| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Commentary: Iraq: Vietnam Syndrome Strikes |
| 2005-06-21 |
| Admittedly stretched very thin, the U.S. military has the courage, the stamina and the weapons to see the Iraq insurgency through, however long it takes. The body politic is another story. Already, Congressional support for the war is flagging. Some Republican internationalists are letting it be known, albeit off the record, if the Iraq war vote came up today, knowing what they now know, they would be nays. Cartoonists are juxtaposing Vice President Cheney's assertion that the insurgency is in its "last throes" with President Bush's "Mission Accomplished" from the deck of an aircraft carrier May 1, 2003. Public impatience with the war of liberation that turned out to be a guerrilla war of attrition is growing. Diminished public support is palpable. The pernicious Vietnam syndrome is worming its way through the halls of congress - and the court of public opinion. Over half the country no longer supports the war. Half those polled take the Vietnam analogy seriously and want to get out now. Fifty-six percent say it wasn't worth it. Over half also say U.S. security was not enhanced by the war. Army recruitment and reenlistment goals are falling short by 40 percent. The capabilities for fighting two and a half wars simultaneously have long since fallen to the post-Cold War cost-cutters in two Clinton administrations. The two wars at the same time strategy is also a distant memory. The now famous Downing Street memo, written by Sir Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, the British secret intelligence service, and now Dean of Pembroke College at Cambridge, has convinced many former war hawks the Bush Administration's strategy for a quick war on the cheap was snare and delusion. The Rumsfeld Doctrine did not foresee the need for prolonged occupation, as Iraq required. If Kim Jong Il - the unpredictable absolute dictator of North Korea -- were to order his million-man army to cross the DMZ and dig in a few miles to the south, on the outskirts of Seoul, the U.S. would have to resort to tactical nuclear weapons to force him back whence he came. It is now glaringly obvious the war had nothing to do with Iraq's phantom weapons of mass destruction, and everything to do with a strategy that may have been misguided. Iraq, the war's strategic thinkers posited, was to become the Arab world's first democracy. Democratic Iraq would then become a catalyst for change in the surrounding authoritarian states. And Israel, surrounded by Arab democracies, could at last relax and look forward to at least a quarter of a century of peace and tranquility. The illusion that 24 million Iraqis would go back to work after a few joyous days of celebration a la France circa 1944, and that oil would pay Uncle Sam's war bills was conventional wisdom at the highest echelons of government. Everything was slam-dunk, from WMD to the rallying of the Iraqi army to the coalition. Talk of a possible Sunni-inspired-insurgency was ridiculed. Recently retired generals, speaking off the record with journalists they have known since they were junior officers in Vietnam 35 years ago, go so far as to say Iraq has broken the back of the U.S. military. Richard A. Clarke, former top counter-terrorist honcho at the White House, writing in the Sunday New York Times magazine, has picked up similar asides from his military contacts. "One victim of this slow bleeding in Iraq," says Clarke, "is the American military as an institution. Across America, the National Guard, designed to assist civil authorities in domestic crises is in tatters... Now the rot is beginning to spread into the regular Army. Recruiters are coming up dry, and some, under pressure to produce new troops, have reportedly been complicit in suspect applications." By the end of president Bush's term, Clarke writes, "the war in Iraq could end up costing $600 billion, more than six times what some key Pentagon officials had projected" Many other costs are also beginning to become clearer. Mr. Bush is unlikely to change course because opinion polls show the majority of Americans don't like the heading. He has staked his presidency on seeing it through to a viable Iraqi democracy taking root and then being able to defend itself without the U.S. cavalry standing by to ride to the rescue. Cutting out in the middle of an insurgency would have incalculable consequences. Islamist extremists would see this as the defeat of the world's only superpower - and a clear track for jihadi mayhem in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan, not to mention a civil war in Iraq. But the American people know more about the cloudy future of Social Security than they do about the stakes in Iraq. It is now incumbent on Mr. Bush to use the bully pulpit to spell out the tragic geopolitical consequences of failure in Iraq. Failure is not an option. But at the current rate, it is an all too tragic possibility. Karl Rove can't wait for the dog days of August - or another Michael Jackson-style circus to keep the president's poll numbers from getting any worse. But only Mr. Bush can do that. From Abu Ghraib to Sen. Richard Durbin's addle-pated remarks about Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, the United States continues to lose ground all over the world. Repair work is long overdue there, too. |
| Posted by:Spavirt Pheng6042 |
| #17 The current media grew up with Vietnam and Watergate and like Captain Queeg they've been trying to relive (or recreate if they have to) their glory days. |
| Posted by: RJ Schwarz 2005-06-21 23:53 |
| #16 He forgot to mention: The sky is falling! |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2005-06-21 13:17 |
| #15 Remember the mandate from Congress to increaste the standing forces by 30,000? Remember that the Army didnt want to do that? Well, there's your shortfall. Thank you, OldSpook. You just caused me to slap my forehead so hard I left an imprint. Now that you've explained it, it all makes sense. Which party pushed the increased size of the Army? I suspect I know, and I suspect it's also the party that's been making those most noise about how the failure to make the (inflated) goal means we'll need a draft. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-06-21 12:55 |
| #14 How many lies and misstatements can the author of this article cram into one article? how many words was it? |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-21 12:03 |
| #13 "If Kim Jong Il - the unpredictable absolute dictator of North Korea -- were to order his million-man army to cross the DMZ and dig in a few miles to the south, on the outskirts of Seoul, the U.S. would have to resort to tactical nuclear weapons to force him back whence he came." THis alone shows that the articles author is full of shit. First, they dont need to dig in - they are already dug in up north of the DMZ, and well within artillery rang of Seoul. Second, and more importantly, they'd be out of food and ammunition within 96 hours. The US is already set up to destroy the logistics apparatus, and NKorea is far on the low side of being able to supply that huge peasant army it has if it moves it anywhere. "he National Guard, designed to assist civil authorities in domestic crises" IDIOT! THe NAtional Guard, since WW2, has been designed to be part of the war-fighting forces of the US, to add to combat power of the US when at war. And we are at WAR. The Ancillary duties are the onse that are done domestically. But since WW2, the Guard has been the main way of augmenting combat units in the US Military. And particularly, sinve the complaints of Guard as a "dodge" in Vietnam, the guard has been treated as an integral part of the active duty forces. "Army recruitment and reenlistment goals are falling short by 40 percent. " The other services are meeting or exceeding their goals. And the Army is actually recruiting as many people as it did 2 years ago. Look at the total numbers in 02, and the the total numbers now. Remember the mandate from Congress to increaste the standing forces by 30,000? Remember that the Army didnt want to do that? Well, there's your shortfall. Sure, its a bit worrisome that the Army cannot reach the levels it had back during the cold war (when it was half again as large as it is now). But its also not nearly as dire as this guy would have you believe. The reason for the "Vietnam" thing coming up? Because the press has become an adversary - an active oppononet to the United State. They are pushing the "Vietnam/Bad-news" 24x7 every place it can, and is not reporting the facts on the ground - that we are winning, that militarily we have gotten the job done, that politically Iraq and the region have been changed for the better, that the Iraqis are starting to get on their feet and take care of themselves... But other than Chernekoff, you simply dont see it. The MSM is all about painting things in the worst light, denying any successes with "Yes, but" articles, and parroting the party line from the Anti-America and Anti-Bush crowd. How many lies and misstatements can the author of this article cram into one article? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-06-21 11:52 |
| #12 But if you compare Dick Durbin to Jane Fonda on the occasion of her visit to Hanoi, that's not really calling him a name, is it? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-06-21 11:23 |
| #11 I was in the car the last three days listening to the poison of hate filed talk radio (/sarcasm) across this beautiful country. Someone mentioned the polls and newspaper editorials in the same sentence. Suddenly it struck like lightning; Polls are editorials for television. Newspapers run unsigned editorials all the time. Nobody, except a few insiders, knows who really writes them. (Even more curious is who reads them, but more on that in a moment.) Editorials give the editors a great chance to bloviate on some subject they know little about. If we knew who wrote them, we'd know who to laugh at. TV people want to be JOURNALISTS! just like the guys at the newspapers and Newsweak. But they can't run editorials because they wouldn't be anonymous. You'd know which idiot came up with the stupid idea. So instead they hire a polling firm to ask a leading question and phone for results when real people are out working or otherwise engaged in some worthwhile activity. They get the results they want and run it as an editorial covered by the poll results. We should pay as much attention the the Ignore the media. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-21 11:19 |
| #10 You can contact your Senators, or your favorites, by going to -http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm I, myself, plan a carefully-worded, one-page, clear-as-a-bell, mailed-via-US mail letter to at least ten. Naturally, my sentiments will be the same (almost a form letter) except Mr. Durbin will get a personalized version. Just remember not to call them names in print. Have your significant other read it over so you don't go to jail. Some of you readers are excellent wordsmiths. Why don't we post a few sample letters to copy-and-paste? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-06-21 11:05 |
| #9 good comments..and Dave D nails it. The media's at it again with its doom gloom and it's true because we repeated it often enough routine. Will the masses bite? Sadly, yes, they probably will. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-21 10:13 |
| #8 IMHO we've always depended on the use of nukes in squashing a NK surge across the DMZ. Artillery as well, of course, but nothing says "wrong move" like a fission device |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-06-21 10:08 |
| #7 Both good points, RC! I just wish the "average American" would learn about other news sources. I've said it once and I'll say it again. I learn more about what's REALLY going on in the world here at RB before 9 am than most people do in an entire week! |
| Posted by: BA 2005-06-21 10:00 |
| #6 Fortunately, I'm too young to know the Vietnam era (i was 2 years old at the time), but this is ridiculous. Same here, and I agree with you on not wanting to see the aftermath of abandoning them. But I see the Democrats pulling the same stunts they did then. And, one final rant: MSM, QUIT throwing around these poll numbers. The Cowboy doesn't govern by polls like Billy did! The press needs the polls as a metric to know who well they're doing. They're citing them so much recently because they're proud of how well they've hurt both the president and the war effort. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-06-21 09:55 |
| #5 Remember that "halt in the desert" on days 3-4 of the Iraq campaign, when everyone had to hunker down and wait out that sandstorm? That's when the idiot reporters begain their "it's another Vietnam!" mantra. It's a threat, as well as wishful thinking. They're praying America fails. They want it so bad they can taste it. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-06-21 09:51 |
| #4 You're right, RC. Fortunately, I'm too young to know the Vietnam era (i was 2 years old at the time), but this is ridiculous. The only Vietnam era link I wanna make is look at what happened with Pol Pot (Sen. Durbin's favorite dictator) after we pulled out. 2 million dead is more than enough for me to see this one to the end. And, one final rant: MSM, QUIT throwing around these poll numbers. The Cowboy doesn't govern by polls like Billy did! |
| Posted by: BA 2005-06-21 09:48 |
| #3 It isn't "striking". It is being very carefully, meticulously engineered, cultivated and encouraged by the Democratic Party and its cohorts in academia and the mainstream media for cheap political gain. Yep. I'm beginning to believe that the endless cries of "another Vietnam" are not predictions, but threats. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-06-21 09:42 |
| #2 The Rumsfeld Doctrine did not foresee the need for prolonged occupation, as Iraq required. Bullshit. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-06-21 09:29 |
| #1 "Commentary: Iraq: Vietnam Syndrome Strikes" It isn't "striking". It is being very carefully, meticulously engineered, cultivated and encouraged by the Democratic Party and its cohorts in academia and the mainstream media for cheap political gain. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-06-21 09:25 |