The Fatal Difference Between Viet Nam and Iraq: No "Peace With Honor"

[TahitiNut]

While there are many substantive differences between the orgasms of death and destruction in Viet Nam and Iraq, the one which I regard as most obscenely ironic and catastrophic is the same difference which makes this an entirely illegitimate 'war'. It's this: There's no 'state' with which a peace treaty can be signed - as political cover for withdrawal.

It must be recalled that the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973, supposedly guaranteeing 'free elections' in the south and offering political 'cover and concealment' for withdrawal of US military forces from the south. Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho shared the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, no less, for this treaty, despite the fact that it was sheer hypocrisy.

This is also the basis for denying that this is a legitimate war - a war with any foreseeable end- Since there's absolutely no recognizable state authority left that can be said to represent the 'enemy,' there cannot be a basis for legitimate 'war' or any hope for an identifiable end to the 'war.'

The best that might be argued for the ISG report is that it offers a very thin fig leaf for the neocons/Bushies to withdraw our military from a country which should have NEVER been invaded in the first place. But it's nowhere near adequate to be called "Peace With Honor" ... since whatever "honor" the US had was totally and completely eradicated when we invaded.

[wtmusic]

1. In essence they are the same

The administration will sign a treaty with the state they've created, legit or not, and the scapegoat for the approaching bloodbath in Iraq will likely be the Iraqi people themselves.