Reply With Quote
way to support your country and their troops. you are a ing unpatriotic idiot.
Having never learned why we lost the Vietnam War, America is now losing another Asian war.
By Stewart Nusbaumer
With the proliferation of the Internet and the spread of political polarization, there has been an explosion of know-it-alls in America engulfing ambivalence and obliterating uncertainty. Everyone seems to know what America should and shouldn’t do, what will happen tomorrow and what won’t happen next year. And they know this with certainty.
Yet, those who claim the greatest certainty can be those possessing the least knowledge. It was the Neocons who insisted the Iraq War would be “quick and easy,” so it was they who couldn’t be bothered to plan for a protracted war. Now, approaching two years into a war that has no end in sight, Americans are becoming bothered there is no plan to win the war.
First we were told that when Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the fighting would stop. That was twenty-one months ago. Then, when Saddam Hussein the fugitive was captured, the insurgency would collapse. He was captured over twelve months ago. Then, when authority was transferred to the Iraqi government, the Iraqi military would take over the fighting. That was nearly ten months ago. Then, when Fallujah was occupied, the resistance would be defeated. The city was destroyed over two months ago, yet the insurgency is stronger than ever.
From defeating the Iraqi military to capturing Saddam Hussein to leveling to Iraqi control to Fallujah destruction, each promise has evaporated in a fresh pool of American blood.
Now desperately the U.S. is pinning its hope on Iraqi troops becoming the security forces and the January 30th election creating a credible local government. But Iraqization has shown itself to be an utter failure, as Vietnamization was an utter failure. And elections under the control of foreign occupiers never deter exploding resistance movements.
“There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations,” writes Major Isaiah Wilson, a former researcher for the Army’s Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group and later the chief war planner for the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq.
At Cornell University, discussing his study on the Iraq War, Major Wilson said: “U.S. military planners, prac ioners and the civilian leadership conceived of the war far too narrowly.” Scheduled to teach at the U.S. Military Academy next year, the historian and strategist believes that the top war-planners viewed the war too narrowly because they suffered from “stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt.”
“Stunted learning,” is generous, in my opinion, for those too hubristic to see that Iraq would not be “fast and easy.” Lots of us saw the war would be slow and bloody.
“Similar criticism has been made before,” writes Thomas Ricks in the Washington Post, “but until now [has] not been stated so authoritatively and publicly by a military insider positioned to be familiar with top-secret planning.”
The Roots of the Problem
“There was too much of an analogy with the occupation of Germany and Japan,” former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger complained to Wolf Blitzer on CNN. Henry Kissinger did not complain, however, that among those who planned the Iraq War, there was too little discussion of the Vietnam War, and how that past quagmire could be reproduced in Iraq. For Henry Kissinger and the Neocons of today the Vietnam War is forgotten history.
“Sir,” an email to me began:
As a Canadian I am totally puzzled why Americans never learn from their past mistakes, unless Americans cannot admit their mistakes. Has anyone in Washington come out publicly and said the Vietnam War was a mistake, beside the mothers who lost their sons and those who came home minus an arm or leg? What was that war all about anyway? To this day I still have not heard a satisfactory answer.
More than 58,000 Americans killed in a losing war against “a rag-tag 3rd rate military force,” as the Vietnamese resistance was often described, yet the post-war discussion in America was obscurant, distorted, and terribly short. Instead of a dialogue to understand why 58,000 Americans died in vain in Vietnam, Americans were witness to a vicious blame-game to obscure the reasons for these deaths. Instead of accountability, they got obfuscation; instead of truth, only scapegoats.
It was claimed that those long-haired antiwar demonstrations, “the war at home,” brought about our defeat in Vietnam. And that the press was complicit: the liberal press was defeatist, and this defeated our noble effort in Southeast Asia. And the politicians, those back-stabbing Washington politicians, they refused to allow our military to win the war.
In this post-war discussion in the 1970s, not blamed: were those who advocated the failed U.S. intervention in that far-off civil war; those who failed to design a strategy to counter the political and guerrilla war of the Vietnamese and those who hubristically ignored the fact that U.S. intervention would stimulate the great power of Vietnamese nationalism, which in the end defeated our internationalism, or if you prefer our imperialism.
It was irrelevant that the U.S. military won nearly every military battle, since we lost the psychological and strategic wars to the Vietnamese, to the North Vietnamese and to the Viet Cong, It was their country and they outlasted us in their country. Never underestimate the power of nationalism, even in this global world, to ignite “rag-tag armies.”
George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It is an old adage, yet one that applies to an arrogant nation that continues to overestimate its own power and underestimates the power of “rag-tag armies” seems incapable of learning.
Santayana, however, was too kind for German philosopher George Wilhelm Hegel. “What experience and history teach is this: that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles.”
As we look at the unfolding disaster in Iraq, we see that America never learned from the Vietnam War, including that it is unacceptable to commit troops to a war that was never thought through. For Hegel this is not principle, but a crime.
Back to Vietnam
The U.S. war planners underestimated the Iraqis’ will to resist and they underestimated the insurgents’ ability to develop a viable strategy. After “shock and awe” the resistance would surely be reduced to a “rag-tag resistance,” right? And the planners overestimated the U.S. military’s technology and firepower, which they always do. So twenty-one months into this war, the world’s most powerful military is stymied, unable to halt the expanding Iraqis insurgency and the rising number of American dead.
Those who planned this war knew as much about Iraq as those who planned the Vietnam War knew about Vietnam, which is why Iraq will end the same as Vietnam. For those of us who fought in Vietnam and reflected on that disastrous war, we knew America would be beaten in Iraq. Many Americans came to that conclusion without having served in Vietnam. But not the Bush Administration's Neocons, and not most Americans. For them the Vietnam War never happened.
If the nation had seriously reflected on the disaster of Vietnam, if more Americans had the courage and taken the time to learn the terrible lessons of that war, then today America would not be in Iraq. Americans never understood the jungle could grow in the desert, because they never understood the jungle in the jungle. Horror comes in many forms, but none is worse than a nation that refuses to learn and again sacrifices its patriots and its young.
The Canadian asked, “What was that war all about anyway?”
Major Wilson said, the Iraq War planners had “stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt.”
And now retired Army General Donald Shepperd, speaking on CNN, awakens the ghost of Vietnam in the war in Iraq, when he says: “It doesn’t look like there is light at the end of the tunnel.”
Yes, the Iraq tunnel is dark.
-------
Stewart Nusbaumer is editor of Intervention Magazine. He served with the U.S. Marine Corps in Vietnam on the DMZ. You can email him at [email protected]
way to support your country and their troops. you are a ing unpatriotic idiot.
the war was "quick and easy." the rebuilding is the hard part.
and nobody in the administration nor the military ever said any of these things...First we were told that when Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the fighting would stop. That was twenty-one months ago. Then, when Saddam Hussein the fugitive was captured, the insurgency would collapse. He was captured over twelve months ago. Then, when authority was transferred to the Iraqi government, the Iraqi military would take over the fighting. That was nearly ten months ago. Then, when Fallujah was occupied, the resistance would be defeated. The city was destroyed over two months ago, yet the insurgency is stronger than ever.
we didn't just fight the vietnamese...they were backed by the russians... just like when russia fought the afghanis... the afghanis would've been wiped out had it not been for the u.s. back them.More than 58,000 Americans killed in a losing war against “a rag-tag 3rd rate military force,” as the Vietnamese resistance was often described, yet the post-war discussion in America was obscurant, distorted, and terribly short. Instead of a dialogue to understand why 58,000 Americans died in vain in Vietnam, Americans were witness to a vicious blame-game to obscure the reasons for these deaths. Instead of accountability, they got obfuscation; instead of truth, only scapegoats.
it is mainly foreigners conducting all the terrorist attacks..The U.S. war planners underestimated the Iraqis’ will to resist and they underestimated the insurgents’ ability to develop a viable strategy. After “shock and awe” the resistance would surely be reduced to a “rag-tag resistance,” right? And the planners overestimated the U.S. military’s technology and firepower, which they always do. So twenty-one months into this war, the world’s most powerful military is stymied, unable to halt the expanding Iraqis insurgency and the rising number of American dead.
nbadan, why do you hate the u.s. so much? was some politician or servicemember your daddy and leave you when you were a little boy?
Instead of worrying about this Dan...here is one for you.
Yeah everyone said we were screwed in Afghanistan too. They just held elections, their people (even women) are voting and getting an education, and AQ has been reduced to little more than an annoyance in what was once their "homeland."
Iraq is just a desperate time for AQ and those with similar thinkings in the Mideast, and desperate people use desperate actions to cling to whatever hopes they have left.
What's going on Iraq, leading up to the elections, has been predicted for months now, but I guess it's not surprising that liberals out there would point to what's going on in Iraq as sure signs we're going to lose.
Oh and Dan, if we lose in Iraq, better start brushing up on that Arabic, unless you like the idea of a bullet between the eyes.
you asshole. Your sorry ass wants to leave our brothers, sisters, neighbors, and friends in that God forsaken air-pit of the world. Who cares if the Iraqis they are supposed to be protecting don't want them there, right? You need to get your head out of your ass, turn off Fox News, and realize that this war isn't about fighting for American security or Iraqi democracy, but for control of oil. Plain and simple.way to support your country and their troops. you are a ing unpatriotic idiot.
Not much rebuilding going on right now. Many contractors have left Iraq altogether, while others are cowarding behind American Security forces. The fighting is back in vogue, armed groups roam the streets looking for Westerners to kidnap, and thanks to Al Qa Qa the insurgents have tons of explosives at their disposal for IUD's and deadly attacks on Western targets, such as the Mosul bombing.the war was "quick and easy." the rebuilding is the hard part.
WHAT? Do you not drive or use oil?for control of oil
dude, you = moron = please go to france or atleast to austin where you can be with the rest of the hippies.
Oh common, that not the way this administration works, and you know it. They have their myriad of mouthpieces out there, the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Savage crowd who paint a pretty picture to the public every time someone comes up with another hair-brained scheme to put the broken Iraqi back together again.and nobody in the administration nor the military ever said any of these things...
Plausible deniability at its worst.
Of course I use Oil, WTF does that have to do with anything? What you don't seem to understand is that the U.S. doesn't need the oil, per Se, American oil companies want to privatize the flow of oil in the region so that American oil companies, and not the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Indians manipulate the price, choose the market, drill and refine the oil, and finance it all with Euros instead of the rapidly depleting dollar. This is the new Pax Americana.WHAT? Do you not drive or use oil?
dude, you = moron = please go to france or atleast to austin where you can be with the rest of the hippies.
This move by the U.s. has resulted in a backlash in countries such as Russia and Venezuela which have recently moved to scuttle privatization of oil companies and have reverted back to state controls and the manipulation of prices outside of the free-market supply and demand system.
Yeah everyone said we were screwed in Afghanistan too. They just held elections, their people (even women) are voting and getting an education, and AQ has been reduced to little more than an annoyance in what was once their "homeland."
Yeah they held 'free' elections alright, and just happen to elect a puppet of the U.S. and a friend of the U.S. NeoCons of their own free-will, right? The U.S. controls little of Afghanistan outside of Kabul, the Taliban and thus Al-Queda are re surging in the Pustin region of Pakistan and South-eastern Afghanistan. Meanwhile, W will have more troops patrolling Washington DC for his inauguration than we currently have in all of Afghanistan to keep the peace, and searching for the real perpetrators of 911.
alright, so what would you do if you were president of the US? i wanna hear what exactly you would do.
Yeah, predicted by the same token mouth-pieces in the MSM that have continously lied to us about the next rosy senario for Iraq that is just around the corner. The Iraqi have one thing in mind now, vote and get rid of the occupiers - that's us.What's going on Iraq, leading up to the elections, has been predicted for months now, but I guess it's not surprising that liberals out there would point to what's going on in Iraq as sure signs we're going to lose.
Oh and Dan, if we lose in Iraq, better start brushing up on that Arabic, unless you like the idea of a bullet between the eyes.
This war has nothing to do with protecting American freedoms or the homeland, win or lose in Iraq, my children and their children will be speaking english.
You need to read some of my previous posts, this writer for instance comes up with a semi- logical and almost acceptable, although tough to accept outcome in the cross-roads of though choices out of this quagmire for the U.S...alright, so what would you do if you were president of the US? i wanna hear what exactly you would do.
We assert two principles:
1. The internal governance -- or non-governance -- of Iraq is neither a fundamental American national interest nor is it something that can be shaped by the United States even if it were a national interest.
2. The United States does require a major presence in Iraq because of that country's strategic position in the region.
It is altogether possible for the United States to accept the first principle yet pursue the second. The geography of Iraq -- the distribution of the population -- is such that the United States can maintain a major presence in Iraq without, for the most part, being based in the populated regions and therefore without being responsible for the security of Iraq -- let alone responsible its form of government.
The withdrawal of U.S. forces west and south of the Euphrates and in an arc north to the Turkish border and into Kurdistan would provide the United States with the same leverage in the region, without the unsustainable cost of the guerrilla war. The Saudis, Syrians and Iranians would still have U.S. forces on their borders, this time not diluted by a hopeless pacification program.
Something like this will have to happen. After the January elections, there will be a Shiite government in Baghdad. There will be, in all likelihood, civil war between Sunnis and Shia. The United States cannot stop it and cannot be trapped in the middle of it. It needs to withdraw.
Certainly, it would have been nice for the United States if it had been able to dominate Iraq thoroughly. Somewhere between "the U.S. blew it" and "there was never a chance" that possibility is gone. It would have been nice if the United States had never tried to control the situation, because now the U.S. is going to have to accept a defeat, which will destabilize the region psychologically for a while. But what is is, and the facts speak for themselves.
We are not Walter Cronkite, and we are not saying that the war is lost. The war is with the jihadists around the world; Iraq was just one campaign, and the occupation of the Sunnis was just one phase of that campaign. That phase has been lost. The administration has allowed that phase to become the war as a whole in the public mind. That was a very bad move, but the administration is just going to have to bite the bullet and do the hard, painful and embarrassing work of cutting losses and getting on with the war.
Iraq WILL be ed if the Sunni's don't go through with these elections. That country simply needs to be 3, not one.
Yeah they held 'free' elections alright, and just happen to elect a puppet of the U.S. and a friend of the U.S. NeoCons of their own free-will, right? The U.S. controls little of Afghanistan outside of Kabul, the Taliban and thus Al-Queda are re surging in the Pustin region of Pakistan and South-eastern Afghanistan. Meanwhile, W will have more troops patrolling Washington DC for his inauguration than we currently have in all of Afghanistan to keep the peace, and searching for the real perpetrators of 911.
That's a ing lie.
Damm Dan..... you need serious help.
there is tons of rebuilding going on... you need to stay off the conspiracy websites. i'm sure you still don't believe the u.s. landed on the moon either... not many u.s. contractors have left iraq... the majority are the foreign ones who thought it'd be easy money... most of the contractors their have their own security forces...
you can't honestly think all this .. if so, i bet you were the kid who got his ass kicked in school every day..
Puppet of the US? Karzai? That's some good . I guess we paid all those millions of Afghans to vote for him, right?
That's right, if Al Qaeda wins we'll be paying $400 a barrel, you better ing hope we win dumbass.but for control of oil. Plain and simple.
lol, karzai is a puppet of the US. That's not a conspiracy,that's ing true. You think he'd do without US approval?
Anybody recall some years ago, there was an attempt to assasinate Hussein's oldest son. The suspected an electrician who worked in one of Saddam's (many) palaces. After they tortured him for a few days and he still wouldn't confess, they brought in his three-year-old daughter and BROKE HER LEGS (yes, both of them) to make him confess. Do you have children? Imagine someone doing that to one of them because they want you to confess to something you aren't guilty of. Now, tell me we should have let Saddam Hussein remain in power.
oh, but its ok for our department of defense to encourage the use of torture at abu ghraib and guantanamo bay to get "accurate" information from the prisoners there? you set a dangerous double standard there...besides, if we went to war because Saddam was "a bad guy" then we have a load of countries to overthrow to follow suitAfter they tortured him for a few days and he still wouldn't confess, they brought in his three-year-old daughter and BROKE HER LEGS (yes, both of them) to make him confess. Do you have children? Imagine someone doing that to one of them because they want you to confess to something you aren't guilty of. Now, tell me we should have let Saddam Hussein remain in power.
Do you have kids Dan?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
