The fact that you associate US intervention in vietnam with some sort of pretend fantasy make believe nation building exercise in Cambodia which never happened (the only thing the US did to Cambodia was bomb and illegally invade a part of it) and had no chance of happening is funny. You do know (wait, that is giving you too much credit, no way you know this - your bad analogies show this quite well) that the vietnamese eventually invaded Cambodia themselves to stop the Khmer Rouge, right? You also know that during this time period the US was more than happy to tolerate genocide and mass killing from anti-communist allies all over the globe, like in East Timor, right? you = not knowledgeable
basso, the boat people were the ones I mentioned earlier that faced the harsh brutal retribution. I didn't negelect their plight. Sam already mentioned your rewriting of history regarding Cambodia and the extent of the American mission there. It was never part of America's plan to take over and support a democratic regime there. For you to pretend otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. Of course none of that changes the corruption and oppression by the folks that would have stayed in power had the Americans one. The people who suffered from it might disagree with you. http://www.vietnampix.com/fire1.htm
That is exactly what I don't understand about basso's Cambodia misdirection. It was the communist Vietnamese who defeated the Americans that invaded Cambodia to stop the genocide that basso is so fond of bringing up as a reason why the U.S. should have stayed. It makes no sense. The communists(basso's bad guys) were the ones who took action to stop the Khmer Rouge. Basically his analogy works in reverse. If the communists had lost, it is possible nobody would have tried to stop the genocide.
To compare all "Wars" as if they are the same is ridicules. Any comparison of Iraq to WWI, WWII, Korea, or any war where you have one standing army fighting another standing army is useless. To get a closer comparison to Iraq, though even still each war is much different than the next, you need compare one standing army to a populous insurgency. There are no perfect examples but I believe that each of these have aspects that reflect the Iraq War. Many revolts against the Romains. Many revolts against the English; Scottish, Zulus, Afghans, Irish, the American Revolution, etc. The wars against the Native Americans. Yugoslavia’s resistance against the Nazi's in WWII. Vietnam Afghani resistance to the Soviets. And there are many many more. If you examine these you will see that it is possible to defeat and insurgency, but there several variables that you need to consider. 1. How much resolve does the insurgency have? 2. What assets does do the insurgency possess. Kind of weapons, amount of people, backing from an external source. Food, Water. etc. 3. What is the resolve of the occupying force? What will they do and what will they not do to achieve victory. What is the perceived gain to cost ratio of winning the war? 4. What resources does the occupy force have? Weapons, man power, money, logistics? The Romans were very successful at putting down insurgencies because they tremendous resolve, recourses, military and everyone knew that if they rose up against the Romans and lost there cities would be destroyed and everyone either killed or sold into slavery. The English had moderate success because they had recourses but were not will to kill everyone insight. American had great success against the Native Americans because the Native Americans had limited rescores such as man power and weaponry, while the US had no fear of any great retaliation. Yugoslavia kept the Nazi's at bay in their insurgency because they had weapons, safe places to hide, and high resolve while Germany couldn't bring their full weight to bear because most of their resources had to be brought to bear fighting WWII. In Vietnam the US was up against an enemy that had fanatical zeal, unlimited modern technology because the USSR, safe places, and had mobilized their entire population while the US was not willing to kill everyone in sight and could not bring the entire weight of our military capacity to bear. The cost of victory vs. both domestic and global costs. In Afghanistan, see Vietnam. In Iraq, Are we willing to kill everyone in sight? Does the insurgency have a strong commitment to win? Do they have enough capable arms? Can they get re-supplied? Do they have safe places to go? What is the price to victory ration for the American people? What political issues both domestic and international have to be considered? Does the US armed services have the resources at its current state to achieve victory, if not what would it take?
well, looks like it's all moot- bush has decided to bring the troops home. [rquoter]And now, breaking news: Bush: I’ll Bring Troops Home on JetBlue No Exact Timetable, President Says Under increased pressure to announce an exit strategy from Iraq, President George W. Bush revealed plans today to bring U.S. troops home on the budget airlines JetBlue. Mr. Bush received praise for his decision to withdraw American troops, but his choice of JetBlue to transport them raised more than a few eyebrows. According to most official estimates, with its recent spate of scheduling problems and flight delays, JetBlue could take up to seven years to bring U.S. troops home, and possibly ten years in the event of inclement weather. But at a press conference at the White House today, the president argued that the selection of Jet Blue was “crucial” to the success of his latest exit strategy. “Setting an exact timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq would be playing right into the enemy’s hands,” Mr. Bush said. “By going with JetBlue, our enemy will have no idea when we’re leaving.” To emphasizes his point, Mr. Bush added, “And neither will we.” Across Iraq, U.S. GIs were hopeful that the news about JetBlue meant that they would be home by Christmas, or at least by Easter 2012. At JetBlue headquarters in Forest Hills, New York, CEO David Neeleman said that it was “flattering” to be chosen to play such a critical role in President Bush’s new exit strategy, but wondered if his embattled airlines has what it takes to bring troops home from Iraq. “We’re still having a hard time getting people home to Fort Myers,” Mr. Neeleman said. Elsewhere, Britain and Denmark announced that they were joining “The Coalition of the Leaving.”[/rquoter]
Support the troops. Let them win! "the coalition of the leaving" killing is so god damned manly, woohoo! i know you live in the same city as i do, however, you definately live in a different world.
I agree that you can't compare all wars but there is a lot to be learned from history. The challenge is avoiding simplistic comparisons so yes Iraq isn't Vietnam but neither is it Germany or Japan. I was listening to a commentator on NPR the other day that said that the problem with Neo-Cons and the the current Admin. is that they have an attitude that they are "smarter than history" and I think in some of the post defending the Admin. we see that attitude. At the same time though we see an attitude of drawing questionable conclusions from history like saying that look at how great Japan and Germany are now to argue that through military might we can impose democracy and economic success. These are extremely facile comparisons that without understanding the complexities behind them IMO are more dangerous than productive.
to the last point first, there were additional factors at play in stalingrad that simply are not here, such as long, unsustainable supply lines and severe weather, which allowed the sovs to cut the manstein's army off, so while this may be an example of an instance where a tactical retreat may have made sense the rest of the analogy is irrelevant. yes, knowing in 1965 what would transpire 10 years later, and in the intervening years, johnson should never have allowed the marines to wade ashore at danang. i would go further, and say kennedy should never have sent in advisors. i don't really want to debate the vietnam war however, but the analogy i think you're attempting to draw, that the surge is somehow equivalent to the 1965 escalation of the vietnam war, makes no sense to me. first, the number of additional troops being deployed now is relatively small in relation to the number already in country. second, the key component of the surge is not the number of troops involved, but the change in tactics and ROE. w/o the latter, the additional troops will have little to no positive effect. this is what petraeus brings to the table. i don't understand the reluctance to give him a shot at getting it right.
I'm pleasently surprised to read this from you Basso. Knowing now the problems we are facing in Iraq do you feel then that we shouldn't have gone in the first place?
you've misunderstood my point- the disaster in cambodia was directly associated w/ the war in vietnam, and it's possible the US could have prevented the Khmer takeover, which occured after we left. i'm not sure what the rest of your post has to do w/ anything.
no, taking out saddam was always going to be necessary, and although the war has gone on longer than anyone hoped, it's not surprising given the dysfunction present in iraqi society. all the debates about whether better planning, etc. would have made a difference are academic, although i suppose they're valuable if we apply the lessons learned in iraq to future conflicts. none of these questions of tactics are arguments against the meta strategy of the war tho.
You're obviously correct that disaster in Cambodia was directly related to the war in Vietnam but what I think you're missing is the role the US played in it. Given the that US actions contributed to the disaster in Cambodia its questionable at best whether the US continuing to remain in SE Asia would've stopped it.
no, i'm not missing it- we were directly responsible. i would have liked to believe that a US government would not stand by and witness a genocide they were complict in if they had the means to intervene. if US troops had stayed, that means would have been at hand. and by extension, we have an obligation to the iraqi people. the democrats say the bush admin has irreparably harmed our international reputation by invading iraq. how would withdrawing and leaving the iraqis to murder one another bolster that reputation in anyway?
Why would you think this? It happened many times before and will continue to happen. The cold war era had nothing to do with stopping genocide. But if you want to turn back the clock and play make believe, let's say the US continues to fight in Vietnam - with the US and Vietnamese busy fighting each other, does either of them invade cambodia in 1978 to put down the Khmer Rouge? probably not. There is just as much and probably more of an argument to say that the US continuing to be involved would have just made things worse - the same way that history shows us they did before that point.
Yes, how about 2m murdered later and a bunch more people bombed and napalmed before then? And by the way, it is basically laugahabe to talk about the US and humanitarianism when discussing their actions in SE Asia in the 60's and 70's during the cold war This is the era of napalm and agent orange and my lai and all sorts of US sanctioned dictators and massacres in that area and around the globe Humanitarianism had nothing to do with it despite the fact that you are trying to re-write history to include it in.
