Article

2003-09-08 Home Front

President Bush, Address to the Nation, September 7, 2003

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2003-09-08 6:53:06 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Short translation: This is harder then it looks and we need more money.

Posted by Hiryu 2003-9-8 8:10:00 AM|| 2003-9-8 8:10:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Short translation: This is as hard as it looks and it's going to cost money.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-9-8 8:35:04 AM|| 2003-9-8 8:35:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 As the cost of post war Europe and Japan was? And when will our troops come home since the war is over, with neat surrender ceremonies as well? Short Attention Span Theater indeed. Then again as the NEA has insured we don't teach real history anymore in our public schools, what can you expect. But be assured people, they will insist this year your children learn about how wonderful, modern, and respectful Islam is.

Posted by Don 2003-9-8 9:05:16 AM|| 2003-9-8 9:05:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Short translation: This is just as hard an I told you it would be, it's going to cost money -- but we're making progress and it's worth the investment.

Posted by snellenr 2003-9-8 9:08:06 AM|| 2003-9-8 9:08:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I wish he would have been a little bit forceful that this is not the 'War on Iraq' which the media insists on calling it but the 'War on Terror'. I still don't think the media gets it (or they do get it but refuse to say so for political reasons).

Good that he pointed out that most of Iraq is stable and progressing and that authority is being turned over to the Iraqis. By what is reported in the media most people think Iraq is a burning anarcy (sp?).

Don You are right about history not being taught in public schools anymore. I mean WWII might offend the Japanese, Italians and Germans and the Civil war might offend Southerners and then you have slavery and the subjugation of the 'native americans'. No wonder people think that appeasement and sining song and lighting candles will solve the problems.

Posted by GregJ 2003-9-8 9:29:11 AM|| 2003-9-8 9:29:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 This is as hard as it looks and it's going to cost money.

Annual cost of Vietnam War: 1.5% of GDP. 2003 cost of Iraq War: 0.5% of GDP. My suspicion is that the follow-on costs will be much lower, given that some of it is going towards reconstruction (due to 20-odd years of neglect, from the time of Saddam's ascension to power). In addition, I see many of our troops getting withdrawn in the years ahead, just like in Afghanistan. Iraqis will decide their own future, while a division or two of US troops backed up by air power will keep regional powers at bay.

Vietnamization (i.e. the transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqis) is the way to go. The alternative is the kind of quagmire we're encountering in Korea - where an ungrateful local ally places us in danger of war with every border clash, while cutting defense spending, figuring that they can always count on Uncle Sam to come to the rescue.

Here's something I posted on another blog comparing Iraq and Vietnam:

In Vietnam, we lost 20 KIA on a good day. In Iraq, we're sustaining one KIA every other day. That's 1/40 the losses in Vietnam.

Actually, I'm understating the scale of how well Iraq compares to Vietnam. We took the kinds of casualties we did in Vietnam with 500,000 troops fighting the VC and about a million South Vietnamese troops keeping order. Today, we have perhaps 50,000 Iraqi militia (keeping order) and 150,000 troops in theater (keeping order and fighting terrorists). We had 8x the security personnel in Vietnam working for us, yet sustained 40x the casualties. It is just amazing how successful the postwar mission in Iraq has been.

I understand that people want to set up new standards in the wake of the Kosovo bombings, but Iraq is many times the size of Kosovo and is inhabited by a people who have spent their lifetimes imbibing anti-American propaganda (just like South Koreans). More to the point, unlike Kosovo, Iraqis were not on the verge of being wiped out by Saddam, and enjoyed the benefits of a social welfare state paid for by Iraq's oil riches.

People are asking for a zero defect occupation (i.e. zero KIA, zero infrastructure problems, sweetness and light from the Sunni and Shia clerics and pure gratitude from ordinary Iraqis) - and that's simply not going to happen. But Iraq will recover from this war - far faster than either postwar Europe or South Korea. And the funny thing is that two or three years from now, when the situation in Iraq has stabilized, our so-called allies are going to be clamoring to get into Iraq. When that happens, I am sure that Iraqis will prove to be just as grateful to American companies as South Koreans have proven to be today.* (Pause for a belly laugh).

* An example: one of South Korea's non-tariff trade barriers is to gather, from car dealers, lists of people who buy American cars and conduct tax audits on them.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-9-8 10:01:01 AM|| 2003-9-8 10:01:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 In Vietnam, we lost 20 KIA on a good day. In Iraq, we're sustaining one KIA every other day. That's 1/40 the losses in Vietnam.

You'd never know this listening to the media. The news on one of the local TV stations here spoke of a "rising death toll" (of COURSE it's rising, just not in the manner they want you to think).

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2003-9-8 10:47:25 AM|| 2003-9-8 10:47:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I support our effort in Irag. But, having gone through VN, I wonder if folks who present casualties as statistical analysis have an understanding of how that sounds to the guys in the dirt. It's so McNamara. I can guarantee you that they are wondering why the victory has resulted in buddie's bodies continuing to make their way into the medevac system. They'll do their job, but they'll wonder. And with the mainstream media determined to create a 2nd Vietnam mentality, facts be damned, we need to understand that the grunts need to hear that we feel for them.

Posted by Highlander 2003-9-8 11:12:37 AM|| 2003-9-8 11:12:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 ZF: Good post. See Safire's column in the NYT today "The Failuremongers".

Posted by Matt 2003-9-8 11:17:11 AM|| 2003-9-8 11:17:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 But, having gone through VN, I wonder if folks who present casualties as statistical analysis have an understanding of how that sounds to the guys in the dirt.

The guys in the dirt need to put their situation in context. Vietnam was less horrendous than Korea and Korea was less horrendous than WWII. War is hell. We don't need to make it even worse on the troops by putting out negative spin about what is essentially a cakewalk. It's less of a cakewalk than Kosovo, but then again, we rescued Kosovars from annihilation, whereas at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis benefitted from Saddam's regime.

McNamara has been roundly abused by critics on the right and left, but the truth is that he did not lose South Vietnam. The casualties we took in Vietnam were the result of an administration that would not invade North Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson was fearful of repeating the carnage of the Korean War, with the associated Chinese intervention, and fell into an even bigger trap - we fought in Vietnam for a longer period of time, spent more money and took more casualties than in Korea. In the end, not unifying Vietnam probably cost more in American lives than an invasion would have.

Bottom line - whatever our problems in Vietnam, McNamara was just making the best of a bad strategy. Journos like to distort his use of numbers to make it sound cold and heartless, but without a strategy involving the crushing of North Vietnam, attrition was the only thing he had to fall back on. And body counts are the primary measure of attrition. (My beef with McNamara is not with his use of statistics, but with the self-imposed limitation on an outright invasion of North Vietnam. Given our unwillingness to invade, we needed a way to keep score).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-9-8 11:41:20 AM|| 2003-9-8 11:41:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Cost of war (2003 $):

Iraq: 156 billion (for 18 months)
Vietnam: 494 billion (for 90 months)
Korea: 336 billion (for 37 months)

Monthly Cost of war (2003 $):

Iraq: 8.7 billion
Vietnam: 5.5 billion
Korea: 9.0 billion

% Annual cost of was as % of Annual GDP

Iraq: 0.8%
Vietnam: 1.3%
Korea: 3.8%

Annual cost per capita

Iraq: $312
Vietnam: $245
Korea: $567

source: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Posted by . 2003-9-8 12:23:20 PM|| 2003-9-8 12:23:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I bet if the figures were adjusted for inflation they would closely resemble the % GNP stats.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-9-8 12:29:36 PM|| 2003-9-8 12:29:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Cost of war (2003 $):

figures are adjusted for inflation...

Posted by . 2003-9-8 12:32:42 PM|| 2003-9-8 12:32:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Total casualties (killed+wounded)

Iraq: 1,730
Vietnam: 211,441
Korea: 136,935

Casualties per month

Iraq: 96
Vietnam: 2,349
Korea: 3,701

Annual Casualties per 10,000

Iraq: 0.05
Vietnam: 1.26
Korea: 3.00

Posted by . 2003-9-8 12:44:10 PM|| 2003-9-8 12:44:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Y'all cut out the best part of the speech:

We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.

Now, make each Deanocrat write that on the chalkboard 500 times.

Posted by someone 2003-9-8 1:28:29 PM|| 2003-9-8 1:28:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The guys in the dirt need to put their situation in context... what is essentially a cakewalk.
In this discussion we have reached a gap in experience. It's never a cakewalk when you're down range. The context of the trooper is killing time and then keeping from getting killed. And, BTW, the reason we lost South Vietnam is that the average Vietnamese wasn't willing to put his butt on the line for South Vietnamese government(s). The North just wanted it more than the South did.

Posted by Highlander 2003-9-8 2:23:38 PM|| 2003-9-8 2:23:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Cost of war (2003 $):

Iraq: 156 billion (for 18 months)
Vietnam: 494 billion (for 90 months)
Korea: 336 billion (for 37 months)

Cost of 1 WTC attack: $100 billion

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-9-8 2:27:45 PM|| 2003-9-8 2:27:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Now, make each Deanocrat write that on the chalkboard 500 times.

And even if they did, I don't think they are capable of believing it.

Posted by eLarson 2003-9-8 2:33:23 PM|| [http://home.covad.net/~eriklarson] 2003-9-8 2:33:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 It's never a cakewalk when you're down range.

It never is, and every death or wounding is a tragedy for the nation, and a horrible loss for the family members of the soldier involved. But if we look at every setback (and each death or injury is a setback) as the end of the world, we'll never muster up the determination we need to push through to the finish. As MacArthur once said, in war, there is no substitute for victory - and unnecessary negativism will cause the public to shrink back in fear, which is why we need to keep things in context.

And, BTW, the reason we lost South Vietnam is that the average Vietnamese wasn't willing to put his butt on the line for South Vietnamese government(s). The North just wanted it more than the South did.

Actually, the ARVN suffered over 200,000 KIA. It's not just a question of wanting. The US cut off aid to South Vietnam in 1974, even as North Vietnam was loading up on debt from China and the Soviet Union for the heavy weaponry it would need to conquer the South. Let me assure you that North Vietnam did not have the industrial capacity to either build Migs, artillery, ammo and T-54's or pay for them. But that is what they used to finish off the South Vietnamese government during their blitzkrieg in 1975. And we had cut military aid to South Vietnam in 1974. Decades later, unified Vietnam was still paying off loans from its communist allies for that weaponry.

Here's an interesting excerpt on the run-up to Hanoi's 1975 blitzkrieg:

Even more devastating and inexcusable, in 1974 Congress began cutting back on military aid for South Vietnam at a time when the Soviets were increasing their aid to North Vietnam. As a result, when the North Vietnamese launched their all-out invasion of the South in the spring of 1975, they had the advantage in arms, and the threat of American action to enforce the agreement was totally removed. A year after the collapse of South Vietnam, the field commander in charge of Hanoi's final offensive cited the cutback in American aid as a major factor in North Vietnam's victory. He remarked that Thieu "was forced to fight a poor man's war," with his firepower reduced by 60 percent and his mobility reduced by half because of lack of aircraft, vehicles, and fuel.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-9-8 2:46:59 PM|| 2003-9-8 2:46:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Zhang Fei

We all know the price paid by the Vietnamese and Cambodian people. May the people who voted for this, may the people who lobbied for this, roast in hell.

Posted by JFM 2003-9-8 3:09:52 PM|| 2003-9-8 3:09:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I suspect that they didn't make it for the money but for the symbol. No hell is hot enough for them.

Posted by JFM 2003-9-8 4:46:48 PM|| 2003-9-8 4:46:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I hate arguements about Vietnam. Vietnam was a problem only because the Democrats played politics with national security and war. Vietnam was screwed up because the Democrats (i.e. Johnson) screwed it up, period. Even with our opposition to Clinton we did not undermine Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, etc. But it appears that once again the Dems are prepared to play politics with another war.

Now for fun lets compare some operations.

East Timor U.N. Site East timor was touted by Kerry as a model operation by the U.N. It took the u.n. 3 years to stablize a country with under 1 million people, and in the process the U.N. started they first caused 500,000 to be displaced from their homes and 250,000 to leave the country (pretty startling numbers for a country of 800,000). Or how about Kosovo? Kosovo has a population of just over 2 million. We are still there 10 years later and no local government has been establish, neither has any local law-enforcement? Why, because once the Albanians came back they went after the serbian minority. Over 200,000 of the serbs have left Kosovo now and those who are left are protected by Nato Forces (again, startling numbers since before the war only 10% of the population was Serbs). The situation is getting worse and I am sure unless we give Kosovo over to the Albanians they will eventually turn on the Nato forces.

Once looking over these operations come back and tell me again how bad a job we are doing in Iraq (maybe you would prefer the Chechen model?). A quick war that resulted in NO REFUGEE PROBLEM and the majority of the infrastructure in-tact) If this was a U.N. operation we would still be trying to bring Refugees back into the country. Instead we have a popluation pretty much in tact and sitting around waiting for us to put them back to work. There was also a Large Secret Police society (the bathist), a problem that the U.N. has not had to deal with in either of the above operations. We have ONLY had 4-5 months and our boys are hunting them down. The only similiar situation to this is Germany after WWII in which Hitler Youth and SS (warewolfs) continued to attack our troops into the 50's. The brunt of the attacks although stopped after the first year once the Germans realized we were not going to leave. At that point the Germans themselves started fighting the Nazi's.

Therefore if you think it is a good policy to argue that Americans are cowards and America is now to cheap/weak to do what our grandparents did after WWII (and during a depression) and we need to bend over and ask the Europeans for help then keep trying to sell that. Plenty of Strong dedicated americans have woken up after 9/11 and have gotten back involved. I am sure for years to come they are willing to fight and do what is necessary to win this war! God Bless our Troops and the great job they are doing!

Posted by Patrick 2003-9-8 5:11:57 PM|| 2003-9-8 5:11:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 "The only similiar situation to this is Germany after WWII in which Hitler Youth and SS (warewolfs) continued to attack our troops into the 50's. The brunt of the attacks although stopped after the first year once the Germans realized we were not going to leave." (Patrick)

Sorry, but this is Rumsfeld/Connie spin. The only significant attack the "werewolves" ever launched was the assassination of the mayor of Aachen (March 25th 1945), that is BEFORE Germany capitulated. The few werewolves after the war were hapless young guys (15, 16 years old) who disintegrated weeks later without having achieved as much as killing a single U.S. soldier. The German cooperation with the US forces was there immediately, and it took only weeks before fraternization started (FrÃ¤uleins, ya know).
The Soviet occupants tortured and imprisoned thousands of young Germans who had spoken out against them, as supposed "werewolves". The "leaders" were forced to sign "confessions" and were shot in the ex Nazi camps of Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald and others. Many of them were sent to labor camps in Siberia for 25 years. Not a single one of them has been proven a "werewolf".

I know what I'm talking about: I was one of them.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-9-8 6:35:27 PM|| 2003-9-8 6:35:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I like GW, but he is a lame speaker. Spending some time studying great orators (Chamberlain, Hitler, William jennings bryant etc) would produce more effective speaking.

A good plan doesn't always speak for itself.

Posted by flash91 - fatwah you talkin bout willis 2003-9-8 7:31:59 PM|| 2003-9-8 7:31:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I'm going to have to disagree with the folks who are blaming the Democrats mainly and/or only for the loss of South Vietnam are missing the target.

It was Nixon's fault, for providing the initial framework for the plumbers & CREEP and for attempting to cover up the Watergate crimes. Without Watergate as a distraction/disaster/focal- point-for-dissent, the Presidency wouldn't have been weakened to the point that Congress had the power to eliminate the funding for South Vietnam. Jerry Ford was a nice guy, but he wasn't the one who was going to find a way to get those armaments shipped out.

(Obligatory disclosure -- I'm a lifelong Repub, who admires Nixon for his smarts and the things he did right -- but also reviles him for the massive thing he screwed up.)

Posted by snellenr 2003-9-8 7:33:40 PM|| 2003-9-8 7:33:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Snippets from the Religion of Peace...

"O believers do not take the Jews and Christians as friends or supporters etc... they are just supporters of and love each other only, whoever does that is one of them."

"As for the feelings that we must have towards non-Muslims, the Messenger Muhammad (saw) was once asked by a Jew 'Do you like me?' to which he replied 'No, I hate you, but I will never be unjust towards you' i.e. that he would treat them in accordance with the divine justice of Islam although he (saw) had no love whatsoever in his heart towards the Jew."

Posted by True German Ally 2003-9-8 8:58:53 PM|| 2003-9-8 8:58:53 PM|| Front Page Top

23:47 Anonymous
09:43 Hiryu
01:25 Rex Mundi
00:44 Mike Kozlowski
00:12 mojo
00:03 True German Ally
23:08 Cog
23:05 Not Mike Moore
23:01 Bomb-a-rama
22:59 Not Mike Moore
22:55 Not Mike Moore
22:52 Not Mike Moore
22:47 Not Mike Moore
22:47 Not Mike Moore
22:44 Lucky
22:37 Bomb-a-rama
22:30 Ptah
22:24 Lucky
22:20 Frank G
22:16 Frank G
21:59 Frank G
21:52 john
21:35 Yank
21:33 Yank