vietnam would have been attained much earlier.

Which brings us to any lessons that can be applied Iraq: In looking at the experience of Vietnam, it is undoubtedly time for us to leave and let the country decide its own fate. Sure, there will be much bloodshed (but there is too much bloodshed already--more Iraqis have died under Bush than under Saddam) but probably less bloodshed than if we continue our present path because now the conflicting parties are simply fighting a civil war between gaps in the US forces, much like two young siblings, arguing with their mother between them while using her as a shield to get their licks in. And the excuse about defeating terrorism is pretty lame after giving every terrorist in the area a reason to rush to Iraq and hone their skills. When the dust settles in Iraq, they will deal with the terrorists in their own way, including any Al-Queada who may be left. With the US out of there, the conclusion will come much quicker.

So Iraq represents a part of a larger struggle between radicals/extremists vs. those who want to live in peace? Really? The news reports I am reading about Iraq talk about violence between competing religous sects battling over control of their country, not muslim extremists out to destroy capitalism and christianity.

Tom Smith - whining?

What is this great "structure of now" that you are referring to? Evolving? in Iraq- are you serious?
If you want to use the term evolution in some sort of anthropological sense, you may want to look at Poland 1980's and Lech Walesa. Tienamen Square in 1989. There is an undercurrent (or there was) of this type of evolution in the Middle East, but by letting these terrorists/sectarians drag us in and keep us there, we are giving them the fuel that they need to continue to burn.
The people of Iraq, I'm guessing, are desperate right now.
They have people that:
A) look like them
B) worship the same type of religion
C) are natives from the same country (some outsiders have come to fight, but the numbers are unsubstantiated.

Tom - if the situation were completely reversed, and you and I were here in the US with Iraq liberating us, would you be backing the White, American, Christian insurgency? or would you be thanking this Islamic "moderate" liberating army?

Once we leave, then the Iraqi people can do the same thing we do here- blame their own leadership and march in the streets for change. They're leaders can preach the fire&brimstone quaran, but if they can't put food on the tables, then the people will become desperate for change and freedom.

Perhaps the only way to succeed, as in the Viet Nam war, is to quit?

Psychotically murdering 655,000 more Iraquis (or perhaps only murdering 654,000 - the other 1,000 might be legitimate insurgents) isn't going to help peace come any faster than the thousands we killed weekly in Viet Nam.

Dylan says it best!

"300,000+ American soldiers killed during the American war."

Russ-

Huh?

Where the heck do you come up with that figure?

RushD,

"if the situation were completely reversed, and you and I were here in the US with Iraq liberating us, would you be backing the White, American, Christian insurgency?"

Excellent point. My analogy would be to the American Revolution, a true war of liberation:

What if instead of providing logistical support and weapons to the Revolution, the French instead sent all of their forces over to the Americas to fight their mortal enemy, the British, directly. Instead of the colonial heroes throwing off the shackles of oppression, what if France then occupied the country and installed a puppet government that it oversaw for 50 or 100 years. Would America still have the same narrative?

My point is, you cannot "liberate" (assuming speciously that is really what we are trying to do in Iraq) a people at the barrel of the gun, especially a foreign army. The locals will naturally rally nationalistically around their own leaders. This effort is inherently doomed to failure (but of course, we were supposed to be looking for nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda, but that's a whole nother story).

What he really means is we are a fast food society and we expect results now. I wonder if the black people would be free today if there was instant media during the Civil War!!

The brains of many in America and elsewhere seem to shut off where foreign policy is concerned.

Let me draw an analogy. Let us recognize that there is a problem with crime in America. And let us solve the problem by injecting a police force to solve the problem in 2 years, and then pull out. As everyone accepts, the fight against crime never ends.

And so it is with tyranny. We need to stop obsessing about a pull-out date.

Why cannot democracy defeat Bush?

No doubt about it, Dylan puts it best.

But I am going to explain Bush's logic to those of you naysayers who are in doubt. Nevermind that this war was all about avenging his father.

Bush didn't want to go into Iraq with a lot of force. Remember, half the nation was opposed to the war before they rallied around the troops and support for the war went up to 70 plus percent.

Rumsfeld was also operating under the theory that the U.S. fighting forces should be leaner and meaner - i.e. cheaper to run. The thinking here is that if you can pay troops $600 a month to fight a war, you can pay them $750 to fight a war and keep the peace. Room and board provided by Halliburton, Inc.

The Powell Doctrine? That's for sissies. Plus, it's for situations when the country is really behind you. If you can get Iraq on the cheap, that would prove the naysayers wrong. And it would make it easier to move on to Iran.

It's like the game of Risk. Why not try to take Iraq with 40 pieces if you can take it for 4?

This is the rationale. It makes sense if it works. And, admit it, some of you thought it might work at first. Some of you were likely even part of that 70% approval rate at the start of the war. Now that things fell apart, you are beating up on Bush.

And that's okay, too. Just remember the next time, and trust me there will be a next time, that the only way to win a war is if you are ready to drop the bomb.

So, Arnold, we should just accept endless wars, in your opinion?

If progress was being made in Iraq, it would be one thing. But the reality is the situation is worsening, not improving.

Bryan,
Excellent point. There is no stonger force than a man fighting for his home. It's why we couldn't win in Vietnam, not to mention the fact that we picked the wrong side to support. It's why we can't win in Iraq. In fact defining "win" itself is problematic. Winning means different things to to all the different factions in this struggle. To the President and his supporters it means a Democratic ally in the oil rich Middle East. To the Kurds it means an independent home state. To the Sunnis and the Shiites it means victory over one another. If you can't define "win" how is victory possible?

I don't suppose the Constitution allows for the existence of a Presidential recall vote? Didn't think so...

Anyway, I've been keeping an eye on the "Bush in Vietnam" story for a couple of days now. There's been the expected number of late-show jokes about him finally getting to Vietnam after 35 years, the talking-head discussions about free trade and economic sanctions, and all the other assorted business that crops up when the President goes abroad. And, as expected, we now have the inevitable debate about the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam.

I'll admit it, three years ago I was reluctant to draw too many comparisons between the two conflicts. (Or maybe I was too contrary, being one of a few moderate voices on a very liberal campus. I don't know.) I just didn't want to believe that my government could make the *exact same mistakes* that it had made only 35 years before. Usually it takes just a little longer for history to repeat itself.

Unfortunately, it seems that I was mistaken. I often am, these days. I'm an optimist by nature, and I usually expect people to behave according to the rules of enlightened self-interest. Current circumstances being what they are, that worldview now appears hopelessly naive. With Vietnam, the mistakes appear so obvious in hindsight. I thought that the people running the government would look at those mistakes and be able to draw conclusions about how *not* to run things this time around. I guess I gave them too much credit.

What does it say about the state of affairs that the only positive note we can sound about this administration is that we'll survive it? I know the U.S. has had incompetent presidents before. Some of them have probably been even more incompetent than Bush, Jr. But we could afford them back then, before we were the sole surviving world superpower. Like it or not, we are, and will most likely continue to be, one of the driving forces in world events. We no longer have the luxury of making mistakes of the magnitude of this president.

"that the only way to win a war is if you are ready to drop the bomb."

- There's the rub Bud. Too many countries have called our bluff. Ever since 1945, the line in the sand keeps getting erased and re-drawn. The bomb as a deterrent has failed, and these up and coming nations will realize that on their own soon enough. Israel has the capability, and these organizations still attack and lob rockets into their country? What would dropping 'the bomb' do? Who would back them? The terrorists/insurgents are looking for the fight. Looking for the exact retaliatory reaction that we give. If Israel gave Palestine a state, would or could the world condemn them if these organizations continued to attack? And they would.

However, without a strongly worded doctrine that clearly states that we will hold these nations accountable to their technologies getting into the wrong hands, all we have is empty rhetoric.

If Ahmedinjad builds a nuclear bomb, what has he accomplished? It hasn't helped Kim Il as much as he'd hoped.

If we pull out of Iraq, issue such a doctrine, impose sanctions and provide limited humanitarian aid, then this region will be forced to resolve itself. Talk about a tough policy-lots of lives would be lost, but they already are, and will continue. Why keep adding American lives to that ticking number? With all the money spent on this war, we could truly divert this to take care of the domestic issues that are coming like a tsunami- healthcare & social security.

- Arnold - Foreign policy is directly related to economic policy. Korea & Vietnam were fought more for capitalism and keeping open ports for trade (especially for a Japanese economy that we re-built after WWII) than they were against an ideological threat - communism.
Don't believe the "we're here to defeat tyranny" line? Please - check out the rest of the world's tyrants and oppressed peoples that we're completely ignoring. Part of the reason that WWII came about was because WWI left the region to rot and rebuild itself, and a complete window dressed "league of nations".

If we're going to "police" as the sole hegemonic power, then it's going to be more of the same. I'd rather have us "police" or invest in our own infrastructure and domestic policies and stand once again as a beacon of liberty. We assume that the rest of the world looks at us with awe, and that once was true, but the rest of the world looks at us with a great deal of suspicion and mistrust today.

Kenneth Jackson: "... just sit back and enjoy the ride."

Perhaps I don't understand, but what's to enjoy about tens of thousands of our young people killed and maimed in the course of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (nearly all innocent victims)?

And a cost in treasure of perhaps two trillion dollars, which will do serious damage to our future and citizens' future.

Impeach President Cheney and his spokesperson, dubya!

The question is did President Bush support US intervension in Vietnam? It is well known that he did not volunteer for combat duty. If he did support the Vietnam War, why did he himself not volunteer to go as John Kerry and John McCain did. If he did not support the Vietnam War, how does it differ from the current war in Iraq. And, if he did not support the War in Vietnam, then was he a commie? An anti-patriot? Did he not support the troops?

Do'Mat !!!

So many good post today, so little time. Was gonna comment about the M.I.C.(Ike had it right) and all that good stuff, but I was overcome with melancholy reflecting on the Nam, my close friends who perished there, the 58,000+ other Americans who died, the 1,000,000 or so Vietnamese who also perished. Then Kenny B finished me off with the Dylan song. It made me think of "A hard rain's gonna fall", "Times they are a changing" and others. Protest songs are still out there, but they don't seem to resonate like those in days of yore. One of my favorites is a Kate Bush song (no relation to the tyrant), entitled "Army Dreamers". I posted it once but it appeared like 24 hours later. The words alone don't do it justice, the tune is integral to the mood. "B.F.P.O." Army dreamers "Mammy's Hero." "B.F.P.O." "Mammy's hero." Our little army boy Is coming home from B.F.P.O. I've a bunch of purple flowers To decorate a mammy's hero Mourning in the aerodrome, The weather warmer, he is colder Four men in uniform To carry home my little soldier. "What could he do? Should have been a rock star." But he didn't have the money for a guitar. "What could he do? Should have been a politician." But he never had the proper education. "What could he do? Should have been a father." But he never even made it to his twenties. What a waste-- Army dreamers Ooh, what a waste of Army dreamers. Tears o'er a tin box. Oh, Jesus Christ, he wasn't to know, Like a chicken with a fox, he couldn't win the war with ego. Give the kid the pick of pips, And give him all your stripes and ribbons. Now he's sitting in his hole, He might as well have buttons and bows. "What could he do?"(rest of chorus).... Army dreamers. Ooh, what a waste of Army dreamers Ooh, what a waste of all that Army dreamers, Army dreamers, Army dreamers, oh ("B.F.P.O.") Did-n-did-n-did-n-dum... Army dreamers Did-n-did-n-did-n-dum... ("Mammy's hero.")("B.F.P.O.") Army dreamers ("Mammy's hero.") ("B.F.P.O.") No harm heroes [*"B.F.P.O.":British Forces Posted Overseas.]

Bud M,

I agree with most of what you say.

I think the 70% of Americans,myself included,believed W and Cheney when they said Saddam had WMD's.

If W. had stayed in Afganistan we wouldn't be having this conversation.
W. had the oppurtunity to be the world leader that he see's himself as,and he blew it.
Not only did he ruin his rep,he ruined OUR rep.
The next President has a chance to be a special leader if he/she can clean up even half of W.'s mess.

The Repubs forget that we didn't defeat the USSR with our military,we did it ECONOMICALLY.
It's what China is doing to us right now.

Gotta go,the wife wants me to go out partying,and I can hear my good buddy Jack Daniels calling out my name.

The best one sentence summary I have ever heard regarding the Vietnam war was in Vietnam the first time I visited about 15 years ago.
A local asked me why Americans still spent so much time discussing the war. He said they had moved on. I responded that it was because this was the only war that America had lost.He seemed taken aback and said this: " What do you mean it was a war you lost, it was never your war to win or lose, it was our war, a civil war, you just decided to take part for a time, but it was never your war to win or lose."

What is this lame duck doing wandering around the Orient mouthing more fear and loathing? The Congress should defund Air Force One, the Marine Helicopter and stop paying the electric and fuel bills at the White House. The sooner this cretin leaves town and goes back to his "Bonesman" roots, the sooner we can fix America rather than scaring the wits out of the rest of the world. And have him take Marvin and all the other extended family idiots with him.

Lord Louis Mountbatten,Supreme Commander Allied Forces in the SW Pacific (remember him?; he was eventually murdered by Irish terrorists) wanted to allow the popular Ho Chi Min to take over at the end of WW2 but the victorious Allied politicians insisted Indo-China be handed back to the French who had collaborated with the Japanese during WW2. So it was not just the American intervention that inflicted the suffering on that poor country seeking freedom from foreigners but also the French who were eventually kicked out at Dien Bien Phu. The right-wing conservatives even in my small country insisted on currying favour with the Americans by taking part in the Viet Nam War; we had 500 killed there. Imperialism is still alive and well.

"If you can get Iraq on the cheap, that would prove the naysayers wrong. And it would make it easier to move on to Iran."

Bud Mc.

This comment hits the correct nerve, salts the right wound, mashes the sore, infected thumb, sticks the hot poker up the dripping boil,
tears the guts out of and turns inside out the awful neo-con rationale' for perpetual war.

Thanks.

unlettered,

Yeah, blues/rock is a performance art. But a good bit of poetry anyway. You need to go check out 'Sweet Home Chicago' in the archive; Oct, 29

Three books contain the critical mistakes that was the VN War:

A Bright Shinning Lie; Sheehan (strategy)
My Lai 4; Hersh (discipline)
Ripcord; Nolan (tactics)

There were many many other fine books written about this war, but these 3 boil it all down real well.

He W! Have you read any?

Bud Mc.

PS:

Drains the yellow colored mustard, dripping from the dead dog's eyes. (Stupid bloody Tuesday....)

"I don't get his logic at all.

We left Viet Nam before "the job was done," yet it's become a thriving, peaceful society."

BB

Of course we know why it doesn't make any sense. It's not supposed to be critically analyzed. It's meant to be a 5 second, feel good sound-bite on the current 24 hr news cycle.

It is bizarre that after 32 years a second U.S. President can travel to a country with which we were at war, and with which we now are a major trading partner. At the same time our government has refused to engage in any dialogue with Cuba, our neighbor which has never killed any Americans in warfare. Likewise our government refuses to engage in dialogue with Iran, which has never killed any Americans in warfare, after almost 30 years. The stone wall between the U.S. and Iran is, I believe, preventing creative solutions to the Iraq mess, and a reasonable resolution of the Iranian nuclear issues. A lesson of Viet Nam that Bush should be aware of, but is not, is that Nations do not have to do what we tell them to do. Another lesson is that fighting communism in Viet Nam so that we don't have to fight them here was just as stupid as the assertion that we are fighting in Iraq so we do not have to fight the terrorists here.

C. Mo... Yeah, good books all, though I must confess, I'm not familiar with Nolans's "Ripcord." As for the current morass, I've only read Parker's "Assassins Gate", Galbraith's "End of Iraq", and Rick's "Fiasco." My wife says I'm poisoning myself with redundancy, but I found each to have a different emphasis and perspective. And none of these guys are hysterical wing-nuts like say, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Riley. Keep meaning to check out "Sweet Home", but to be honest, I'm a bit intimidated by your apparent music acumen. I'm pretty familiar with some groups like "Steely Dan", CSN&Y, Clapton and other favorites and I love music. But start throwing out names of some of the more 'obscure' talents (to me anyway) and I get embarrassed. I enjoyed Clapton for years before I found out about his involvement with (and influence by) John Mayall., for example.

Algy,

We have had several good discussions in this blog re; the roots of the Vietnam debacle.

Thanks for the bit on Mountbatten.

We only looked at VN throught the Cold War, anti-communist lens. We could not imagine Ho chi Minh as a national hero.

How could Diem be bad? He was a Catholic and anti-communist.

Thanks for the down under input.

RushD,

That's sort of my point.

Why build a bomb unless you're prepared to use it? Why go to war unless you're prepared to use the bomb? Why have sex unless you're willing to support the child.... but I digress.

Kevin,

Excellent. Did we have to go half way around the world to get it? Maybe so.

To all of those who want to complain that President Bush is the worst president ever, etc., consider this: He got to the top rung in OUR TIME.
Does that make us the Worst Generation Ever?

While I have been one of Bush's staunchest critics, I have found myself more conciliatory since the evening before the election. Win or lose, I realized that this is all we have. And what a great thing to realize that we are able to do THIS.

Enjoy your freedom, ladies and gentlemen. Whether you earned it or not, whether you deserve it or not, you have what you have and enjoy it.

God bless you all.

Bud McFarlin,

"He (Bush) got to the top rung in OUR TIME.
Does that make us the Worst Generation Ever?"

This is an excellent question, and I believe that the answer is a resounding YES. We get the leaders we deserve. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or believe that he would be harmless back then, but he was an unknown commodity (and there were clearly many shenanigans involved in his election) so I can forgive us for voting him in. But in my view, things were already looking pretty bad in 2004 and yet we brought him back with an actual electoral majority.

The world knows that George Bush is a buffoon who has absolutely eviscerated American credibility and prestige around the world, as well as blood and treasure at home. When we re-elected Bush Jr., the world's collective jaw dropped to the ground and they started to realize that these Americans are a whole lot scarier than most gave us credit for.

So, yes, I believe we do need to take credit/ blame as a people for our president. By electing him, we have blessed his decisions. By standing by him (and not even attempting to uncover his misdeeds for the last 6 years) we have acquiesced or accepted his tyranny. And all in the name of "patriotism."

Standing by a failed leader in unpatriotic. Asking questions of power IS patriotic. It is time to immediately begin asking those questions.

In final note, I thank America for finally, albeit a bit late in my opinion, voting OVERWHELMINGLY (do not believe the spin, the GOP got their collective butts handed to them and thrown out the door) to reclaim our country. The much needed checks and balances have started to be restored. I pray that the Democrats can take this opportunity and not squander it.

We should all feel the shame of George W. Bush. Thanks again for the question, Bud.

P.S. GO BEARS!!

Tom Smith thanks for the patrotic remark. The name calling SP are at large in this blog this is evident by the remarks directed at you . I guess it is easier to call names then to use a little reason. I was not for the war I am still not for the war but the personal attacts on the president are outrageous and damaging to this country. If I was an Arab I would be fighting just as hard to keep from becomming a society like we currently have in the US where life is not valued and homosexuals are dragging every child down to their level. We elected the current Bush because he values our Right to Life not because he has any sense in any other area. If you SPs want to avoid liveing in an Islamic world, where your ways wont be tolerated you'd better wize up. We will continue electing thoese who value life inspite of the damage they do in other areas. So you all keep up your abortion, euthinasia and public school homosexual education and prepare to worship Alah or die because you refuse. It is the SP lack of self control that has caused the election of their hated president Bush

"I'm a bit intimidated by your apparent music acumen. "

unlettered,
I am with you on that! Don't worry; it's a fun blog, no bad rips. Just people that love the electric blues/rock.

+++
"He (Bush) got to the top rung in OUR TIME.
Does that make us the Worst Generation Ever?"

Bud McF.

This is the great shame of our generation.

+++

PS;

Did anyone else see Rush Limbaugh go insane over the Repub loss? I ignore the idiot, but Colbert showed some very funny, interesting footage of the fool.

Kenny...You really are afraid of those gays aren't ya? Are you afraid you might be turned to the dark side?

Unlettered;

Ripcord (Nolan) is a nuts and bolts account of a battle engaged in 1970 between the 101st AB, and the NVA. It is absolutely heartbreaking.

One other great book about VN is, 'Street Without Joy' (Fall). It details the French effort and eventual defeat. Lays the foundation of our effort.

Clue to all; don't assign cowardice down to the personal level when you try to call an entire nation (France) a nation of cowards. It just doesn't work.

This blog is mostly about Bush haters saying what they want even if it slaps truth in the mouth. Bill r your use of the word gay is evidence of the fact you are of the belief you can change a bull in to a cow by just nameing it anew. I might use the word qu--r but average americans are not allowed to use that because your contingent has so stifeled free speech in this country. How is it then that qu--rs allowed to call each other qu--rs. There has been execellent commentary on this blog about the Military industrial Complex. That is honest argument. The homos can't deny they outted Foley not because what he was doing was detestibley wrong but to defeat a president that has not smiled on their twisted way of thinking. The qu--r marriage issue is a prime example of this twisted thinking. Bush is right on this as he is right on protecting the right to life. This can be seen without bring Good (Allah) in to the discussion. Where will your Right to Life and be a public homo be when the children of allah take over. Honest History proves Bush is on the correct side on these issues and the future will vindicate him on this. Bush removeing Sadam from power was a futile act; just a futile and simular as homos trying to put a pretty face on what they keep shoveling out of their closets. We cannot send our children to public school and have them be safe from what you are shoveling out of your closets so we will continue electing the Bush types inspite of their impractible ways. Yes there is cause to fear "gays" when their "personal problem" is exhibited in destructive public ways.

Kenny,

1. We can say queer.

2. America should be just as worried about Clerical Fascism as Islamo-Fascism.

3. Foley is just a conservative hypocrite, just like Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell. (But unlike them, probably not an America hater)

4. You sound like you protest too much re. gays.

5. Keep electing Bush types? Only in your dreams, Goebbles.

6. Shoveling out the closets? You can't take what is about to be shoveled out of the Republican 'closet'.

7. Question; Are you really Aroo?

Kenny...I don't believe you can turn a bull into a cow. However, I believe either is an animal of god and for mortal man to determine its value makes them quite hypocritical. If you are above mortal man than I bow to your wisdom, but I doubt you are. It is not that you can't use the word q***r, just as you can use the word n****r, it's that civilized man need not use what has become hateful terms. No matter who "outed" Foley, it was his own hypocrisy, that led to his downfall. You are a prime example of why the rightious right must never have political power in this land. I have no doubt after reading your posts that you would be one of the Spanish Inquisition leaders if only you could. If I were you, I would worry more about your sole than the gay.

"Success can be gained from many different avenues, *not* just the military one. As a matter of fact, the military option is the one that led to complete failure. And history bears this out over and over again, not just in Vietnam.

Posted by: Paul F. | Nov 17, 2006 12:33:08 PM"

Paul,

The limits of military power to accomplish anything, beyond basic national survival, has been proved over and over again. The amazing thing about it is that people never seem to figure it out in advance.