bullwinkle

As it is said that those who don't know/heed history are bound to repeat it, I was thinking about the similarities between the Vietnam "conflict" and the present Iraqi situation and the stances the respective administration took/are taking:

Vietnam: Gulf of Tonkin resolution (bogus charge to justify escalation of US involvment.
Iraq: phantom WMDs, bogus "tie" to 9/11 and ........... (guess we'll wait and see what else).

Vietnam: if we don't fight 'em there, we'll have to fight 'em on our shores
Iraq: if we don't fight 'em there, we'll have to fight 'em on our shores

Vietnam: we are in a world struggle against the spread of communism
Iraq: we are in a world struggle against the spread of terrorism

Vietnam: we are winning the war
Iraq: we are winning the war

Vietnam: no exit strategy (although Nixon had a secret plan-trouble is he never told anyone the secret)
Iraq: no exit strategy (Bush doesn't even bother)

Vietnam: If Vietnam falls, then so shall the rest of Indo-china
Iraq: If democracy is established in Iraq, the rest of the middle-east will...?

Vietnam: If we withdraw and fail our ally, no ally will trust us
Iraq: If we withdraw and fail our ally, no ally will trust us

Vietnam: We must stay the course and honor those that have fallen (i.e allow more to die to justify those that have died)
Iraq: We must stay the course and honor those that have fallen (i.e allow more to die to justify those that have died)

Vietnam: No administration tolerance for dissent
Iraq: No administration tolerance for dissent

Vietnam: vastly different local culture and religion of which US admin has little understanding
Iraq: vastly different local culture and religion of which US admin has little understanding

Vietnam: must bring democracy and impose our views on this otherwise civil war. Then those commies will be defeated.
Iraq: must bring democracy and impose our views (on what is now) otherwise a civil war. Then those terrorists will be defeated.


The one vast difference I can see is that in the Vietnam era the media ultimately played out the conflict in our living rooms body bag by body bag until Walter Cronkite finally stepped up to ask what the heck is going on here. Today's media, at least until recently, just keeps showing "W" in his Member's Only flight jacket-"Mission Accomplished" and Sean Hannity actually still gets air time.

Susantm

Interesting comparison, bullwinkle. One difference I see is that we kind of slipped into Vietnam bit by bit, with only a few warning voices at the start. (Although I couldn't say for sure, as I was pretty little when it started...) With Iraq there were a lot of warning voices ahead of time that were ignored and shoved aside and called unpatriotic. Many of those voices were people who actually DID learn from Vietnam, unlike most of this administration that managed to avoid that war.

digmedia

I think the BIG difference is the draft. In Viet Nam, we had soldiers that did not want to be in the military. Those in Iraq chose the military. It makes a difference in 2 ways: First, the soldiers in the field are not - in general - blaming their own government for the situation; Second, those not in danger of being drafted are not as motivated to protest (don't have to be confronted with the situation).

TheDad

Actually, Digi, a lot of guys serving in Iraq *are* blaming the government but mostly doing it quietly, the "Don't let the team down" ethos ground in to the point of misapplication.

But so far, seven Iraq veterans are running for national office, all against Bush's Iraq policy, all Democrats...the Republicans, like Dick Cheney during Vietnam, must have other priorities.

Paul Hackett, running for the U.S. Senate in Ohio, called Bush a liar, a sonofa*****, and a chickenhawk during his narrow loss in a off-year Congressional campaign...the Marine major can hit a target.

Also running for the House are Eric Massa (NY-29), a naval officer with 24 years experience; Patrick Murphy (PA-8), Army captain, Bronze Star recipient, and former West Point professor; Bryan Lentz (PA-7), another Army captain who earned a Bronze Star; David Ashe (VA-2), a USMC Reserve captain; Andrew Dick (MD-6), a mustang who worked his way from private to captain; and Tim Walz (MN-1), a Command Sergeant Major and 23-year veteran of the National Guard.

Also believed to be close to entering is Tammy Duckworth (IL-6), a major in the Illinois National Guard and Blackhawk pilot who lost both legs to an RPG.

Limbaugh made the mistake of calling Hackett a "staff puke" and got his head handed to him. No Swift Boating 20 years after the fact with this crew.

weenie

thedad:

The "swift boating" of Kerry; the prominence of all the non-veterans in office now (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Rove, Wolfowitz); and the very poor support the American people have allowed the Republican Congress to give the vets, makes me believe that the public likes to give lip-service to respecting veterans, but, in fact, doesn't really respect them any more than the next guy (and, unbelievably, apparently less if they are Vietnam vets).

Here is a definition I like:

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

The chickenhawk web site is good. http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/

I think if we had veterans in office, perhaps things would have been looked at differently at the start of Iraq, and perhaps the direction throughout the war would have been different.

fundingfather

Interesting definition of Chickenhawk. I guess that two American presidents with large monuments in Washington qualify as Chickenhawks: Lincoln and Roosevelt.

dstark

Here is another similarity. The same people kissing Bush's behind would have kissed Nixon's.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/...ion=cnn_latest

weenie

fundingfather:
I've never heard either Lincoln or Roosevelt quoted with "bring it on." Neither seemed particularly "enthusiastic" about America having to fight those dreadful wars.

fundingfather

Roosevelt was long known to have been trying to get the US to be involved with the war but was up against a congress and nation that was extremely isolationist.

A single quote does not equate to enthusiasm for war. You mistake a feeling of necessity for war with "enthusiasm". If you look at the quotes from the various Dems that supported the war you could also accuse them of being "enthusiastic" for war - but you won't because they are not Republicans and politics appears to trump national security in your book.

weenie

1. I do not in any way excuse the Democrats who rushed into approving this war. They did it for political reasons - their own fear of being called weak in the face of terrorism. Sending other people's loved ones to fight a war for political reasons is wrong no matter what party you belong to.


2. Roosevelt is a poor example, since he had no "ample opportunity in that person’s youth" to fight in a war. Well, perhaps he could have served from a wheelchair somehow, I don't know.


3. Nothing trumps national security in my book. Unfortunately, I apparently have a different opinion of what would lead us to be a more secure nation. An world-wide unpopular war, based on lies and misrepresentations, waged against a non-threatening, unarmed country, that is now producing and rallying terrorists at a terrifying rate, does not make me feek safe. Having departments of our country's critical homeland security run by cronies and acting as nothing more than a pork-divying-out machine does not make me safe. A country that bleeds jobs and money to China does not increase our security. Having foreign powers holding such an enormous portion of our huge debt does not make us secure. An administration that tortures in the face of world wide disapproval does not enhance our security (and especially does not enhance the security of our troops). A world where we have lost the critical respect and trust of our allies does not make our country safer. The FBI spying on ordinary citizens (Washington Post: "the number of "national security letters" -- a kind of administrative subpoena used by the FBI to obtain normally private records -- has exploded since the passage of the Patriot Act and now reaches 30,000 per year") absolutely does not make me feel safer. Having a congress which refuses to secure our borders in order to provide cheap labor to wealthy Americans and campaign-financing corporations does not make us secure. A cowboy president propped up by a corrupt, lying, and self-serving regime does not make our country secure - in fact, it makes us sitting ducks.

Gee, come to think of it, I can't think of ONE thing the Bush administration has done which could be seen as improving our national security.

Can you?

dstark

He cut taxes with most of the money going to the top 1% of income earners. This gave us security from a huge federal government. Oh wait, he didn't shrink the government. Nevermind.

barrons

Something is working--no incidents since 9/11 in the US. Strong economy since 2003 or so. Most US crime rates are near all time lows. Housing values at all time high. Things are not that bad overall.

dstark

We have borrowed our way to prosperity.

coureur

>>Interesting definition of Chickenhawk. I guess that two American presidents with large monuments in Washington qualify as Chickenhawks: Lincoln and Roosevelt.<<

How does Lincoln fit the definition? As a young man, Abraham Lincoln served in the US Army and fought in the Blackhawk War.

TheDad

Barrons, roughly 2/3 of the country disagrees with your cheery assessment based on right track/wrong track numbers.