Do you disagree with his point that US Congress should have declared an all out war with Iraq instead of taking the Vietnam route?
I think the Rules of Engagement in Iraq are absurd. Our guys cannot shoot back unless first shot at.. See this is where Vietnam and Iraq are similar. We have to win this war WWII style. This same silly tactics we used in Vietnam and look at the end results.
War is a terrible thing, but I understand its necessary. When we go into war we should not tie our troops hands with silly rules that ends up getting our guys killed. Fight it the way we fought Germany and Japan in WWII. What I mean by that is don’t hold back because of political cowardliness.
Actually, I don’t really think we should be in the business of nation building, but I also don’t think there is any other solution in this case. I was not really ‘for’ going into Iraq initially, but the more I read, the sounder the idea seemed, even if we’re not doing the best in military execution, we needed to have a base over there, and where else would have been practical? Iraq was the best choice, especially given 17 prior UN resolutions that proved that ‘international organization’ impotent.
This notion of other nations behaving as we do in this regard leaves a rather significant ideological difference unaddressed. We do not do this (despite angry, international popular opinion to the contrary) nation building effort to exact these nations into our culture. We do this simply to give each individual person w/in those countries a voice. We are the only Superpower in history to behave this way, ever. People seem to neglect this point, disregarding the fact that we aren’t actually an imperialist nation, despite the hate America hype.
To use your example, if China invades the United States, it ain’t gonna be to ‘free’ us from anything except our natural resources. Visit the local gas station. We are not benefitting from Iraq’s oil reserves, and they now have the freedom to use this resource against us if they so choose.
I believe the Rules of Engagement have changed in some respect with our clamp down in Baghdad, although I could be wrong about this. It is one of the risks and the reason we are seeing more casulties among our soldiers. And necessary to fight effectively, I agree.
There are very few accurate analogies to our experience in Vietnam, but this and the media’s negative impact are two that are definitely true.
President Bush is doing what he should do and taking the advice of his military people, unlike President Johnson, who was too involved in the details of running the war that should have been left to his generals. Our current generals all know the lessons of Vietnam, so if they can’t get it right, I’m not sure where we stand.
Of course, examples like Gen. Batiste are simply treasonous, but I’m no where near wise enough to have actual solutions on this, it’s a big picture problem that al Qaeda knows is a weakness and they are intentionally using the ‘Vietnam’ scenario against us. Their leaders have said so. They think this is our Achilles’ heel, frankly, and the media is not smart enough to realize this and back off.
Another reason we are not executing this entirely in ‘WWII’ style is that this war is not nation specific. That’s part of why making the argument for going into Iraq was difficult.
Democrats still don’t get the somewhat subtle al Qaeda/Iraq connection, do you really think they are intelligent enough to figure out the hopscotching that is going to be necessary in the future to stamp this enemy out in 1) Somalia, 2) Indonesia, 3) Phillipines, 4) EUROPE . . . it is a different war. It is many of our past nightmares rolled into one, unfortunately.
Been here lately? http://www.globalincidentmap.com/home.php
And San Fran Nan & Co. refuse to accept the Global War on Terror moniker. Morons.