McGovern's turning Iraq into Vietnam

[StrykerFSU]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/09/D8LA01L00.html

If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

I think he might be overstating the mandate. It is my belief that most people recognize a need to change the course of Iraq conflict but also know that an outright withdrawl would have disastrous consequences. That is why the GOP is furious at Bush for announcing Rumsfeld's resignation after the election. Americans want success, not surrender. Remember, Osama issued his notorious "Americans are paper tigers" statement after we quit in Somalia. What do you think will happen should we quit in Iraq, besides leaving millions of innocent Iraqis to fend for themselves in a mess we made?

McGovern told the audience Thursday that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were equally "foolish enterprises" and that the current threat of terrorism developed because _ not before _ the United States went into Iraq.

I think he's just wrong in this statement. There is a laundry list of terrorist attacks on American interests before the war, and there have been no successful attacks since it started. Comparing Iraq to Vietnam will be apt if we retreat from the conflict and turn Iraq over to the insurgents like we did in South Vietnam. We abandoned our allies there and millions of people were murdered by the Communists (don't tell Hanoi Jane). Maybe both wars were "foolish conflicts" but what would be truly foolish would be to repeat Vietnamization and concede Iraq to Iran and other radical Islamic factions.

Still think that the insurgents and terrorists weren't paying attention to the election?

What is with these former Democratic leaders (McGovern, Carter, etc.) meddling in issues that they proved completely incapable of handling when they were actually relevant leaders? What's next, Clinton pontificating about the value of securing our atomic secrets?

[Sonny]

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is wrong, foolish, and incorrect. There is no comparison.

[Rob Graff]

There's a great book about the Vietnam War, written by Col. Harry G. Summers, titled "On Strategy". As an aside he also wrote one about Gulf War I. I suggest both to anyone interested in military strategy.

In the introduction or the preface (I don't have my copy at hand) to the first book, Col. Summers notes a conversation between a North Vietnamese General and an American general at the peace talks. Undstanding that what I write is a paraphrase, I think it is quite relevant here.

AG - You know, you never once beat us in a battle.

NVG - That is right - and it is also irrelevant.

And that is one reason why the two conflicts can be viewed to have analogus components. Are they IDENTICAL? No. But things don't have to be identical to learn from them an apply those lessons learned to new situations.

In short - we have been and presently are unbeatable on the battlefield and will remain so for some time to come. Our soldiers, training, techonolgy and tactical leaders are superior to their coutnerparts. But in some conflicts that superiority is meaningless because that battlefield strength cannot be employed upon the center of gravity of your opponent. That last sentace paraphrases Col. Summers view re: why VN was lost and, conversely, why we were extremely successful in Gulf I (because the CofG was identifed in the latter). I could go on now about this demonstrating the difference between GB I and GWB, but that's a topic for another time.

In Iraq, it can be argued that we identified one strategic center of gravity -Saddam - and eliminated it. At that point, if we were to continue maintaining a force there, as was done, another center of gravity should have been identified, and strategic/tactical plans adjusted accordingly. IMHO, this second step was never done. And that is why many view this action as flawed.

Here is a monagraph on the concept of center of gravity:

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/ECHEVAR/gravity.pdf

[Beta]

That's actually a fantastic book. Almost makes you wonder had we stayed in Vietnam and decided to invade and topple their govt...we may have had the same problem there...that we are now.

You can destroy your opponent...but you can't destroy his/her spirit.

[sohotrightnow]

I believe laxfan25 posted this somewhere, but here is McGovern's article from last month's Harper Magazine:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/mcgovern-polk1.html

[Zeuslax]

You can destroy your opponent...but you can't destroy his/her spirit.

Sure you can........we just have to carpet bomb the Sunni Triangle for about 3 days and see what happens. You have to be willing to have mass civilian casualties.

[mholtz]

Both of these conflicts involve(d) an insurgency backed by a nation state based on ideology that our government ha(s)(d) pledged to destroy, fought over a spread our area where it was/is difficult to determine the enemy from the civilian population.

They have a lot in common. Not identical, but a lot in common.

[laxfan25]

If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

I think he might be overstating the mandate.

I'm sorry, but I think that is EXACTLY the message people were delivering on Tuesday - end the war soon - in an appropriate manner. They were not necessarily saying "make a headlong rush for the door".

It is my belief that most people recognize a need to change the course of Iraq conflict but also know that an outright withdrawl would have disastrous consequences.

First, you have to recognize that the war in Iraq already has HAD disasterous consequences. Outside of removing our former ally Saddam, what good has resulted in the aftermath? The region is less stable, our reputation is in tatters, our Army is bogged down, equipment is in bad shape, troops are being deployed for their third rotation in some case, we are unable to react to other world events with any credibility, etc. One commentator a while back said that it doesn't matter when we leave Iraq, next week or 10 years from now - when we do all hell will break loose in sectarian strife over who is going to be in control.

That is why the GOP is furious at Bush for announcing Rumsfeld's resignation after the election. Americans want success, not surrender.

I don't see an across-the-board GOP anger at Rumsfeld being removed. Bush's former Chief of Staff Andrew Card was recommending his removal a while ago. Most of the military leadership is very happy to have him gone. It was very shocking to have the parade of generals that openly called for his removal - you know that they don't take that kind of action lightly. Phase 1 of the war was ridiculously easy, but it was the ignorance and incompetence in post-war planning and execution that doomed this effort. Troop levels were WAY too low, becaue the belief was that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, vs, fighting us as insurgents. The lack of basic security is the #1 issue, and blame for that rests hevily on Rumsfeld's shoulders, but many, many others can accept their share - like Paul Bremer and the badly-managed CPA.
Yes, Americans want success, but they have seen with their own eyes that we are headed in the opposite direction. The only possible hope for victory would be a massive infusion of troops, which is what McCain is suggesting. That certainly wouldn't be a sure thing, but would result in increasing casualties. The other challenge to that strategy would be finding the troops to put in there. Another draft anyone? How about some more volunteers? If that didn't succeed, our investment in this fiasco would be even greater than the obscene amounts we have spent already.
Hence many people are calling for some type of phased withdrawal, realizing that we have lost in Iraq. We won the battle, but have lost the country. An eventual breakup into sectarian regions will be the end result of our mission. It's happening already with de facto ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods, and now that the blood is flowing, the cycle of retribution will only continue.

Remember, Osama issued his notorious "Americans are paper tigers" statement after we quit in Somalia.

Ah, Osama! Is he still around? Rob Graff talks about the concept of the Center of Gravity, and he certainly would qualify as the CoG for the whole 9/11 War on Terrorism. Along with the failed execution of the war in Iraq, Bush's hallmark mistake was taking his focus OFF of Bin Laden. After 9/11, al Queda was a fairly localized cancer, one that should have been eliminated. Instead, our actions have metastasized it into a much, much larger disease - one that has spread to areas that were untouched before the Iraq invasion. Along with providing a breeding ground and recruiting poster material for anti-American sentiment, it has also increased quiet support for anti-Americanism among many around the world. Five years later, Osama is still at large - what the hell is up with that??

What do you think will happen should we quit in Iraq, besides leaving millions of innocent Iraqis to fend for themselves in a mess we made?

The same thing that is happening now, millions of Iraqis are fending for themselves, even with 140,000 US troops deployed. They are dying by the hundreds every day, and we are unable to stop the violence. How does staying the course improve the situation for them? Even if we were to deploy 500,00 troops as Sen. McCain suggests, will that really improve things? That answer can't be provided with any certainty.

McGovern told the audience Thursday that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were equally "foolish enterprises" and that the current threat of terrorism developed because _ not before _ the United States went into Iraq.

I think he's just wrong in this statement. There is a laundry list of terrorist attacks on American interests before the war, and there have been no successful attacks since it started.

A couple answers here - first of all, maybe they don't need to attack us here, we're providing so many convenient targets in Iraq! Couldn't every IED that takes out an American in Iraq be considered a terrorist attack? Isn't our casualty count of dead and wounded since "major combat operations were over" getting awfully close to that of 9/11? Secondly, maybe in the pre-9/11 days, the number of adherents to Osama's warped form of radical Islamism was very small? Hundreds, a few thousand around the world, without mainstream support for their ideology? Again, by not taking out the center of the threat, we have hurt ourselves. I do realize that there were people that didn't like the US before, I jsut feel we have increased that number exponentially. We had wide sympathy after 9/11 and wide support for the invasion of Afghanistan, and we have pissed away all of that "political capital"

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam will be apt if we retreat from the conflict and turn Iraq over to the insurgents like we did in South Vietnam. We abandoned our allies there and millions of people were murdered by the Communists (don't tell Hanoi Jane).

Could you provide some solid documentation for that assertion? I would say that Vietnam evolved into a peaceful country within a few years of our leaving.

Maybe both wars were "foolish conflicts" but what would be truly foolish would be to repeat Vietnamization and concede Iraq to Iran and other radical Islamic factions.

We shall see what the post-election plans call for, but one thing I think you will see is a plan to do exactly that - engage Iraq's neighbors in an attempt to bring some kind of stability to the area. Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc., all have a much greater vested interest in seeing things come to an end there, and have the leverage to actually do something. Our continued presence really does nothing to make the situation more stable, outside of acting as a quasi-police force, and we're not able to do that job well at all. Let's face it - Iran is going to have major influence over the Shiite portion of Iraq, the Kurds are already running their own country in the north (which really upsets Turkey, since they have their own large Kurdish population that may want their own autonomy) and the Sunni gov'ts in Syria and elsewhere will be very interested in protecting the Sunnis in Iraq. Given the civil strife going on right now whith no hope of letup, that's why I think you will see some type of division of the country. It may be some kind of loose confederation nationally, bu the real power will lie in the regions, once they decide how to divvy up the oil.

Still think that the insurgents and terrorists weren't paying attention to the election?

What is with these former Democratic leaders (McGovern, Carter, etc.) meddling in issues that they proved completely incapable of handling when they were actually relevant leaders? What's next, Clinton pontificating about the value of securing our atomic secrets?

I'm sorry, but I though other posters in other threads were asking "what are the Democrats going to suggest?" They make suggestions and you accuse them of meddling! I also seem to remember Jimmy Carte, Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin receiving Nobel Peace Prizes for reaching a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that is still in effect today. Bill Clinton was bitterly disappointed that he wasn't able to finalize the deal between Arafat and Barak - but he came very, very close. Both of these efforts were attempts at resolving the major underlying source of conflict in the Middle East. What has the Bush administration done in that area?
Lastly, since you bring up nuclear secrets, how do you think Fox News and the right-wing blogs would have reacted if it was discovered that the Democrats had posted instructions for making nuclear weapons on a governmente web site - one that the terrorists could have accessed along with you or I. Do you think they would have had a field day with that?

Those are just a few of my thoughts that your post brought to mind.

[StrykerFSU]

laxfan25, let me start by saying that I truly enjoy your posts. You present your points clearly and concisely without belittling the opinions of others. They are always challenging and ADD to the discussion.

My interpretation of the what happened Tuesday is that a majority of the American people are calling for progress to be made in Iraq and not a forced withdrawl by June as McGovern is suggesting. That is why the GOP is angry at Bush for not letting Rumsfeld go sooner (I think you misunderstood what I was saying). Many of the now jobless GOP members are arguing that had Rumsfeld been removed months ago, there might have been more confidence in Republican leadership. Maybe not but I don't think anyone understands why Bush removed him now rather than sooner.

You bring up valid points as to the current situation in Iraq and I am offering no ideas on how to fix them but should we leave, my feeling is that Iraq will become a base for terrorism much like Afghanistan was. The Iraqi government as it exists now is completely unready to handle the situation on their own and I don't think any UN force, as McGovern is calling for, would be up to the task either. It is also important to recognize who the insurgents are, they are not Iraqis but are fanatics from Syria, Iran, Jordan, etc.

I tend to agree with genuine American hero McCain, we do need to increase troop strength to regain control. In the short run there may be increased casualties for Americans but it may also bring us an acceptable outcome. Hopefully the Army can continue meeting their recruiting goals and we won't have to resort to a draft.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/09/061109235649.5ga11arf.html

My point in bringing up Osama's statement was that a surrender would further embolden psychos of his ilk. I am not convinced that we let him go as so many are suggesting or that we shifted our attention but that's seem to be an issue that's dominated by politics so we may have to agree to disagree. I do, however, remember a certain future Speaker of the House saying something along the lines of it wouldn't even matter if we caught him at this point. So it seems it's okay to blast Bush for not catching him but then treat it as a nonevent if he were caught.

I'll see what I can find for you about the aftermath of our surrender in Vietnam but if you will allow me some leeway I would just bring up the reign of Pol Pot in Cambodia.

What I was asking for was for some member of the current Democratic leadership to offer some clear plan as to what they are going to do differently. Let's be honest here, Carter and McGovern are at the age when we need to start thinking about taking away their car keys, not listening to them about international affairs that they proved to be completely incapable of handling two or three decades ago (trying to be funny).

It's no secret that I have no love for Carter (even though I was two when he was swept out of office). My major problem with him now is that he tries to negotiate with terrorists when it was on his watch that the Shah was deposed and our embassy was taken in Tehran (our sovereign soil, act of war, no adequate response). And don't even get me started about his "certifying" of elections in places like Venezuela. I think what you should take from Clinton's experience with Arafat is that negotiating with these madmen gets you absolutely no where.

Sorry I got to rambling...it's Friday.

[laxfan25]

Cliff,
Thanks for the comments on my posts, and ditto on yours. While sohotrightnow and I are probably closer on the political spectrum, he can sometimes give the left a bad name. (I guess he's our version of Anne Coulter! Some basis in fact, but WAY over the top.) I did note that you and I weren't that far apart on that spectrum quiz the other week. I do feel a strong urge among the populace to move more towards the center (I just prefer the left of center).

I guess I did completely mis-interpret your thing about Rummy. My goodness!

As far as leaving Iraq as a base of terrorism, I'm not sure we're going to have any luck in changing that now - it is what it is. However, I also strongly believe that the foreign component of the insurgent force is very small. I would say that initially it was probably predominantly Sunni (outside of the gov't), but now a lot of the internal killing is equally Shiite. The Shia conrol the Interior Ministry,a nd the Iraqi police are basically uniformed militia. A part of the current problem is the population has no trust in the police, and deservedly so. Most nights they're taking their weapons and just slaughtering people. The Iraqi Army is a little better, but are woefully inadequate to handle the situation. There obviously can't be any secret operations. Sectarian loyalties are trumping national allegiance, and I don't think that is improving. I was very surprised the other day when Saddam and his former #2 both called for a cessation of violence. Hard to believe it was sincere at all, but still unexpected.

Using Pol Pot as an example of millions being killed in Vietnam doesn't compute. Pol Pot was a criminal of the highest degree, but there is really no connection to the North Vietnamese. I'm sure Ho Chi Minh would not be in favor of his killing fields, even though they both were of communist persuasion.

Being a little older (and hopefully wiser), Vietnam is something I am very, very familar with. I had two brothers serving over there, one of whom did two tours. He was a Marine enlistee, who very soon after his arrival in country realized that the war was totally screwed up. He was so distraught at what we were doing to this beautiful country that he went to Vietnamese language school and went back to try to work with the villagers to do what he could in his own way to make up for what we were doing. He then volunteered for a second tour to continue on. When he returned stateside he became very active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War and worked actively to try to end that travesty. I feel he earned the right to do so. He also became acquainted with another VVAW member who served his time in 'Nam, and became a spokesman for the group - John Kerry. I contrast that with the "service records" of GWB and Dick Cheney, and that is whey the "swiftboating" made me want to puke.

One similarity to Iraq is that it was a foreign culture (surprise!) and that we had no idea who the enemy was. The person smiling at you on the roadside during the day could be shooting at you (or planting an IED) at night. It led to a hatred for all the Vietnamese, even though we were supposedly there on their behalf. The term then was "Gooks". Now we call them "Hadjis". This resulted in some atrocities, such as My Lai, where the soldiers were so pissed they just killed a small village of people and burned their huts to the ground. I work with another Vietnam vet who has returned to Vietnam several times, and he is always amazed at how welcoming and gracious the people are.

I also voted for McGovern and Carter. While it is fashionable among many to mock Jimmy Carter, his historical legacy will be much, much brighter than the current occupant of the White House. Yes, a group of Iranian students (please don't call them terrorists - that is just lumping everyone in one convenient bucket) took over the US Embassy in Tehran. If you review your history a little further back, you might see the basis of their complaints. The US Government, in concert with Britain, overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED President of Iran, Mossadegh, and installed the Shah. (Aren't we now trying to bring democracy to that part of the world?) The Shah used his position to enrich himself fabulously, and also was a brutal tyrant against the opposition. Kind of like Saddam, who we also helped get into power. That wasn't a big deal to the gov't though, since those dictators were serving our purpose.
Those holding the hostages didn't just go in and slaughter them - they wanted the Shah to be gone. Carter was using all means at his disposal to try to end the situation. Yes, he was trying negotiations. He also attempted a military response, which failed when the helicopters were not equipped for desert operations (sand got sucked into the engines). When the situation ended, how many of the hostages had been killed? I'll give him credit for that. (Another interesting sidebar to that story is the actions of William Casey, one of Ronald Reagan's people. He was former CIA, and some people found it incredibly convenient that the hostages were released about a day after Reagan was sworn in. some people think that there may have been some back-channel deals cut - which isn't entirely implausible. There was also a later episode called the Iran-Contra affair that you might want to read up on).

This led to the rise of the Ayatollah Hummeini (sp?), and the start of the Islamic republic. Many, many Iranians are very tired of the restrictions on their freedom, have a great love for America and American culture, and would love to throw off that yoke of religious intolerance. (Some might say that there is a similar threat of loss of freedom here due to religious intolerance of differences). Unfortunately, the war in Iraq has not helped their chances in the near term. Even the Ayatollah, with his anti-West vitriol, was not advocating Bin Laden type tactics - that is a perversion all it's own.

Lastly, Jimmy Carter's efforts since he left office, with Habitat for Humanity and the Carter Center - to be deserve to be applauded! Carter has worked tirelessly to try to bring about what George W. Bush professes - the spread of democracy with fair elections around the world. You may not like the people that get elected in Venezuela - tough! That's who the Venezuelans elected! Some might say he doesn't represent all of the people, but certainly the same could be said for GWB. Carter was just in Nicaragua, where our former Sandanista enemy - Daniel Ortega, was ELECTED by the people. Their choice, and we shouldn't be going around trying to overthrow these governments.
As you can tell, I have a different opinion of Jimmy Carter. I think he is a fine and decent man - too much of a micro-manager as President, but a hell of a lot smarter than some more recent ones. I sincerely believe that history will bear out my assessment.

I guess it is a good Friday for rambling! Hopefully you can see that people can agree to disagree. Just because someone comes from left of center doesn't make them an ignorant, know-nothing boob!

I too appreciate a calm and reasoned discourse. That's why I listen to NPR and avoid the Fox News, CNN. MSNBC's like the plague. Peace!

[StrykerFSU]

Hopefully you can see that people can agree to disagree. Just because someone comes from left of center doesn't make them an ignorant, know-nothing boob!

Amen to that! Again, you give a lot of good food for thought as well as providing me plenty of practice for the real debates in my life, those being with my self described "ultra liberal" of a girlfriend!

Seeing as it is the Veteran's Day weekend, I want to thank your brothers for their service and all of the veterans who might be surfing these boards. What ever the mission, our veterans answered the call and we all owe them a debt of gratitude.

And of course, Happy Birthday to the USMC! I can't wait to get back up to my old stomping grounds and visit the new museum.

[laxfan25]

Hopefully you can see that people can agree to disagree. Just because someone comes from left of center doesn't make them an ignorant, know-nothing boob!

Amen to that! Again, you give a lot of good food for thought as well as providing me plenty of practice for the real debates in my life, those being with my self described "ultra liberal" of a girlfriend!

Good luck with that! I just have a feeling that if you win, you lose! My wife and I are very much on the same wave length, and our four wonderful children seem to be on the right track as well. I don't know, I think it would be hard to be happily married if you came from oppostie ends of the spectrum like how do James Carville and Mary Matlin stay together?

Seeing as it is the Veteran's Day weekend, I want to thank your brothers for their service and all of the veterans who might be surfing these boards. What ever the mission, our veterans answered the call and we all owe them a debt of gratitude.

Double amen to that! Another thing that ticks me off is the way that some people try to twist oppostion to a war as being unsupportive of the troops. They are what's near and dear to our hearts, and seeing them sacrificed is heart-wrenching. Watching the 60 Minutes episode from a couple weeks back where they were inside some of the MASH units in Iraq put tears in my eyes, and gave me an incredible respect for the people that work in those units. Also, the soldier that they followed into rehab was an amazing story in courage, grit and perseverance. The real tragedy to me is when it is all said and done over there, and we basically walk away from an incredible mess of our making (the Pottery Barn rule), that 3,000 soldiers will have made the ultimate sacrifice, and 20,000+ will be disabled - for nothing except the removal of a tinhorn dictator. (And that's a small number compared to the Iraqi sacrifice).

A moment of silence please, for all that have fallen. A round of thanks for those that have served. You deserve ALL of our gratitude.

[laxfan25]

There is a laundry list of terrorist attacks on American interests before the war, and there have been no successful attacks since it started.

Stryker, I just had to add this note. As I was driving home this evening, there was an interview on "The World" on NPR with Vince Cannistraro, a terrorism expert who used to be in the CIA. (I looked up the link. click here and you can scroll down to the story about home-grown terrorism. The World is another one of the great shows I listen to on NPR). http://www.theworld.org/?q=taxonomy_by_date/1/20061110
They asked why there hadn't been any attacks in the US. He said "they don't have the support structure here to put together these complex missions. Also, they have so many convenient targets in Iraq - it's much easier to attack us there".
So in some ways you are right, foreign terrorists have moved into Iraq to take advantage of the situation. Others are right when they say that the war has made us less safe. I still say that the vast majority of the violence in Iraq is being done by Iraqis.

Another nugget that gets tossed around is "we want to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here!" Well why is that? Wouldn't we have much more of a home field advantage here? Wouldn't they kind of stand out in a crowd? (Not to be profiling). Wouldn't there supply lines be a lot more difficult to maintain? Wouldn't ouor costs to wage that war be much lower if we weren't flying this stuff half-way around the world?
I've always found that to be a curious argument - one that sounds good as a sound bite, but when you think about it, does it really make sense?