Posted on 06/16/2006 7:49:37 PM PDT by seanmerc
Comparing Wars By: Oliver North
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In an earlier age it would have been a Churchillian moment: The head of state makes a high-risk, secret trip to the war zone; is briefed by combat commanders on the military situation; meets with allies and commends the troops for their steadfast resolve in defeating a brutal adversary. Sir Winston was lionized by the British press for more than 20 such trips during the course of World War II. But that's not the treatment given George W. Bush.
The president was still on the ground in Iraq commending U.S. troops for eliminating the brutal terror-leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when the carping began. Liberal Democrats, perhaps feeling snubbed that the Commander in Chief's visit to Baghdad had upstaged their "Take Back America" conference in Washington, rushed to the microphones to critique the presidential mission. Fellow-travelers in the media compliantly followed the script in an effort to denigrate the import of the trip. On air that evening, Alan Colmes of FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes," pondered aloud why President Bush found it necessary to keep it all so furtive, "even from the Iraqi government." Note to liberals: Call the Secret Service.
Senator John Kerry went even further while Bush was in Baghdad. The Democrat's' favorite failed presidential candidate told a crowd of adoring, anti-military, blame-America-firsters that the U.S. Head of State visit to Baghdad changed nothing and that Iraq and Vietnam are the "two most failed foreign policy choices'' in our nation's history. "As in Vietnam," he continued, resurrecting a theme that resonates with radicals, "we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go. It was right to dissent from a war in 1971 that was wrong and could not be won. And now, in 2006, it is both a right and an obligation for Americans to stand up to a president who is wrong today."
The "Iraq equals Vietnam" argument is not new -- nor is it the exclusive purview of the American political left. Osama bin Laden has alluded to Vietnam in several of his "video diatribes" released in the Islamic press. U.S. and European media elites have tried to equate "atrocities" in Iraq with events like My Lai in Vietnam. Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has said that we are "bogged down" in Iraq and that the situation is not "dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam. The longer we stay there, the more similarities are going to come together." Fortunately for us, Messer's Kerry, bin Laden and Hagel are wrong.
Having spent a good bit of time in both wars, it's my observation that there are few if any parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. Aside from the reality that bombs and bullets still kill and maim, and the blood of courageous American soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines is still red, Baghdad isn't Saigon; Fallujah isn't Hue City and battling terrorists in Al Anbar Province is totally unlike fighting the North Vietnamese Army in the A-Shau Valley. Those who think otherwise should watch this week's episode of "War Stories" on the FOX News Channel about the sanguinary, 10-day fight to take Hamburger Hill.
By May of 1969, when the famed 101st Airborne Division slogged to the top of Dong Ap Bia -- the cloud-shrouded mountain's real name -- there were more than 400,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam and over 48,000 had been lost to enemy combat. Today, after three years of war in Iraq there are fewer than 135,000 U.S. troops on the ground and as of today, 2,500 that have been killed in action or died of wounds.
Critics of how President Bush has handled the war in Mesopotamia cynically point to mounting casualties as a way of linking combat in Iraq with what took place nearly four decades ago in Vietnam. There is no doubt that every casualty is a tragedy. Yet the difference in combat losses between the two wars is staggering. At the peak of the war in Vietnam -- 1968-'69, we were losing more than 35 killed in action daily. In Iraq, the "morbidity rate" is fewer than 2.5 per day.
Then there is the difference in enemies. Our opponents in Vietnam, though certainly capable of extraordinary cruelty, never made videos of their captives being beheaded. Unlike homicidal suicide-terrorists I have seen in Iraq, the NVA soldiers I confronted then -- and those I interviewed in Vietnam just a few weeks ago in the shadow of Hamburger Hill -- all wanted to survive the experience.
Finally, there is the issue of outcome. We lost the war in Vietnam -- not on the battlefield -- but in the corridors of power in our nation's capital. We pulled out and abandoned our South Vietnamese allies, and two years later they were overwhelmed. We can still lose this war the same way.
On his trip to Baghdad this week, President Bush sought to reassure Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that, "I've come to not only look you in the eye. I also come to tell you that when America gives its word, it keeps its word." Let's hope we do.
Now what we need to do is get the advertising dollars shifted over to our type of press and out of the hands of the churls who missed the good news.
Long, long ago, as the War In Iraq was just beginning, a lib asked me how many casualties i thought was appropriate to fight in "Bush's War". I thought for a moment, I confess I did think of Vietnam, also about 25 million people in Iraq. I knew he was going to argue that even one death was too many. As Col. North says, "Every death is a tragedy, but..."
My answer was 20,000. to free 25,000,000. We've done the job with about 12% of that.
I disagree with this. And it gets to the heart of why Bush is in trouble on the war.
We did not invade Iraq to "free the Iraqi people." We invaded Iraq to take the war to the home turf of the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. Bush made this absolutely clear in the beginning and that is why the nation rallied to his cause. The American people will always rally to a war to protect the nation. But this is not true for a war to liberate the Iraqis or anyone else. This is so obvious it boggles the mind to think that people don't get it.
Did we enter WWII to free the Japanese people from Hirohito? Did we attack the Nazis in Europe to free the Germans from Hitler? Of course not! The Japanese and the Germans may have adopted liberal democratic capitalism after the war. But that was not the objective of the war. Not at the beginning. Not even at the end. The "revitalization" of Germany and Japan was proposed by Marshall to prevent those countries from falling to Stalin.
I think it would be fine if the Iraqis adopted liberal democratic captialism. They can emulate us with my blessings. But I could really care less if they do or don't as long as they don't threaten us. And Iraq under Saddam was a threat just like Afghanistan under the Taliban or Iran under the mullahs. Anyone who can't see this is a fool.
Our one and only aim in the war should be to neutralize the islamic nazis in their home countries. This means killing as many of the really nutty ones as we can find. And it also means intimidating or otherwise convincing the not-so-nutty ones to cooperate. This is what Bush originally sent the military to do. The sooner he returns to this theme the better. Both from him and for us.
You are right point out that a clear national security interest will maintain US support for the war far better than positionng it as only liberation of oppressed people.
But ...
"I think it would be fine if the Iraqis adopted liberal democratic captialism. They can emulate us with my blessings. But I could really care less if they do or don't as long as they don't threaten us."
The problem is that the only way we can ensure they won't threaten us is if their Government turns away from terrorist-sponsoring dictatorships. And the only way to ensure *that* is to continue on the path to democratization and defeat the terrorists now.
This terrorism and insugency is an Arab way of fighting. We have to defeat it there or we will fight it many times over.
In the end, there is a core connection between democratization in Iraq and our self-interest and national security. That connection needs to be made.
It held true for Germany and Japan as well, btw. As good as our efforts were in WWII, it was what we did *after* WWII that ensured peaceful allies replacing implacable enemies. It was with Pax Romana in the past and Pax Americana as well. We will not defeat Islamo-fascism by killing terrorists (although that is necessary, it is not sufficient). In the end, we will defeat Islamofascism by turning their political orders away from the fevered swamps of dictatorship and Islamic theocratic rule.
Yes we will win. However, if we are in WW3, we are fighting it with a Defense Budget(As per GDP) on par with Clintons, and less than Carters.
save
Partially true. The true part is the "terrorist sponsoring" part. The "dictatorship" part is more problematic. It is not true that only liberal democratic countries are peaceful. It is also not true that all non-democratic countries are "terrorist sponsoring." Jordan is not that democratic and they are a pretty good ally (it appears as if Jordanian intelligence undid Zarqawi).
And the only way to ensure *that* is to continue on the path to democratization and defeat the terrorists now.
Again I disagree that "democratization" and "defeating the terrorists" is the same thing. Democratization might be a means to achieve that end. But this is not obvious. I for one am not convinced.
So they didn't have time to pre-register their mortars?
5,000 casualties including over 2000 dead. Omaha Beach June 6th, 1944.
Nice for you that you have feelings. Please stop confusing your feelings for facts.
Jordan also is the society that created Al Zaqawri. They only turned against him when Al Qeda tried to make a WMD attack last year inside Jordan.
Right. And this is the whole point. King Abdullah in Jordan is doing a pretty good job of keeping the nutballs in his country under control. Would you rather have Zarqawi in charge?
Similarly, and despite all the BS your get about the Kingdom, King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia (not related to the above) is doing a pretty good job of keeping the multitude of ultra-fanatic nutballs in his country under control. And don't waste my time pointing out that 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. This is my very point. The problem faced by the Saudi Royal family is enormous. Again, would you rather have the kingdom ruled by Osama Bin Laden?
Consider the question this way. Which government is the better ally in the war against the Islamic crazies? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Islamic Republic of Iran. If you can't get this one right there is no hope for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.