Hat tip to Michelle Malkin and her reader who sent it in.
Some times a picture sums up the whole struggle.
Hat tip to Michelle Malkin and her reader who sent it in.
Some times a picture sums up the whole struggle.
According to Max Boot:
The problem with Mr. Bush’s Vietnam analogy is not that it is inaccurate, but that it is incomplete. As he noted, “The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech.” If he chooses to return to the subject in future speeches, there are some other parallels he could invoke:
The danger of prematurely dumping allied leaders.
In the early 1960s, American officials were frustrated with Ngo Dinh Diem, and in 1963 the Kennedy administration sanctioned a coup against him, in the hope of installing more effective leadership in Saigon. The result was the opposite: a succession of weak leaders who spent most of their time plotting to stay in power. In retrospect it’s obvious that, for all his faults, we should have stuck with Diem.
The danger of winning militarily and losing politically.
In 1968, after Gen. Creighton Abrams took over as the senior U.S. military commander in South Vietnam, he began to change the emphasis from the kind of big-unit search-and-destroy tactics that Gen. William Westmoreland had favored, to the sort of population-protection strategy more appropriate for a counterinsurgency. Over the next four years, even as the total number of American combat troops declined, the communists lost ground.
The danger of allowing enemy sanctuaries across the border.
This a parallel that Mr. Bush might not be so eager to cite, because in many ways he is repeating the mistakes of Lyndon Johnson, who allowed communist forces to use safe rear areas in Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam to stage attacks into South Vietnam. No matter how much success American and South Vietnamese forces had, there were always fresh troops and supplies being smuggled over the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
The danger of not making plans for refugees.
One of the great stains on American honor in Indochina was the horrible
fate suffered by so many Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who put their trust in us. When the end came we left far too many of them in the lurch, consigning them to prison, death or desperate attempts to escape.
This does not, of course, exhaust the possible analogies between Iraq and Vietnam. Nor is it meant to suggest the parallels are exact; there are in fact substantial differences. Any historical comparison has to be handled with care and not swallowed whole. But there are important lessons to be learned from our Vietnam experience, and as President Bush noted, they are not necessarily the ones drawn by the doves who have made Vietnam “their” war.
Mark Davis writes Want to Lose War in Iraq? Study Vietnam.
As painful as it was to watch the Vietnamese we abandoned rushing to cling to
the last helicopters out in 1975, at least we did not face the threat of an empowered enemy following us back to our shores to continue attacking us.We face that threat now. Political enemies of the war in Iraq seem to have forgotten how to win, but their strategy for losing is ripped right from the pages of how we lost three decades ago.
. . . .
We can find ways to duck the blame for the consequences of choosing to lose in Southeast Asia. It will not be as easy to spin an intentional loss in Iraq, where an energized enemy will not be satisfied with limiting its killing to the immediate area.
The current U.S. surge in Iraq may succeed enough to create new reserves of patience in a country once again tempted to give up. But even if it does not, we would do well to remember that the people we are fighting today want to follow us home.
More ->