Reply #5: Well let's compare and contrast... [View All]

[dave123williams]

Similarities...

1. Civil war: Vietnam was a civil war. We thought it was about the global containment of Communism; we were wrong. It was certainly that, but just for us...not for the people living there. For them, it was a civil war.

1.a. Iraq is a civil war. Power abhors a vacuum. We topple the B'aathists; what' left in that regieme's place? Sunni, Shia, Kurds; all fighting it out. Iraq isn't a terrorist insurgency; it's factional infighting...Bush doesn't want to leave, because the moment he does, it's a 3-4 party full-blown civil war (if it isn't already)...possibly spreading in to a regional conflict involving the Syrians (to the West) the Iranians (to the East), the Turks (to the north and West), and maybe the Saudis and maybe even the Israelis. So, there's that prima-facia difference...the possibility of widening conflict.

2. We're actively involved: we've had any number of proxy wars in the last thirty years (Angola, Afghanistan in the 80's, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc) but only a few shooting wars where it wasn't over in a couple of weeks. There's a *big* tactical and operational difference between having The Big Red One on the ground, Marines in the surf, Naval Aviators in the Air, versus having 50 CIA guys cutting checks to the Mouhajadeen so's they can buy some Stingers. We were on the ground in Vietnam, and we're on the ground in Iraq.

That's pretty similar.

3. Our fleeting loyalties: we supported the regieme we ended up toppling in South Vietnam. We also supported Hussein in the 80's, before we toppled him. To be our friend before the end of the cold war, you could be a ruthless dictator just so long as you claimed to be anti-Communist. Now, you just have to claim to be anti-Terrorist. Just ask Musharraf; that cocksucker's ISI (intelligence) service essentially founded the Taliban; these days, Bush has him to the Rosegarden for tea.

4. We're divided here at home along pretty much the same lines we were in Vietnam. That's pretty similar.



The differences...

1. The environment: Vietnam isn't a desert, and it's not in the middle-east. Our opponents are completely different culturally. Why they fight is different, how they fight is different. How they're organized is different, how they're backed is different.

2. The spoils of war, and the world economy: Vietnam didn't really have anything we valued as a natural resource. Iraq does.

3. The rhetoric; it just seems more transparent and certainly much more laden with demagogurey to me. That's a personal take, but I think it's a difference in how all side's leadership speaks with their people; both us, and them. There's more heat to it, and it's sure louder. In the 60's, you got the news with your paper in the morning, and with dinner at 6:30 and only on three channels. Now...it's super-loud, and all the time.

4. The Media; before Clinton signed the TCA (the Telecommunications Act of 1996), there were more than five or six massive multi-nationals that had a voice on the air. These days, there's not. I'd also point out that some of these five or six multinationals double as military suppliers. Take NBC, for instance. They're owned by General Electic. GE makes nuclear engines for our fleets, makes gatling guns for our Blackhawks, and makes jet engines for our fighters. Guess what? At the highest corporate levels, they just love war. It's really good for business. And if you think that journalists aren't completely beholden to the business side of their businesses, you're daft.

I could go on, but it's gettin' really late here, and I've already ranted once this evening; it's kind of exhausting, but worth it. This whole direction for the country is just fucked, and it can't end well no matter how 'optimistic' the administration is.