So how's that Iraq war working out?

WAW · Post by **WAW** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:46 pm

How we doing

knob · Post by **knob** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:31 pm

44-17 at half time.

Gebeker · Post by **Gebeker** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:59 am

Before the war, I made a lot of posts on Gone Gold that poo-pooed the notion that Iraq might become another Vietnam. Now, I fear that I may have been wrong.

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:35 am

Gebeker wrote:Before the war, I made a lot of posts on Gone Gold that poo-pooed the notion that Iraq might become another Vietnam. Now, I fear that I may have been wrong.

9 years and 55,000 deaths to go. Your skeptical powers are weak, old man.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:48 am

Been there.Done that.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:45 pm

Tareeq wrote:
Gebeker wrote:Before the war, I made a lot of posts on Gone Gold that poo-pooed the notion that Iraq might become another Vietnam. Now, I fear that I may have been wrong.
9 years and 55,000 deaths to go. Your skeptical powers are weak, old man.

"Vietnam" in the sense of bogged down with no end in sight, and no real means of victory. Obviously casualties are lower (I've seen stories about how American fatalities would be many times higher without all of the medical breakthroughs of the past thirty years), but equally pointless.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:06 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:
Tareeq wrote:
Gebeker wrote:Before the war, I made a lot of posts on Gone Gold that poo-pooed the notion that Iraq might become another Vietnam. Now, I fear that I may have been wrong.
9 years and 55,000 deaths to go. Your skeptical powers are weak, old man.
"Vietnam" in the sense of bogged down with no end in sight, and no real means of victory. Obviously casualties are lower (I've seen stories about how American fatalities would be many times higher without all of the medical breakthroughs of the past thirty years), but equally pointless.

Don't forget low-weight ceramic body armor and better urban tactics.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:16 pm

I think we're all getting a little bored with Iraq. We will probably declare victory and bring home most of the troops after the January elections, whenever they are eventually held.

The Emperor · Post by **The Emperor** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:04 pm

I think we're all getting a little bored with Iraq. We will probably declare victory and bring home most of the troops after the January elections, whenever they are eventually held.

Joe: Look out, we've got terrorist aircraft!

Terrorist 1: Die dirka dirka!

Terrorist 2: Hak Mohammed Ali!

Spottswoode: There's only five of them, team, this should be easy.

Lisa: I've got Korean aircraft at one O'clock!

Sarah: What are they doing here?

Korean pilot: Feng ping-pong!

Kim Jong-Il: Shoot them down, rike dogs!

Solution: Bring in the submarines!

Gebeker · Post by **Gebeker** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:29 am

The Mad Hatter wrote:
Tareeq wrote:
Gebeker wrote:Before the war, I made a lot of posts on Gone Gold that poo-pooed the notion that Iraq might become another Vietnam. Now, I fear that I may have been wrong.
9 years and 55,000 deaths to go. Your skeptical powers are weak, old man.
"Vietnam" in the sense of bogged down with no end in sight, and no real means of victory. Obviously casualties are lower (I've seen stories about how American fatalities would be many times higher without all of the medical breakthroughs of the past thirty years), but equally pointless.

Yes, that's what I meant.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:03 pm

All I know is that after the Nov 2 elections, it sure seemed like we took some gloves off and started beating some insurgent ass. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but it sure seems like it had some effect on the daily "Iraqi insurgents blew up more people" reports.

In any case - Geb, comparing this to Vietnam is ridiculous. Don't make me make a new companion to Godwin or RM9's laws.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:20 pm

I don't have any facts but I suspect the percentage of active troops involved,either direct or indirectly,in Iraq is a much higher percentage than was "invested" in VietNam.
There are many more differences than similarities between the two but it's still a case of "don't get involved in a land war in Asia".

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:44 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but it sure seems like it had some effect on the daily "Iraqi insurgents blew up more people" reports.

You haven't been paying attention.

WAW · Post by **WAW** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:49 pm

Iraq is not Vietnam

Not that it matters as regards to a faith-based foreign policy endorsed by people with real values, unlike those snobby upper-West Side liberal latte swirlers who are ruining everything everywhere, but I read this story and this story and being a faith-based Real American myself, I was naturally inspired to consider all of the various ways in which this war differs from the one we fought in Vietnam. (Sorry I was not up to finding links for the rest, but I imagine they’re not too hard to find.)

Unlike Vietnam, our allies are treating the local populace well and are fighting effectively.

Unlike Vietnam, our troops are not torturing anyone or committing any atrocities anywhere.

Unlike Vietnam, our allies are committed to democracy, and are capable and experienced in carrying it out.

Unlike Vietnam, we are backing strong, independent leaders, rather than quislings and puppets whose power base rests with our military forces and economic support.

Unlike Vietnam, we are beloved by the people we are saving.

Unlike Vietnam, our president and his cabinet officers are leveling with the nation about the costs of victory and likelihood of defeat.

Unlike Vietnam, we have the support of the international community.

Unlike Vietnam, it is particularly popular in the region where the war is being fought, and among the alleged audience abroad we seek to impress with our wisdom and resolve.

Unlike Vietnam, our actions are not inspiring anyone to take up arms against us and thereby increase the level of threat we face.

Unlike Vietnam, dissenters within the government, particularly those with expertise in the history and culture of the people we seek to govern, are being heard with care and respect for their views.

Unlike Vietnam, this is also true for experts in academia and with direct experience in these nations.

Unlike Vietnam, our wise leaders have a clear idea of the cultures into which we have inserted ourselves.

Unlike Vietnam, we are not asking the poorest and least well-connected among us to the fighting and dying.

Unlike Vietnam, our troops are well-trained for their well-defined mission, (a particularly hearty congratulations goes to Colin Powell for so effectively preventing the same kind of abuse of grunts he witnessed in Vietnam).

Unlike Vietnam, our civilian leaders are taking seriously warnings and advice of more experienced military leaders.

Unlike Vietnam, those who point out problems with the present course are not being sullied as “counsels of despair and defeat,” and giving “aid and comfort to the enemy.”

Unlike Vietnam, we have the whole thing well-planned out.

Unlike Vietnam, this is a necessary war against an enemy that had the will and capacity to threaten our lives at home.

I could go on, but you’ll have to take the rest… on faith.

(Author’s P.S. To ed: Please save a version of this column, and we’ll do a “control H” on “Iran” for “Iraq” when that war becomes nothing like Vietnam.)

Eric Alterman's Blog. To be fair all Colonial wars run like this. They all end the same way too.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:09 pm

You'll have a hard time convincing me that this is "another Viet Nam" beyond the idea that we have a president committing us half assed to an enduring war that makes very little sense.

The point of comparing the two seems to be 1) that Iraq is quagmire and 2) that the American body count is insanely high. Neither appears to be the case, yet.

I don't think we should have gone, but as far as going to war goes, the body count and timeframe are still small.

WAW · Post by **WAW** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:20 pm

LordMortis wrote:You'll have a hard time convincing me that this is "another Viet Nam" beyond the idea that we have a president committing us half assed to an enduring war that makes very little sense.

The point of comparing the two seems to be 1) that Iraq is quagmire and 2) that the American body count is insanely high. Neither appears to be the case, yet.

I don't think we should have gone, but as far as going to war goes, the body count and timeframe are still small.

Just wondering how many mothers having their hearts broken before it's a tragedy?Come on ball park it. And when did Vietnam become the gold standard for casualtys? They weren't all that high by Civil war standards.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:56 pm

Just wondering how many mothers having their hearts broken before it's a tragedy?Come on ball park it. And when did Vietnam become the gold standard for casualtys? They weren't all that high by Civil war standards.

I don't think that when people compare Viet Nam to Iraq that they are saying that are talking about mother's broken hearts explicitly. The images (and that is what they appear to want to conjure is images) are images of quagmire and of huge amounts of US dead, as a secondary note they seem to actually consider the indigenous peoples. People like to lob the Viet Nam grenade for give a powerful negative imagery of a lot of casualties and of a huge amount of time. Quagmire is the term that always seems to follow Viet Nam when talking about Iraq. Conjuring the same images. Nothing about justice not being served, nor the deaths of innocents, nor even even our single instances of our mother's babies dying on another soil.

If another Viet Nam compared to Iraq to you means the tradgedy of mothers with borken hearts in a way that is unacceptable for any casualties, then why not compare it to military excercizes, or our war for Independence?

Yog-Sothoth · Post by **Yog-Sothoth** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:19 pm

Iraq is not like Vietnam; there are similarities and differences:

Similarities:
US is fighting a guerilla war
US forces are technologically far superior
Iraqi rebel forces are well-provisioned for the type of warfare they employ
Iraqi rebel forces seem to have a coherent strategy
Iraqi government is weak and is a puppet in the eyes of most of the populace
US commitments to the theatre are large and limit our capabilities elsewhere
Media coverage is a huge factor

Differences:
US loss rates are much lower than in Vietnam
Iraq has three major factions (Sunni/Shiite/Kurd) with different goals and local militias
Religion is a major factor, as are religious factions
Iraqi events have a larger effect on regional politics
Events in Iraq are moving faster than they did in Vietnam
The Mid-East is far more strategic than Vietnam

From a "war is politics by other means" viewpoint the fact that Vietnam cost us more lives is irrelevant. Since Iraq is part of the most strategic part of the world a win or loss there will have far larger consequences than Vietnam. It's too bad that the war/occupation have been so badly bungled.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:47 pm

WAW wrote:
Iraq is not Vietnam

The whole "Is it Vietnam or not?" thing is so much cheap political point scoring which I'm not all that interested in, but I gotta take issue iwith this quote. Some of this stuff is questionable at best:

Unlike Vietnam, our allies are treating the local populace well and are fighting effectively.

Debateable. Effectively by what measure, exactly?

Unlike Vietnam, our troops are not torturing anyone or committing any atrocities anywhere.

Highly suspect, even if you place Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib aside as not being the responisbility of "our troops".

Unlike Vietnam, we are beloved by the people we are saving.

You really aren't. On the whole Iraqi's are galad that Saddam is gone but are far, far , far from loving the occupation.

Unlike Vietnam, we have the support of the international community.

Laughably wrong.

Unlike Vietnam, it is particularly popular in the region where the war is being fought, and among the alleged audience abroad we seek to impress with our wisdom and resolve.

Really? I'm not really seeing the love for the Iraq war anywhere...

Unlike Vietnam, our actions are not inspiring anyone to take up arms against us and thereby increase the level of threat we face.

Erm, insurgents anyone?

Unlike Vietnam, dissenters within the government, particularly those with expertise in the history and culture of the people we seek to govern, are being heard with care and respect for their views.

I'm pretty sure the only major dissenter in the Bush admin just resigned, but oh well.

Unlike Vietnam, this is also true for experts in academia and with direct experience in these nations.

I'll pass on this one....

Unlike Vietnam, our wise leaders have a clear idea of the cultures into which we have inserted ourselves.

And with that I quit reading. WAW, did you even read this before you posted it? Some of it's directly out of date (Powell etc.), and it reads like a puff piece rather than a statement of the facts. And don't get me started on the whole Real American business.

Urgh, I feel dirty.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:52 pm

I may be wrong but I took the article to be satirical.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:52 pm

Padre wrote:
And with that I quit reading. WAW, did you even read this before you posted it? Some of it's directly out of date (Powell etc.), and it reads like a puff piece rather than a statement of the facts. And don't get me started on the whole Real American business.

Urgh, I feel dirty.

I think you missed something in WAW's post.

Padre · Post by **Padre** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:09 am

The Mad Hatter wrote:
Padre wrote:
And with that I quit reading. WAW, did you even read this before you posted it? Some of it's directly out of date (Powell etc.), and it reads like a puff piece rather than a statement of the facts. And don't get me started on the whole Real American business.

Urgh, I feel dirty.
I think you missed something in WAW's post.

Well, oops

If it was intended to be satire, disregard my post above. SOrry. Bit ill at the moment...

Anyway, carry on.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:56 am

Ironrod wrote:I think we're all getting a little bored with Iraq. We will probably declare victory and bring home most of the troops after the January elections, whenever they are eventually held.

Why are you so cynical? Why, it's clear that Iraq will be completely free of tyranny and despotism, the way that Pakistan already is!

One of the interesting lessons that the world can look at is Pakistan. You see, there are some in the world who do not believe that a Muslim society can self-govern. Some believe that the only solution for government in parts of the world is for there to be tyranny or despotism. I don't believe that. The Pakistan people have proven that those cynics are wrong.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=40343

Gebeker · Post by **Gebeker** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:08 am

I think some of you are taking the phrase "like another Vietnam" a little too literally. I thought that everyone recognized "another Vietnam" as just a cliche, but I guess not. When someone says that he/she fears that a particular war might become "another Vietnam", all they mean is that they fear that the war might become:

1. Another war in which a vastly superior Ameican military fights a seemingly endless supply of weaker, but determined guerillas.

2. Another quagmire.

3. Another war that we will eventually pull out of, and which will be remembered as a failure.

4. Another war in which the locals, by and large, hate us.

Edited to correct one horribly worded sentence

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:45 am

Ain't looking so good.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:23 am

Nade wrote:
Ironrod wrote:I think we're all getting a little bored with Iraq. We will probably declare victory and bring home most of the troops after the January elections, whenever they are eventually held.
Why are you so cynical? Why, it's clear that Iraq will be completely free of tyranny and despotism, the way that Pakistan already is!

One of the interesting lessons that the world can look at is Pakistan. You see, there are some in the world who do not believe that a Muslim society can self-govern. Some believe that the only solution for government in parts of the world is for there to be tyranny or despotism. I don't believe that. The Pakistan people have proven that those cynics are wrong.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=40343

God, did Bush actually say that? Maybe he forgot that Musharraf took power in a military coup against a democratically elected government, and has since rigged elections and referendums to stay there. Maybe he never knew.