Iraq War Still Being Compared To Vietnam

[lligrd]

Iraq war still being compared to Vietnam By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
45 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Another Vietnam? Defenders of President Bush's Iraq war policy have long shrugged off such comparisons. But as the war heads toward the four-year mark and a newly empowered Democratic Congress takes aim at presidential spending for more troops, the comparisons are becoming more frequent.

Despite President Bush's State of the Union appeal for Congress to give his new war strategy a chance, congressional Democrats joined by some Republicans are forging ahead with a resolution opposing Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Congress has clear constitutional authority to declare war and set spending levels. Yet limiting troops or war spending has never been easy. In Vietnam, it took years.

<<snip>>

Other similarities:

_Both wars initially had majority support from Americans that evaporated as the war dragged on without clear-cut victories.

_Successive escalation by Presidents Johnson and Nixon were billed as setting the stage for victory, to be followed by "Vietnamization" in which South Vietnamese forces would stand up as U.S. forces stood down. Sounds like Bush's game plan for Iraq.

_Before a recent admission of mistakes, Bush had been consistently upbeat. So were Johnson and Nixon administration figures, going back to Gen. William Westmoreland's premature 1969 sighting of a "light at the end of the tunnel."

_Johnson called Vietnam War critics "nervous nellies." Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney accused Democrats of wanting to "cut and run," White House press secretary Tony Snow branded them "Defeatocrats."

_Just as Iraq is depicted as the central front in a global war against terrorism, Vietnam was portrayed as pivotal in a global war against communism.

"The way in which Iraq is similar to Vietnam is the profound effect this war is having on the military. We have the same problems winning a guerrilla war on the guerrilla's home turf," said Jon Alterman, director of Mideast programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

<<more>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070125/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_and_vietnam

[MADem]

1. What made Vietnam worse was the terrible numbers of dead

58 thousand of ours, and countless numbers of Vietnamese....if we don't get our asses in gear and get out of Iraq, though, we could see the same creeping mess all over again.

Better force protection exists in Iraq, too, to include the lousy body armor...but it should be better, having decades to improve on it.

Socially, though, Vietnam was a "better" war, affording more opportunities to interact with the local population. And not just the bars and working girls--the food, the culture, that kind of thing too. And drugs were easier to obtain, there were no drug tests, no PT tests, and less of the insistence on standards (which are slipping even in the AVF, but not the way they did in a draft military) of dress and appearance.

Of course, the truth of the matter is that all wars suck. Some simply suck worse than others.

[ShortnFiery]

2. Yes, but there would be thousands more dead without the great strides

in Emergency Medicine. However, be prepared for a delayed TRAGEDY as all the troops who have lost limbs or have endured traumatic brain injury end up homeless. :cry:

We may not have large numbers of dead troops, but we do have a valid, intense and immediate need to properly care for our DISABLED war veterans. Because, IMO, democrats believe in "the public good" not crony capitalism, measures will soon be taken put to support community programs,i.e., not just physical treatment facilities but shared community efforts. :thumbsup:

[MADem]

3. That's entirely true. Between the 'golden hour' advances and the body armor and

even simple things like kevlar helmets (you're more likely to wear that than a steel pot) and the hardened perimeters around the installations, lives are saved. But we don't do our servicemembers any favors when we try to get cheap with the military medical care.

There's going to be another assault on TRICARE this spring, and it's entirely likely that it will pass, it not being an election year. Those with the least are going to have to pay more and more for their "free" medical care that they were promised for life. I'm talking about those who come home and retire without any "apparent" injuries...but we know that a load of those guys will reveal their psychological wounds years later, as happened following Vietnam. It sucks.