Replies

There is and always has been one major difference between Vietnam and Iraq:
Vietnam was never a direct threat to the United States of America.

Vietnam was basically a "proxy" war between the US and the Soviets (a decade or so later, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan would become another similar proxy war). Don't get me wrong, I fully supported the Vietnam War (actually, I was a little too young, but I would have); however, we knew after we pulled out of Vietnam that the NVA and Viet Cong wasn't going to bring the fight to America. We don't have this luxury with Islamofascist terrorism. The left opposed the war in Vietnam because they wanted the communists to win, they oppose Iraq because they hate Bush and stupidly believe that if we pull out of the Middle East, terrorism will cease to be a problem.

I heard Pat Buchanan on Hannity yesterday trying to say that Bush should handle Iraq the same way Reagan handled the Soviets. That's bullsh*t! We always had lines of communication with the Soviets and at least from 1963 on the knowledge that they did not wish a direct war with us. Terrorism is something that no president has ever had the courage to deal with before, if things had been handled differently in the 80's and certainly in the 90's, Bush might never have been put in the situation he is in.

The left opposed the war in Vietnam because they wanted the communists to win,

Much of that feeling is still operative.....

Get this book:

***************************************************

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left

And a very good review:

*********************************

Vastly Illuminating, September 25, 2004

Reviewer:

Kat Bakhu (Albuquerque, NM United States) - See all my reviews

I had long wondered why people on the Left had the propensity to speak more positively about people who would slit their throats than they do about their own country, which affords them more freedom and opportunity than anywhere else. David Horowitz has answered that question thoroughly and convincingly in his Unholy Alliance. Where I felt bewildered and confused, I now feel crystal clear. Unholy Alliance is such a great book.

It begins with the leftist movements at the beginning of the 20th Century, and works its way up to the present day, exploring the anti-American attitude of these movements in detail. Horowitz shows that the enemies of the US back then are largely the same group today, operating under the same misperceptions, making the same mistakes, and pursuing the same impossible utopia.

Individual chapters are included on the Patriot Act (I was persuaded that it is a GOOD thing); the democratic flip-flop on Iraq once G.W. Bush implemented what they agreed with Clinton needed to be done; the driving components of the current anti-war movement; as well as chapters on individual personalities who are major spokespeople of the Left. Horowitz covers a lot of ground, and he covers it concisely and clearly. Unholy Alliance is richly informative without ever being boring or plodding.

This book is so illuminating that I simply cannot do justice to it here. I love people who reason so clearly that they help me get my own reasoning clear. Horowitz is just that type of person! In the terrain of mindless clichés (no-blood-for-oil, etc.), he is a breath of real fresh air.

You hit the big strategic difference between the two wars: Iraq under Saddam was a direct threat to us while the Vietnam war was an effort to contain communism before it began to theaten us directly. Vietnam was largely a reaction to the huge cost and casualties of WW II. We wanted to stop communism before we ended up in WW III against the communists.

There are a number of major tactical and political differences too. A large percentage of the troops in Vietnam were draftees while the Iraq War is fought entirely with volunteers. This makes a huge difference politically and makes the Iraq War much easier to sustain politically. Tactically Iraq is less difficult on the whole than Vietnam because we're not fighting an organized, trained army and the desert terrain gives our troops a huge advantage in any kind of conventional warfare.

The insurgents have been largely limited to fighting us with roadside bombs and suicide car bombers. Those are tough tactics to deal with but it's not nearly as tough as fighting the North Vietnamese army in areas with tropical forests and generally heavy vegetation. If we can develop some better ways to detect roadside bombs, then we will have the insurgents in a checkmate tactically. It can't happen a minute too soon.