|
To be fair, if I'm going to say that the WWII references annoy me, then one would think that the Vietnam references would too.
On a gut level, I can see the Nam connection much more, and the WWII comparisons seem like a pathetic chickenhawk wet dream. Like they're playing soldier.
But it occurs to me that Iraq is neither Europe nor Vietnam. Some would argue that there is no real threat from terrorism just as folks argued against the Domino Theory and the threat of Communism, saying it was no reason to go to war.
While I don't think Iraq even had much to do WITH terrorism per se, I think that international crime, of which terrorism is a part, is a problem that will not be solved by us merely leaving all the places that the terrorists say they don't want us.
Iraq was NOT a terrorism problem before. It is now, because of us. Will it stop if we leave. We won't know until we leave. What will happen to those who were on our side? Who are the insurgents? I wish we could get more actual news out of Iraq so I could answer some of those questions.
Okay I'm rambling, but do you kinda see what I mean? Iraq is not WWII. Iraq is not Vietnam. Iraq is Iraq, and needs to be thought about in terms of itself, not some other war.
It seems like an oversimplifcation to put either a WWII mask or a Vietnam mask on the thing.
Discuss.
|