Posted on 09/26/2005 7:05:15 AM PDT by bigsky
One of the many negative consequences of Americas defeat in The Vietnam War has been the uncontrolled proliferation of Vietnams since then.
Nicaragua threatened to become another Vietnam. Lebanon nearly became another Vietnam. Had Grenada been only slightly larger than a manhole cover and lasted one more hour, it would have become a Caribbean-Style Vietnam. The invasion of Panama was rapidly degenerating into a Narco-Vietnam, right up until we won. Likewise, the First Gulf War was certainly developing into another Vietnam, but then sadly, it ended quickly and with few casualties.
For people of a certain age or political stripe, Vietnam is like Elvis: its everywhere. For example, during a long wait at a Chinese Buffet in Georgetown in 1987, Ted Kennedy was reported to have exclaimed QUAGMIRE! and attempted to surrender to a Spanish-speaking busboy.
And that was probably the smart thing to do, because the lesson of Vietnam is: it is best to lose quickly, so as to avoid a quagmire. It could be argued that the real lesson of Vietnam is that it badly damages . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
This is pretty good writing. Funny, but with a serious sharp edge.
There's one other difference: The American soldiers are mostly white and well educated volunteers: "The demographic study involved 1,841 service personnel who were killed and 12,658 who were wounded, as of May 28. Whites, who constitute 67 percent of the active-duty and reserve forces, accounted for 71 percent of the fatalities. Blacks are 17 percent of the overall force and were 9 percent of the fatalities. Hispanics are 9 percent of the force and were 10 percent of the fatalities."
Well as I can remember, I saw this today at the Worldnet site.
Exactly correct. In my view it was a tactical defeat but a strategic victory. It gave the developing democracies in the area time to flourish and it sapped enough energy from the Communists in Asia that their activities in most other countries were strongly diminished.</p>
Vietnam was painful, and wasn't a good place to pick a fight, but it was a victory - for us. Pity the Hmong and many others we left behind.
Viet Nam became "Viet Nam" when we allowed the enemy its safe havens, and then finally abandoned it to its fate. Iraq will become "Viet Nam" when we do the same. Syria and Iran have become safe havens for the enemy. If we refuse to deal with that fact, and if we walk away from it, we have created "Viet Nam" in the middle east where it didn't have to be.
Vietnamization of a conflict stems from a lack of political will. Don't give in to doubt; make the enemy give in to doubt. Make the enemy worry about its "exit plan". Make the enemy lose hope in any possibility of victory.
I agree. But I also submit that "VietNam" the noble undertaking became "VietNam" the "quagmire" because of Walter Cronkite. It was he who went to the US Embassy in Saigon in 1968 during Tet, showed dead VC sappers inside the compound to American TV viewers, and told us VietNam is "lost". Walter Cronkite - America's "Most Trusted" figure - undermined the military and set the stage for the loss of support and ultimately our "failure" there. Walter Cronkite "lost" that conflict for us.
There's is one big similarity between Vietnam and Iraq though: Both are utilizing a one-hand-tied-behind-the-back approach for political reasons.
That was wrong then, and its wrong now.
Yeah, but there was all that "tungsten and tin" we were after, as Jane Fonda was telling us at the time!
"No blood for tungsten and tin!"
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service to our country, and I look forward to further insightful posts here.
RD
welcome to F.R. thanks for your service and a way killer tag line.
And like Elvis,Vietnam has left the building.
... [for the Left] the lesson of Vietnam is: it is best to lose quickly, so as to avoid a quagmire. It could be argued that the real lesson of Vietnam is that it badly damages a countrys reputation and character to lose at all. But that is not at all supported by the evidence. Nope, Vietnam taught us that winners know when to lose immediately. Entire wars have been fought by countries that have failed to realize this.
No country was therefore more prepared to fight a long unconventional war against grimy little terrorists in strange distant places than America, who learned how to lose in Vietnam.
Thus, it is with considerable joy that those who are ready to teach the lesson of Vietnam (LOSE NOW BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!), find that they finally have another war that has lasted longer than John Kerrys first position on it. Obviously, they crow, we have stepped into some deep Vietnam in Iraq.
Mac Johnson: ...I present a few tiny little differences between Iraq and Vietnam: [just a list, read the complete article]
1. The Iraqi insurgency has no universal philosophy capable of attracting Iraqs entire populace. |
2. The Iraqi insurgency has no inviolable state in which to openly organize the population; and we are not fighting for a tie with that inviolable state. |
3. The Sunni insurgents have no Soviet or Chinese support. |
4. North and South Vietnam had a combined population 22% of that of the United States in 1970. |
5. The Communist forces of Vietnam had 20 years of experience |
6. There were no polling places in Hanoi during the war. |
7. There was no oil in Vietnam. |
8. There is no military draft in todays US army. |
9. The Communists had never ruled South Vietnam. |
10. Who is Iraqs Ho Chi Minh? |
11. In Vietnam, it was obvious that American withdrawal would probably lead to South Vietnamese defeat. |
12. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army were not killing one another. |
13. Ho Chi Minh was not, at any point during the Vietnam War, sitting in a box with a French Lawyer |
But other than all that, Iraq is just Vietnam all over again --and in High Definition on Cable. Now consider one last reason why the two wars are not alike, one that goes to the heart of the issue and should be more than enough to shore up even Chuck Hagel: A loss in Vietnam was not going to bring newly energized Viet Cong recruits into New York or San Francisco with truck-bombs or a suitcase nuke to finish us off. A loss in Iraq--regardless of why the war was begun, or how bad we want to go home, or how little most Americans care about giving foreigners democracy or toiletries--will energize our enemies, as only a historic victory on the world stage can.
Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.
Iraq would be like Vietnam in only this sense -- if the American people lost the political will to finish the job, then Iraq would become like Vietnam.
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.