Thursday, October 27, 2005
Iraq is not Vietnam, no matter how much the left says so
So I was reading the front pages of a few major national newspapers this week, and almost all of them focused on the 2000 deaths in the war in Iraq. Most newspapers, either in the main body or in their opinion pieces, warned that Iraq could turn into "Another Vietnam."
And then I recieved my Newsweek and on the last page was an article by Anna Quindlen warning us that "[T]he war in Iraq is a disaster in the image and likeness of its predecessor."
Well, I don't want to correct Quindlen's chronology but we were in Panama, Kosovo, Iraq & Afghanistan between Vietnam and this current war. But, I'm getting off topic. Let me point out a few major difference in the two wars:
(1) we would have to continue in Iraq for over 50 years at this rate to reach the death toll of Vietnam.
(2) Obviously our soldiers would rather not go to war, and when they do they want to come home. No kidding, I recommend anyone who wants to deal with the conflict of a healthy mind in war should read Catch-22 and leave the rest of us alone. Because, it is only human nature to not want a war, and its human nature to miss your family. But, let me remind you, this is a volunteer military, we have not "drafted" one combatant for this war.
(3) do not try to compare Lyndon J to George W. At least the current president told the American people that this would be a long, difficult WAR. He is not trying to sugarcoat the war by calling it a CONFLICT. I remember watching him on TV after the quick fall of Baghdad when the president said the invasion was a victory, but the job was not done.
(4) President Bush is committed to letting the military run the war. Say what you will about the cabinet and Bush's advisors; at least we don't have a former business man making all the decisions, and stressing over "confirmed kills," and running the war like a sales spreadsheet (McNamara).
The only way in which Vietnam and Iraq are similar is in the slanted perspective the American public gets beamed to them on television every day.
Let me refresh the memories of some of our reporters. Remember the Tet Offensive? It was that massive attack by the North Vietnamese against almost every major US stronghold. In case you don't remember, the US held their ground and the Tet Offensive was a tactical defeat for the North. But in the US newspapers, the offensive was a strategic victory for the North. All of the negative-US press the offensive received helped turn the tide of public opinion. Well, in this regard Quindlen and all of her fellow journalists have one thing correct: Iraq is like Vietnam, in the horribly biased press the American people are receiving. What about the schools we are building? What about the electric, water, sewer the troops are building. What about the growing rights of women in Iraq. What about the success of getting such a culturally diverse state like Iraq to ratify a Constitution?
Well, I guess people are allowed to believe what they want. I just recently saw John Kerry talking about the US exit strategy for Iraq, he must still believe he won the election and that we care what he has to say. I know a lot of people still have Kerry '04 bumper-stickers, I guess they have a right to live in a state of denial too. But, for those who do live in reality, and those who do realize the importance of a "free and independent" Iraq, those people must not believe the dooms day predictions in the news.
Yes, even 1 death is too many. But this is a war, and to quote Patton, "Soldiers die." The question is not, "Will another soldier die?" Becasue I can tell you the answer is, "Yes." The real question is, "Will their deaths be in vain?" That I can not answer. Stay the course, make it happen, believe in the cause and the answer will be, "No, our soldiers will not die in vain." Listen to the negative press that wants us to pull out and leave Iraq to civil-war, sandwiched between an Isreali hot-zone and a time-bomb in Iran and the answer may be, "Yes." You decide.
And then I recieved my Newsweek and on the last page was an article by Anna Quindlen warning us that "[T]he war in Iraq is a disaster in the image and likeness of its predecessor."
Well, I don't want to correct Quindlen's chronology but we were in Panama, Kosovo, Iraq & Afghanistan between Vietnam and this current war. But, I'm getting off topic. Let me point out a few major difference in the two wars:
(1) we would have to continue in Iraq for over 50 years at this rate to reach the death toll of Vietnam.
(2) Obviously our soldiers would rather not go to war, and when they do they want to come home. No kidding, I recommend anyone who wants to deal with the conflict of a healthy mind in war should read Catch-22 and leave the rest of us alone. Because, it is only human nature to not want a war, and its human nature to miss your family. But, let me remind you, this is a volunteer military, we have not "drafted" one combatant for this war.
(3) do not try to compare Lyndon J to George W. At least the current president told the American people that this would be a long, difficult WAR. He is not trying to sugarcoat the war by calling it a CONFLICT. I remember watching him on TV after the quick fall of Baghdad when the president said the invasion was a victory, but the job was not done.
(4) President Bush is committed to letting the military run the war. Say what you will about the cabinet and Bush's advisors; at least we don't have a former business man making all the decisions, and stressing over "confirmed kills," and running the war like a sales spreadsheet (McNamara).
The only way in which Vietnam and Iraq are similar is in the slanted perspective the American public gets beamed to them on television every day.
Let me refresh the memories of some of our reporters. Remember the Tet Offensive? It was that massive attack by the North Vietnamese against almost every major US stronghold. In case you don't remember, the US held their ground and the Tet Offensive was a tactical defeat for the North. But in the US newspapers, the offensive was a strategic victory for the North. All of the negative-US press the offensive received helped turn the tide of public opinion. Well, in this regard Quindlen and all of her fellow journalists have one thing correct: Iraq is like Vietnam, in the horribly biased press the American people are receiving. What about the schools we are building? What about the electric, water, sewer the troops are building. What about the growing rights of women in Iraq. What about the success of getting such a culturally diverse state like Iraq to ratify a Constitution?
Well, I guess people are allowed to believe what they want. I just recently saw John Kerry talking about the US exit strategy for Iraq, he must still believe he won the election and that we care what he has to say. I know a lot of people still have Kerry '04 bumper-stickers, I guess they have a right to live in a state of denial too. But, for those who do live in reality, and those who do realize the importance of a "free and independent" Iraq, those people must not believe the dooms day predictions in the news.
Yes, even 1 death is too many. But this is a war, and to quote Patton, "Soldiers die." The question is not, "Will another soldier die?" Becasue I can tell you the answer is, "Yes." The real question is, "Will their deaths be in vain?" That I can not answer. Stay the course, make it happen, believe in the cause and the answer will be, "No, our soldiers will not die in vain." Listen to the negative press that wants us to pull out and leave Iraq to civil-war, sandwiched between an Isreali hot-zone and a time-bomb in Iran and the answer may be, "Yes." You decide.
