| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Mel Laird on Iraq Vietnam parallels |
| 2005-10-13 |
| Severely EFL from a long Foreign Affairs Article. President Bush does not have the luxury of waiting for the international community to validate his policies in Iraq. But we do have the lessons of Vietnam. In Vietnam, the voices of the "cut-and-run" crowd ultimately prevailed, and our allies were betrayed after all of our work to set them on their feet. Those same voices would now have us cut and run from Iraq, assuring the failure of the fledgling democracy there and damning the rest of the Islamic world to chaos fomented by extremists. Those who look only at the rosy side of what defeat did to help South Vietnam get to where it is today see a growing economy there and a warming of relations with the West. They forget the immediate costs of the United States' betrayal. Two million refugees were driven out of the country, 65,000 more were executed, and 250,000 were sent to "reeducation camps." Given the nature of the insurgents in Iraq and the catastrophic goals of militant Islam, we can expect no better there. As one who orchestrated the end of our military role in Vietnam and then saw what had been a workable plan fall apart, I agree that we cannot allow "another Vietnam." For if we fail now, a new standard will have been set. The lessons of Vietnam will be forgotten, and our next global mission will be saddled with the fear of its becoming "another Iraq." |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #9 too weak to even troll-wrestle |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-13 22:38 |
| #8 This is just such a sad post. Most Americans don't play party politics when we are at war - but not the right. But to respond- we either say Viet Nam is similar or not. The right seems to be very selective about this. No one who is not personally involved in this administration thinks that the White House has done a good job conducting this war. Hillary does a beter job fighting with Bill than George with Saddam. |
| Posted by: bbbustard 2005-10-13 22:28 |
| #7 I think Hil would call Geena to get first-hand advice on how to be President. |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-10-13 21:26 |
| #6 Hillary is a bitch. My point is that's a helluva lot better chance than the rest of the eunuchs. This war is going to go on a long time. The trunks will not be in the White House for all of it. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-10-13 21:20 |
| #5 Don't ever assume a democrat will use US forces properly. During Clinton, Madelyn Albright was the de facto commander in chief, and her solution to any and every problem around the world was to send a tiny detachment of US personnel, with no support, backup, or possibility of reinforcement. Entire Divisions were neutralized by lack of personnel. The recall of our armed forces from every corner of the planet was an invisible, but tangible first step after Bush II was elected. Hillary, having no, zero, concept of how a military is used, would rely on imbeciles like the empty suit Warren Christopher, and a whole herd of 30-somethings from the Brookings Institution. Remember how Jimmy Carter appointed a draft dodger to be SecDef? Harold Brown. The Pentagon was forced to fabricate an alternate reality for him, so that he couldn't destroy the whole defense establishment. Even going back as far as Frank Roosevelt, who had two ambitious imbeciles to control the entire defense establishment: Cordell Hull and Frank Knox; whose exploits of incompetence and ambition were legend. Hell, even Woodrow Wilson surrounded himself with just horrific incompetants for World War I. One of their first acts was for every administration bureaucrat with any pull to *order* their own personal rail car, and that it be sent to Washington for their own personal use. This orgy of greed led to a tie up in the rail lines that took months to unsnarl. I truly cannot say that if a good republican was president at the start of WWII, the war wouldn't have lasted as long as it did, but I have my suspicions. Don't ever, EVER hope that a democrat has any say in foreign or military policy when there is a war on. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-13 21:16 |
| #4 We've thrown out Diem and occupied Saigon. Hanoi is about 500 miles north east. And the Politburo is still roaming free. This war is about a hell of a lot more than Iraq and it's far from over. It will alst so long that a Democrat is bound to be President at some point. I just hope it's one like Hillary. The first time the MMs try to test her, she'll strike back unlike Gore, Kerry and all the other wusses the Donks put up. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-10-13 20:05 |
| #3 As someone else pointed out, Iraq is exactly like Viet Nam, except that now we have occupied Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh is in the slammer and the North Viet Namese have just held their first democratic election and are about to vote on a new Constitution. Except for those minor quibbles, it is exactly the same. Quackmire! Quackmire! Bah! As for the international community, most of them are just pissed that they are no longer riding on Saddam's gravy train. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-10-13 19:16 |
| #2 Apparently so. And also still alive is that old fool MacNamera. I knew people in the military in the 70ies who couldn't say "MacNamera" without making a face and spitting on the floor, practically. At least Laird has a grasp of certain other parallels. I couldn't bear to see the Iraqis left to hang, the way the South Vietnamese were. I'm too old and cynical to work refugee resettlement... again. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2005-10-13 19:07 |
| #1 Mel Laird is still alive?!? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-10-13 18:47 |