| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Bush is wrong: Iraq is not Vietnam |
| 2006-10-21 |
| President Bush has for the first time conceded a similarity between events in Iraq and those in Vietnam 40 years ago. Asked in a television interview on Wednesday if he now saw a similarity between the recent escalation of American losses in Iraq and those suffered in the Tet offensive of 1968, he admitted that the rise of casualties in the past weeks had given ground for making a comparison. The President's admission will probably trigger a feeding frenzy in the American media, which has been seeking to equate Iraq with Vietnam ever since the insurgency started to inflict significant casualties. It has to be said, however, that the President's admission will come as a surprise to those with long historical memories. Indeed, it is a surprise that the President allowed himself to be drawn. I recently had the opportunity to discuss Iraq with the President in the Oval Office at an intimate meeting with a small group of historians. Mr Bush then — early September — did not want to discuss Iraq, but larger issues of the culture clash between radical Islam and the Christian West. Indeed, he has been ill-advised to rise to the bait. Many of those who took sides over Vietnam are still alive and active, still animated by the passions that transfixed the American people in the 1960s. His admission can do nothing but harm, certainly to him and to his administration, but also to the US forces in general and to the servicemen in Iraq in particular. A large part of the reason for that is the lack of comparability between Iraq and Vietnam. Anyone familiar with both situations will be struck by the dissimilarities, particularly of scale and in the nature of the enemy. By January 1968, total American casualties in Vietnam — killed, wounded and missing — had reached 80,000 and climbing. Eventually deaths in combat and from other causes would exceed 50,000, of which 36,000 were killed in action. Casualties in Iraq are nowhere near those figures. In a bad week in Vietnam, the US could suffer 2,000 casualties. Since 2003, American forces in Iraq have never suffered as many as 500 casualties a month. The number of casualties inflicted in Iraq are not established, but are under 50,000. In any year of the Vietnam war, the communist party of North Vietnam sent 200,000 young men to the battlefields in the south, most of whom did not return. Vietnam was one of the largest and costliest wars in history. The insurgency in Iraq resembles one of the colonial disturbances of imperial history. There is a good reason for the difference. The Vietnamese communists had organised and operated a countryside politico-military organisation with branches in almost every village. The North Vietnamese People's Army resembled that of an organised Western state. It conscripted recruits throughout the country, trained, organised and equipped them. The Iraqi insurgency, by contrast, is an informal undertaking by a coalition of religious and ex-Ba'athist groups. It has no high command or bureaucracy resembling the disciplined Marxist structures of North Vietnam. It has some support from like-minded groups in neighbouring countries, but nothing to compare with the North Vietnamese international network, which was supported by China and the Soviet Union and imported arms and munitions from both those countries on a large scale. North Vietnam was, moreover, a sovereign state, supported explicitly by all other communist countries and by many sympathetic regimes in the Third World. The Iraqi insurgency has sympathisers, but they enjoy no organised system of support and are actively opposed by many of their neighbours and Muslim co-religionists. The recent upsurge of violence in Iraq in no way resembles the Tet offensive. At Tet, the Vietnamese new year, the North Vietnamese People's Army simultaneously attacked 40 cities and towns in South Vietnam, using 84,000 troops. Of those, the communists lost 45,000 killed. No such losses have been recorded in Iraq at any place or any time. The Tet offensive proved to be a military disaster for the Vietnamese communists. It left them scarcely able to keep up their long-running, low-level war against the South Vietnamese government and the American army. Indeed, insofar as Tet was a defeat for the United States and for the South Vietnamese government, it was because the American media decided to represent it as such. It has become a cliché to say that Vietnam was a media war, but so it was. Much of the world media were hostile to American involvement from the start, particularly in France, which had fought and lost its own Vietnam war in 1946-54. The defeat of Dien Bien Phu rankled with the French and there were few who wanted to see the Americans win where they had failed. It was, however, the American rather than the foreign media who decided on the verdict. The American media had begun by supporting the war. As it dragged on, however, without any end in sight and with the promised military victory constantly postponed, American newspapers and — critically — the evening television programmes began to treat war news as a bad story. The media were extremely influential, particularly at such places as university campuses and the firesides of American families whose sons had been conscripted for service. When casualties of 150 a week began to be reported, the war began to be increasingly unpopular. President Johnson, who was temperamentally oversensitive to criticism, believed that one particular broadcast by Walter Cronkite in February 1968, just after Tet, lost him Middle America. "If I've lost Kronkite," he said to his staff, "I have lost the war." President Bush must now expect that America's television anchormen will be looking for a similar opportunity to damage him. If they find it, the blame will be the President's alone. The Vietnam war was not lost on the battlefield, but in the American media's treatment of news from the front line. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 Yep it's the treasonous MSM that's the real enemy. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-10-21 13:47 |
| #3 This dumb MF'er. He reinforces Bush's point. "The Vietnam war was not lost on the battlefield, but in the American media's treatment of news from the front line." That's what's going on now with MSM. Just look at that CNN shit. And, like then, the military is being held back by incompetent civilian leadership. This is Bush's real failure. He can't communicate with the American public. He should have said at the outset that Americans were going to inflict their wrath on this enemy , wherever it was found. And, that would mean unrestricted killing of those who wish harm to Americans. He should have said that it would result in loss of American soldiers, but the real toll would be on those enemies who would be guaranteed to lose millions in population. Had he done this initially, the public could have digested it, and would have supported it. Then, results could have been achieved. Now we're back in the Viet Nam pit. The MSM is doing their best to undermine the government, and most uninformed citizens are being led. And, this election may be lost. Just like for Johnson in '68. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-10-21 13:24 |
| #2 Those of us who do, need to educate those around us who may not see what's going on. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-21 11:44 |
| #1 I think Dubya's point was that the current push by the jihadis and insurgents is similar to Tet: they hope to demoralize the folks at home by showing that the fighting can go on and on. Bush knows that the Tet offensive was a military disaster for the Viet Cong (not so much for the NVA), and he's aware of the publicity angle. So the question is, if the current fighting is a Tet, will we be smart enough to recognize it? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-10-21 11:38 |