Haig says nation repeating a mistake it made in Vietnam

AP ^ | March 11, 2006

[ConservativeStatement]

BOSTON --Former Nixon adviser Alexander Haig said military leaders in Iraq are repeating a mistake made in Vietnam by not applying the full force of the military to win the war.

"Every asset of the nation must be applied to the conflict to bring about a quick and successful outcome, or don't do it," Haig said. "We're in the midst of another struggle where it appears to me we haven't learned very much."

The comments by Haig, also a Secretary of State under Reagan, came at a conference at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum examining the Vietnam War and the American Presidency.

[ConservativeStatement]

Brian Williams asked Kissinger "Do you want to apologize to anyone?" for Vietnam.

[68skylark]

Al Haig has a better standing than most critics to talk about our conduct of this war. Still, I've got to respectfully disagree with him.

[Thrusher]

"Every asset of the nation must be applied to the conflict to bring about a quick and successful outcome, or don't do it," Haig said.

I have to agree with him on that. Go big or go home.

[68skylark]

Go big or go home.

Well that's not how we won our war in the Philippines. It's not how we won our wars with the plains Indians. Counter-insurgencies take longer than we'd like, but we know how to win them.

[luvbach1]

Haig is right and,incidentally, is on the same page as the notorious Mike Savage. Unfortunately GWB didn't think, going in, that we would need to apply the full might of our military. And, intially, he was right. In winning a war, avoiding the death of "innocents" is not possible. No war has ever been won without civilian casualties, and massive casualties at that.

[John Jorsett]

"We're not doing enough" isn't what I'd call a blueprint for action. It'd be much more helpful if Haig had said exactly where he thinks we're holding back.

[luvbach1]

Plains indians didn't have reinforcements pouring in across the borders of America. By the way, how do we win against insurgencies again?

[alloysteel]

We are not fighting a war in the classic sense. Our troops are engaged with wiping out or incapacitating a number of street gangs with access to some relatively effective assault weaponry.

This war will be resolved like control of crime everywhere - plenty of police work and involvement of the civilian population to supply intelligence about gang movements.

[bnelson44]

By the way, how do we win against insurgencies again?

By depriving them of a base of operations
By winning the hearts and minds of the population
By lasting longer then they do

[luvbach1]

It'd be much more helpful if Haig had said exactly where he thinks we're holding back.

My guess would be he wants us to bomb the Sunni Triangle into the stone age.

[KevinDavis]

As the Arm Chair Generals speak...

[luvbach1]

By depriving them of a base of operations By winning the hearts and minds of the population By lasting longer then they do

Are we able to do any of the above?

[luvbach1]

As the Arm Chair Generals speak...

Somebody has to advise the generals.

[bnelson44]

By depriving them of a base of operations By winning the hearts and minds of the population By lasting longer then they do
Are we able to do any of the above?

yes

Read the Fourth Rail about what we have done in the West of Iraq.

Also pinging for some assitance.

[Third Order]

Plains indians didn't have reinforcements pouring in across the borders of America. By the way, how do we win against insurgencies again?

By adding ~50k troops to secure borders and supply lines from Syria and Iran, then when the insurgents start getting desperate, sweep through the cities like we did in Falluja.

[luvbach1]

Did not mean no progress has been/is being made.

[bnelson44]

The big question has always been: does the American people have the will to win?

[bayourant]

Darn right. The problem is not so much in Iraq but accross those damn borders. We got to secure the borders on Iran and Syria. Thats the main problem I see. I think 90 percent of the problem would evaporate. Besides that aspect I think the Generals are doing things correctly.

[edsheppa]

You be respectful if you want, but I'll be blunt. He's a dope. If we were to double the American presence in Iraq, it would just mean twice as many targets.

[luvbach1]

By adding ~50k troops to secure borders and supply lines from Syria and Iran, then when the insurgents start getting desperate, sweep through the cities like we did in Falluja.

Well and good. As the cliche goes, sounds like a plan. But when will we do it? And if we do that will mean an uptick in the casualties of our brave troops. At that point, enter the fifth column of the enemy: the Demonrats and the rest of the Left in full cry to "stop the killing" (read retreat).