Disaster in the Making - Is Iraq Another Vietnam?

[dArKeR]

If Iraq is another Vietnam, when will we know it?

When you’re in the midst of a political disaster, do you know you’re there? That question was posed by a Senate Republican who supported the war in Iraq. He wonders what the powers-that-be thought when Vietnam first began to spin out of control. “Did we know it was a disaster?” he mused.

FOR THOSE WHO remember Vietnam, the echoes are startling—from the light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel mentality to the disconnect between hawk and dove. Iraq hasn’t reached the critical mass of dissatisfaction we had with Vietnam, but the trend line is about right. Rumblings about the mounting cost of pacifying postwar Iraq are prompting calls for the resignations of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. “It’s been noted that Bush fired his entire economic team when the economy wasn’t going well,” says Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East expert at the Nixon Center. “People are asking: When is he going to fire some of his security team?”


http://msnbc.com/news/965876.asp?0cl=c1

[FloridaPat]

1. This war is a lot different than Vietnam. We never knew why

we were in Vietnam. We know we are in Iraq because Bush & Blair lied. In Vietnam there were no alternative views expressed anywhere. Now we have DemocraticUnderground and all the other anti-Bush, anti-Lie wars. Vietnam had the draft. Not sure if there would have ever been a demonstration against that war if it weren't for the draft. That got everyone involved because everyone knew someone.

There is a very big potential bomb coming in Iraq - the mystery disease. Half the vets from GW1 are on disability and Bush is cutting veteran benefits like crazy. When the numbers start getting big, you think the soldiers from anywhere are going there? You think the people attacking us are going to quietly wait it out in Iraq? That could destroy the republican party forever. Hopefully they can be destroyed without taking a toll on our vets.

One last thing about Vietnam - it took years to figure out the government was lying. Not today.

[grytpype]

2. Excellent points.

And I would add:

---

In Iraq, we've won every battle. We also won every major battle in Vietnam.

---

Iraq is a smaller, lighter, faster Vietnam.

---

The Bush Administration has repeatedly lied about the rationale for the war. It is impossible to say why we are there.

The best reason seems to be that Saddam Hussein was a very bad governor and would do us harm if he had the means and thought he could get away with it.

But as we all now know, he did not have the means, and any statement to the contrary by the Bush Adminsitration has been a lie. The sanctions and inspections derided by Bush had, in fact, rendered Saddam harmless.

[RamboLiberal]

3. So the neocons are going to get their walking papers if * wins

But if Bush wins a second term, sources close to Bush 41 say junior will clean house and the neocons who pushed him into the war will get their walking papers.

I'd rather not rely on that - I want to give AWOL a one-way ticket back to Crawford and he can take his neocon cabal with him.

[kclown]

4. Larger issue proceeds from this

It was always obvious to me that * was going to attack Iraq. 
He had no political ambitions prior to the 1992 defeat of
Poppy, and it's clear that he blamed that on Hussein.  

What is scary is that he has surrounded himself with people
who think the same thing, that Hussein derailed the natural
Republican order, and that Americans will reward the deposers
of Saddam with votes.  This was always a dangerous obsession
which is playing out in gruesome fashion.  There is no sign of
awakening in the admin.  

I sincerely fear that if the public shows no sign of rewarding
them for accomplishing this "urgent" task, they will
take that to mean that the public doesn't understand the
situation and are not qualified to pass judgment (vote) on it.

I hope I'm wrong.  Two things scare me.

1.  If the casualties keep coming and we have to cut and run,
what if Hussein emerges as the ruler?  Nuke Baghdad?

2.  If they hold the election and * loses, he'll have two
months of lame duck office.  Will he act responsibly?  Can he
act responsibly?

[DrBB]

6. Don't like neo-cons? Answer: vote for Bush!

He'll get rid of 'em! How's that for bold leadership?

[DrBB]

5. It's Viet Nam on SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED

By my reckoning--as one who lived through it the first time--we've gone from 1962 to 1968 in five months. Hey, we did it once before, so naturally we're going to be faster at it.

[dArKeR]

7. It's Vietnam without trees and lucky for our children!

[Porcupine]

8. Iraq is Iraq, a new and mysterious disaster....

There are chemical engineers and electrical engineers and people with knowledge of modern electronics working side by side with Afghan war veterans. They also have the tactical knowledge of Hamas available to them. Anybody who needs motivating need only be brought to a childrens ward of a hospital to observe the kids who were blown up or who have birth defects.

U.S. troops cannot govern or rebuild Iraq until they can operate on foot and in pairs. Right now they are restricted to armored patrols and still they die every day. As long as we occupy Iraq American kids will come home in body bags. even the Bush operation can't cover this mess up.