Posted on 07/04/2003 10:23:05 AM PDT by dalereed
Edited on 07/04/2003 12:02:29 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
During a vice presidential visit to San Diego in 1970, the late Spiro Agnew famously remarked, "In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who served alongside Agnew in the Nixon administration, might be inclined to agree with his one-time colleague. Especially after his Pentagon press briefing this week.
"Can you remind us again why this is not a quagmire?" asked one wag. "And can you tell us why you're so reluctant to say that what's going on in Iraq now is a guerrilla war?"
A fellow wag followed up. Could it be that Secretary Rumsfeld, that Gen. Richard Meyers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are loath to concede that Iraq has disintegrated into a guerrilla war because it "begins to bring to mind the last one that the United States had, which was Vietnam?"
"Which," the wag added, sarcastically, "I think most people can agree was not a resounding success."
A lay observer might conclude from the line of questioning that more than a few members of the media are almost hopeful that the transformation of Iraq into a peaceful democracy goes badly. That they are still bummed that the United States was able to turn Saddam Hussein out of power in less than a month and with far fewer casualties than much of the anti-war media predicted.
That they derive some perverse consolation in the ludicrous notion that the United States suddenly finds itself facing a guerrilla war in Iraq; a quagmire of Vietnam proportions.
Rumsfeld suffered the anti-war wags more gladly than they deserved.
He explained that there is no organized insurgency in Iraq; that the sporadic attacks against American troops are being carried out by disparate groups with different agendas. That includes looters, "who take advantage of opportunities that exist from time to time," according to Rumsfeld, as well criminals who were freed from Iraqi prisons, "tens of thousands" put out on the street.
There also are the remnants of Saddam's regime, said the defense secretary. Including "the Baathists, the Fedayeen Saddam, some army people, some Special Republican Guard, some SSO (Special Security Organization) people."
Then there are foreign infiltrators, terrorist types from other countries who crossed the Syrian border into Iraq, as well as Iranian-backed Shiites.
Day by day, U.S. forces root out those elements. Like the raid this past weekend, Operation Desert Scorpion, which, according to Meyers, resulted in the detention of more than 1,300 individuals, and confiscation of 500 AK-47s, more than 200 hand grenades and 100 rocket-propelled grenades.
Such raids will continue, assured Rumsfeld and Meyers, until Iraq is secure and safe.
As to the suggestion that Iraq has transmogrified into a latter-day Vietnam for the United States, Rumsfeld dismissed the cockeyed notion. "It's a different time," he said. "It's a different era. It's a different place."
Indeed, for the United States, the Vietnam War lasted the better part of nine years. More than 8.5 million Americans served in that war, some 58,193 of whom lost their lives.
U.S. forces have been in Iraq less than four months. Fewer than a quarter-million were needed to rout Saddam's army. And the U.S. military has suffered nearly 58,000 fewer deaths than in Vietnam.
Of course, the United States will be in Iraq for some time to come. President Bush acknowledged that this week when he said that the rebuilding of post-war Iraq, the orderly and peaceful transition from Saddam's despotic regime to Western-style democracy will be a "massive and long-term undertaking."
And, yes, there will be more U.S. casualties in Iraq, more deaths. That is regrettable. But it is absurd for anyone to even suggest that the numbers of casualties, of deaths, will be remotely close to the levels seen during the Vietnam War.
Though Iraq news coverage has been relentlessly negative in recent weeks, the American public remains positive.
Nearly six of 10 still think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, according to the latest Gallup Poll for CNN and USA Today. And nearly seven of 10 think it is worth having U.S. troops there now.
"There will be no return to tyranny in Iraq," President Bush said this week, "and those who threaten the order and stability of that country will face ruin just as surely as the regime they once served."
The American people apparently share the commander in chief's resolve.
Perkins can be reached via e-mail at .
Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
As you said, one death is one too many, however the numbers pale in comparison to 'Nam, Korea, WWII, WWI, The Civil War, etc. (as a percentage basis).
From your #19:President Bush: There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on.
Amen ! Bring 'em on !!!
Gotta love Donald Rumsfeld !!"Can you remind us again why this is not a quagmire?" asked one wag. "And can you tell us why you're so reluctant to say that what's going on in Iraq now is a guerrilla war?"
A fellow wag followed up. Could it be that Secretary Rumsfeld, that Gen. Richard Meyers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are loath to concede that Iraq has disintegrated into a guerrilla war because it "begins to bring to mind the last one that the United States had, which was Vietnam?"
"Which," the wag added, sarcastically, "I think most people can agree was not a resounding success."
< snip >
Rumsfeld suffered the anti-war wags more gladly than they deserved.
Take that, Wag !!
Thank for the post, dale. Big hugs to Mr. Perkins in gratitude for his courage and honor!
This scenerio could well be put into place in Iraq. We surrender the Iraqi people to the rule of regional thugs and warlords while we set up safe and secure regional bases with all the amenities of home (like camp Bondsteel in Kosovo.) The government of Iraq will control a frew blocks of dowtown Baghadad and the pipelines will be protected by a well paid private guard. And like Pristina in Kosovo- the residents of Baghdad can still expect not to have reliable electricity 5 years from now.
Why do you think that?
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.
