a recent article in the Boston Globe suggested that the Democratic Party may be unifying around the "Korb" plan; let's hope that's not the case ... the Korb plan calls for two more years of war and occupation in Iraq ... it says that most US troops should be out of Iraq by the end of 2007 ...
in the article below, Lieutenant General William Odom gives us a great history lesson that we best not ignore ... Odom draws a remarkable parallel between the unfolding of events in Iraq and the history of US involvement in Vietnam ... the comparisons he draws are truly startling ... Democrats, who have proposed a wide variety of approaches to Iraq, have failed with the most critical issue of all: even if tactical objectives were to be met, and they won't be, we will be left with a pro-Iranian government that will work against US interests ... the problem Democrats have thus far refused to recognize is that even if we succeed, we fail ... and it is nothing short of a naive pipedream to believe that "Iraqization" is going to succeed ... all the troop training Democrats have put so much faith in will produce one of two results: either we will fail to sufficiently train a sufficient number of troops OR once trained, the leaders of those troops will turn on each other in a struggle for power (this is what happened in Vietnam) ...
Clark, Clinton, Dean, Kerry and other prominent Democrats are wrong about their current policy ideas ... Odom has it right; even if we succeed we lose ... it's time to stop talking about how to achieve things in Iraq and start talking about getting out of Iraq as quickly as our own troop safety permits ... all other courses are pure folly ...
here are a couple of key excerpts from Odom's article ... to really understand his message though, you really should read his entire essay ...
source:
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0078The Vietnam War experience can’t tell us anything about the war in Iraq – or so it is said. If you believe that, trying looking through this lens, and you may change your mind. The Vietnam War had three phases. The War in Iraq has already completed an analogous first phase, is approaching the end of the second phase, and shows signs of entering the third.
Phase One ... began with hesitation and a gross misreading of American strategic interests. It concluded with the U.S.
use of phony intelligence that made it seem that North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf without provocation. <skip>
Iran had serious scores to settle with Iraq. In 1980, Saddam Hussein launched a bloody war that dragged on until 1988 without a decisive end.
That President Bush would destroy Saddam's regime, saving Iran the trouble, was probably beyond its clerics’ wildest dreams. He did the same for al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden must have been ecstatic. The U.S. invasion opened the way for al Qaeda cadres to enter Iraq by the scores.Phase Two in Vietnam was marked by a refusal to reconsider the war’s “strategic” rationale. Rather, debate focused only on “tactical” issues as the war went sour. By 1965 things had begun going badly for U.S. military operations. By the end of March 1968, public opinion was turning against the war and Johnson chose not to run for re-election. His own party in Congress was breaking with him, and the pro-war New York Times reversed itself that summer.
During this phase, no major leader or opinion maker in the United States dared revisit the key strategic judgment: did the U.S. war aim of containing China make sense? Instead, debate focused on how the war was being fought: on search-and-destroy operations, on body counts, and pacification efforts.
This obsession with tactical issues made it easier to ignore the strategic error. As time passed, costs went up, casualties increased, and public support fell. We could not afford to “cut and run,” it was argued. “The Viet Cong would carry out an awful blood-letting.” Supporters of the war expected no honest answer when they asked
“How can we get out?” Eventually Senator Aiken of Vermont gave them one: “In boats.” <skip>
Phase Three in Vietnam was marked by “Vietnamization” and “make-believe diplomacy” in Paris, policies still ignoring the strategic realities at the war’s beginning. <skip>
Phase Three in Iraq is only beginning. Early signs were apparent in the presidential election campaign of 2004.
Both Bush and Kerry put full confidence in “Iraqization.” U.S. forces will “stand down” as Iraqi forces “stand up.” They differed only on who could train more Iraqis faster. <skip>
In Iraq, we watch U.S.-led make-believe diplomacy negotiating a constitutional deal among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Should we believe that the Iraqi Shiites, a majority of the population with the trauma of Saddam’s bloody repressions burned into their memories, will settle for less than full control? And why should we expect the Kurds to surrender their decade-old autonomy after suffering no less bloody repressions than did the Shiites? And why should we expect Sunnis to trust a Shiite-Kurdish regime not to take revenge against them for Saddam’s crimes? And why would Iran and Syria be willing to abandon support for their co-religionists in Iraq in order to strike a peace deal favorable to the United States? <skip>
The difference lies in the consequences.
Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already having. On this point, those who deny the Vietnam-Iraq analogy are probably right.
They are wrong, however, in believing that “staying the course” will have any result other than making the damage to U.S. power far greater than changing course and withdrawing sooner in as orderly a fashion as possible.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
