What lesson we learn from the Viet Nam conflict, and what bearing it has on the Iraq incursion, depends on our distance from the topic, our personal connection to it and how much 20/20 hindsight we have.
I learned in the mid 70's that the politicians who were castrating the leadership on the ground with mindless rules of engagement were dooming our troops to uneccesary casualties, when in fact, we should have continued carpet bombing until the VC tucked tail and ran. They were on the verge of capitulation when we signed the peace accord, and after we abandoned the south, ignored the accord and invaded.
Can this lesson have any application to Iraq? Who knows. This isn't another 'Nam yet. As I have said before, we are using twenty-first century chivalry to fight medieval soldiers.
We have the finest military on the face of the earth. We have technology that is almost beyond comprehension. All of this is at the beck and call of politicians who are clueless on how to fight a war, and have no problem displaying that attribute.
No one hates war more than those who are tasked to prepare for it. Let them finish the job to which they were dispatched, and return with honor. The debate on the merits of this conflict will continue for decades, the will of the American soldier can never be debated.
The suggestion that we just cut and run would be more like the Viet Nam debacle than any armchair general could imagine.

While not a Republican myself, I have yet to see a quote from the president ".. accusing those opposing the war as not supporting the troops." Can you post a link?

It's letters like this that Jihad Jaara and Muhammad Saadi appreciate coming from the American left. They know who their allies are in the US.

And now they can add one more world leader to their list of supporters:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1887822/posts

Walt, thanks for speaking for a good number of people!

Shalom

"Credibility has two primary components: honesty and competence. Leaders are credible people who add a compelling vision."

How true. And how sad that this country has had no real leadership for quite some time.

Going on 44 years......

The President's statements regarding Vietnam were nothing less than stunning and reeked of desperation. After years of rejecting ANY analogies to Vietnam, he suddenly chose a selective analogy that most historians would reject.

This morning comes word from the Washington Post that the President is going to ask for more money ($50 billion) to extend the surge.

What the President hasn't said is that the surge is unsustainable beyond next spring. With or without funding, the Pentagon is going to run out of fresh troops to send to Iraq. Unless the Pentagon changes its deployment rules, which the Army Secretary has already admitted place an unacceptable burden on our troops, or the country institutes a draft, there will have to be some type of drawdown.

Thus, the President needs to demonstrate that 6-9 more months of a surge are going to make a fundamental difference in the eventual outcome for Iraq. Given the political situation there, it's hard to imagine that happening. The latest National Intelligence Estimate ( http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070823_release.pdf ) predicts that the surge will lead the security to "improve modestly." (A very small benefit for the enormous cost this country is bearing). However, it also indicates that longer run stability depends on political reconciliation and that's simply not occuring. So the small benefits in security will be gone as soon as the troops begin to draw down.

One set of more generally accepted lessons that came out of the Vietnam conflict was the Powell Doctrine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine ). The President and his allies still have not addressed to key elements of that doctrine:
a) stating a clear and obtainable objective, and
b) providing an exit strategy so that we don't get caught in a quagmire (to use the Vice Presdent's term of choice).

`

Almost forty years and we still get ridiculous rants like:

"They were on the verge of capitulation when we signed the peace accord, and after we abandoned the south, ignored the accord and invaded."

ON THE VERGE OF CAPITULATION??? That is too funny for me to address. Someone needs to be "de-programmed" by the folks who did the "programming". We lost because we were in the middle of a civil war being fought with guerilla warfare, not so dissimilar from our fight in Iraq. Obviously, some NEVER learn.

_____________

Walt Gavin,
You are completely on point. Bush lost Iraq, not America.

`

I'm just now reading about Vietnam (actually Truman through Nixon) .. but my answer to the Lessons of Vietnam would be something like - don't start a war you're not willing to totally committed to - and that means EVERY American.

Here's a stat' I posted once before - it still kinda shakes me up:

The last year before the start of WWII, the American automobile industry cranked out about 1-1/2 million cars. DURING WWI the total COMBINED production - all makers for almost 4 years .. was 200 cars. The rest of production went to the War effort.

Americans had a shared involvement - it was not a few soldier and their families making sacrifices for the rest of America.

This war has been fought with Duct Tape Sales ... and forgive me if I hold a deep rooted hate for the bastards that took a simple fight (Osama and 3000 in the caves of Afghanistan) and converted to ... QUAGMIRE.

``

...and doesn't the headline on this letter describe EVERYTHING about the administration????

"President's Iraq policy lacks credibility, honesty"

`

WWII .. sorry

TLC:

A gentle reminder that the letter writers do not choose the headings--the editorial staff does that. Sometimes the headings are more provocative than the letter writer intended. In any case, effective criticism should be restricted to the body of the letter.

Respectfully,
Dave

`

Dave,
The headline matches the administration.
End of point.

`

I'm right!!!! I'm RIGHT!!!!

How predictable. (sigh)

"ON THE VERGE OF CAPITULATION??? That is too funny for me to address. Someone needs to be "de-programmed" by the folks who did the "programming". We lost because we were in the middle of a civil war being fought with guerilla warfare, not so dissimilar from our fight in Iraq. Obviously, some NEVER learn."

Yup. I know where Ellis got this notion: from the Vietnam military brass. That was their party line for 5-10 years leading to our 1973 exit. Most Americans ultimately opened their eyes, but some still drink that KoolAid today. They believe if we had just identified and blown up a few thousand more targets, the Vietnamese would have called off their civil war. Naturally, they believe the Iraqis will do the same if we "shock and awe" them enough.

History lesson: when we cut our losses in Vietnam and applied our resources more sensably, we prevailed in the cold war much sooner than anyone imagined possible at the time. It took politicians with enough courage to admit an error and enough sense to see the limits of what military power can accomplish - exactly what we need today in our fight against global terrorism.

`

Kornbluth,
You speak the truth. Just imagine how we could actually fight the war on terror (not to be confused with Liddy Dole's war on Tarah) with greater resources if we would bring our troops home now. Instead, we have the kool aid drinkers still supporting a WAR with no end in sight.

`

Kornbluth:

If the President wanted to extend his selective history lesson to consider that after the withdrawal from Vietnam, the communists didn't follow us home or into the rest of Asia (instead China, Vietnam, and Cambodia fought amongst themselves; other neighbors such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, and South Korea actually democratized). He might also consider that Vietnam eventually moved towards a growing market-based economy and a positive relationship with the U.S.

Sorry, the start of that post should read...

The President might want to extend...

Bad post key, bad key :)

`

DaNang! Dave Ribar makes a great point! Don't remember all those Viet Cong following us home from Nam, do you?

Now that Bush is using Vietnam as his reference, maybe he will sign up his daughters since he never went.

`

Except for the daughter who is engaged!

Shalom

If there are any common threads between Iraq and Nam, it is the anti-America left who supported the NVA and eventually led to the defeat of the US...just as they are now engaged in aiding and comforting the insurgents by demanding Bush surrender NOW, because there is no way to win this war on the militant ragheads.

That and the fact that Bush, like his Vietnam era predecessors is worried about what the anti-America left will think and say about him if he turns the war over to the people who know how to win it.

NeoCon and 21% of Americans: Far Right and Correct.

The other 79% of Americans: Far Left and Wrong.

No Middle

Kornbluth,
You take your cues from the 60's wunderkind who look back in time through myopic lenses, and I will take mine from the "military brass" who were in country and making day to day assesments.
The koolaid you make is the koolaid you drink.

`

neo,
You are such a joke. Over on another thread you can't even conjugate a sentence properly, yet you are on record blasting public education! Your ignorance is so vast that I am amazed each day. You are rarely correct, but never unsure! Thanks for the laughs.

Darryl,
I'm ashamed that one of my WFU bretheren is engaged to the "big boned" Bush daughter! I'll at least hand it to her for trying to "marry up".

Ellis,
The Kool Ade you drank came straight from the military and I wouldn't be bragging about it. As George Carlin said, "Military Intelligence--the two words just don't go together"!!

`

Actually, George Carlin said Military Intelligence is an oxymoron, but hey, who's counting?
Since you are anti-military (as evidenced by your characterizations) then how can you believe anything anyone says? Those who are not in harms way speak more truth than those who are? What kind of pretzel logic is that?
I 'll say it again- those who are tasked with preparing for war are those who have the most to lose, and by extension the most to gain from telling the truth.
Sip away, MPD man!

`

Ellis,
Your argument rings hollow--and history is on my side. Ever heard of William Westmoreland??? Ever heard of the lying he authorized to make Americans believe we were "Winning" the war in Vietnam?

Here's a quote from the General about the war in SE Asia:
"It's not that we lost the war militarily. The fact is we as a nation did not make good our commitment to the South Vietnamese."

Sound familiar???? That's because the administration today has adopted the same "losing" argument to cover its own ass.

Also, per Wikipedia:
In 1982, Mike Wallace interviewed Westmoreland for the CBS special The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception. The documentary, prepared largely by CBS producer George Crile, alleged that Westmoreland and others had deliberately underestimated Vietcong troop strength during 1967 in order to maintain US troop morale and domestic support for the war. Westmoreland filed a lawsuit against CBS.

In Westmoreland v. CBS, Westmoreland sued Wallace and CBS for libel, and a lengthy legal process began. After the trial was in progress, Westmoreland suddenly settled with CBS for an apology, no more than CBS had originally offered. Some contend that Judge Leval's instructions to the jury over what constituted "actual malice" to prove libel convinced Westmoreland's lawyers that he was certain to lose. Others point out that the settlement occurred after two of Westmoreland's former intelligence officers, Major General Joseph McChristian and Colonel Gains Hawkins, testified to the accuracy of the substantive allegations of the broadcast, which were that Westmoreland ordered changes in intelligence reports on Viet Cong troop strengths for political reasons.

Bottom Line: Ellis you are one Kool Ade Drinking sponge.

Read some history...it really does repeat itself.

Maybe you'll believe this marine officer's story:

http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5666_0_3_0_C/

or maybe you'll be thirsty for more knowledge and read on:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/MC.htm

`