Is this another Vietnam or Lebanon?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Isn't this war turning to be another Lebanon or Vietnam situation?
Your opinions are very wellcome.

I didn't write this, but this mirrors mine, a lot:


On Sunday, Iraqi guerrillas downed a US military transport helicopter near Baghdad airport, killing 16 and wounding 20.

Thus began the post-Tet phase of the current re-enactment of the Vietnam War. US leaders immediately echoed the old Lyndon Johnson refrains - there will be "tragic" days ahead, we are being "tested" in Iraq by foreign infiltrators, we must "stay the course," we dare not "cut and run".

This is nonsense. The US will be leaving Iraq in disgrace sooner or later. The Iraqis are behaving just like the Vietnamese - and as any patriot (American, Australian, or Chinese) would - if invaded by self-righteous, hypocritical imperialists bent on stealing their resources.

Why the British and Australians joined the Americans in this fiasco when they could so easily have stood for something other than "might makes right" remains a mystery.

The two wars that the US launched pre-emptively after the September 11 attacks were the pet projects of special interest groups that used the threat of terrorism as cover to hijack US foreign policy and implement their private agendas. These interest groups include the military-industrial complex and the professional armed forces, close US supporters of Israel's Likud Party, and neoconservative proponents of an American empire.

This latter group is composed of "chicken-hawk" war lovers (that is, soi-disant military strategists with no experience of either the armed forces or war) who seized on the national sense of bewilderment after September 11 to push the Bush administration into conflicts that were neither relevant to, nor successful in, destroying al-Qa'ida. Instead the wars accelerated the recruitment of more suicidal terrorists and promoted nuclear proliferation in countries hoping to deter similar pre-emptive attacks by the US.

Two years after September 11, America is unquestionably in greater danger of serious terrorist threats than it has ever been before.

The Afghan and Iraq wars resulted in easy US "victories", but both soon re-erupted as guerilla struggles of attrition. Experience has shown that hi-tech armed forces are inappropriate, overly blunt instruments against terrorists and guerillas. What was called for was international police co-operation to hunt down the September 11 terrorists and changes in US foreign policy to separate militant activists from their passive supporters, whose grievances need to be addressed.

The objective should have been to turn supporters into informers against the militants, thereby allowing them to be identified and captured.

Serious high-level intelligence efforts against organisations such as al-Qa'ida and intelligence sharing with other services that may have greater access or capabilities than America's are also important in this context, as are collaborative efforts to interrupt financing of terrorist activities and prevent money laundering.

Instead, the US came up with a particularly cynical and destructive strategy. It sent CIA agents to Afghanistan with millions of dollars to bribe the warlord armies that the Taliban had defeated to reopen the civil war, promising them air support in their new offensive. The warlords, with a bit of help from the US, thus overthrew the Taliban government and soon returned to their old ways of regional exploitation.

Afghanistan has descended into an anarchy comparable to that which prevailed before the rise of the ruthless but religiously motivated Taliban.

The propaganda apparatus of the Pentagon claims a stupendous US victory in Afghanistan but, in fact, leaders of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida escaped and the country has become an even more virulent breeding ground for terrorists.

The war with Iraq that followed had even less justification and subverted the system of international co-operation that the US had worked since World War II to create. Immediately following September 11, American leaders began to fabricate pretexts for an invasion of Iraq. These were then uncritically disseminated by US print and television media, leading a majority of Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to their own safety and that he had personally supported al-Qa'ida in its attacks of September 11.

The US will feel the blowback from this ill-advised and poorly prepared military adventure for decades. The war has already had the unintended consequences of seriously fracturing the Western democratic alliance; eliminating any potentiality for British leadership of the European Union; grievously weakening international law, including the Charter of the UN; and destroying the credibility of the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, and other officials as a result of their lying to the international community and the American people.

Most important, the unsanctioned military assault on Iraq communicated to the world that the US was unwilling to seek a modus vivendi with Islamic nations and was therefore an appropriate, even necessary, target for further terrorist attacks.

Chalmers Johnson is author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (forthcoming, Verso, London).

This is old opinion on his part. As you can see by the title of his book. He is an Anti-American and his opinions in this article and the book are just that. Opinions and conjecture. You can't base the future on the past, there are too many varibles.
You should try coming up with your own opinions instead of reading this left wing drivel.

WE HAVE NOT YET BEGUN TO FIGHT!
In Vietnam we lost 400 men in 10 days trying to take hill 937.
Iraq will never get to that level. The MAJORITY of Iraqis want us there to help them find freedom. THe MAJORITY of French want us to fail.

Jesus - we have not yet begun to fight? - who was that? John Wayne? Aaaah's mate Patton?

You have begun to fight, actually. In a dirty war of attrition and guerilla tactics that, like Vietnam, you cannot actually win - you can't hit a homer or score a touchdown or kill enough of them that there'll be a victory and a surrender aboard the USS Missouri - these fruitcakes won't ever stop fighting. Ever. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Palestine. They're just gonna keep chipping away. I mean - this is something that like Vietnam or Afghanistan for the Russkies where you cannot actually declare a victory, or "mission accomplished" - there's a mindset that wants you in Iraq so it can take little chips off you - if you can describe little chips as 3 or 4 American lives every day.

You gotta understand that. And if the US won't ever stop, as well, well....then it's gonna be a hundred years of hate and death and killing, just like in N.Ireland, Palestine, Afghanistan or wherever else there's an occupier that people don't want there.

But you reckon the majority of Iraqis want you there? Who told you that? Rumsfeld? He thought they'd be strewning the streets with garlands of flowers.

The majority of Iraqis are scared out of their minds. Obviously they're happy to see the back of Saddam - but there's no trust in the good intentions of the US. Why should there be? The bastards have lied about every reason for going to war - why should anyone believe anything they say?

Osama has you where he wants you.

And you're quoting me that 400 men died trying to take a hill called 937? Is that the greatest and stupidest single waste of human life there's ever been?

How can you just throw around a number - oh yeah, 400 men died.... - you're obviously proud of the bravery shown by the soldiers - I am too - but are you equally proud of the military "intelligence", the men that ordered 400 people into that stinking abbatoir of death?

I may feel sick or fine, but it won't change reality. I mean strategy of such war.

Propose another way to win a war with guerillas. Solve the strategic problem.

I'd like to learn the better method if you have one.

You'd be really wise if you have it.

The point is, is that we won't quit untill we're finished or wiped out. This may take a few more years and maybe longer. Get over it. Quit worrying about the U.S. economy or our government or how we feel about our government. You see, nothing you post or complain about or disagree about will change it. Obviously our culture is different here and those of you who don't like it, screw you. After all, as Frenchie says, "The French aren't interested". That's great but we already knew that. Although a couple frenchies on this board seem to believe they can change the U.S. or our perceptions of the world by degredation of the posters here. As for Vietnam, I am sure that most of the people here know that we took over for France. Failure, no, just misslead. A war cannot be truly fought the way Vietnam was handled. You all know that. You can't fight with your hands tied behind your back and this wasn't about military might. Had the war been fought by the military and not Congress, it would have been over in 2 years.
The Iraqi people, like it or not, want their freedom. Get over it. You can listen to the biased media all you want and it seems most of you get your direction from them. So sad. As for 400 men dieing inVietnam, it is typical for your spin move on that tragedy. It is perspective. None of you complain that 40,000 people die in car accidents every freakin year just inthe U.S., or that there are more deaths from Aids every day than troops who have died in Iraq. But yet you persist.
Yes, every human life is a gift and nobody should die unjustly but, that's part of being human. As much as you would like to stop the killing, it won't happen, we are human and we will kill, probably forever. The French do it, the Russians do it, the Aussies do it, the Iraqis do it. Get off the soap box, everyone knows this. The history of some of your countries colonization is not exactly stellar but you insist that America is true world threat. Geez what a load.
As for the troops in Iraq, yes they want to come home, wouldn't you? That doesn't mean that they believe their efforts are in vain. There are some yes but, that's human nature. It is you, who believe their efforts and deaths are in vain and it disgusts me.

Why is it that when faced with truth, most pro war people say "Get over it. You can't change what's already done". Is it so easy to send your own sons & daughters to die in Iraq? What I keep hearing is,

1. Saddam's a terrorist
   
2. We're fighting the fight against terrorisim
   
3. The Iraqi people want their freedom and glad we're there
   
4. We can't just sit back and let things like 9/11 happen
   

Sounds like you are really hating the US (Bush) which is understandable... You have a lot of stones to throw...
It is very easy for you and others to criticize our government. I agree with your gripes.. I've read some of your other postings and responses and you have such bitterness in your words.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinions (that's a given). But stop pointing the finger and give suggestions.... If you were Pres of the US today, how would you handle our current issues?

Why not move to another country where you may be happy with how it is run.. doubtful! You sound like a miserable "man" who I will bet is single w/o children. I can't imagine a miserable person as you to be raising kids and have a family (wife). Life is a joke anyway right? Life is overrated. Everybody is gullible and naive (except you). What are the answers? Are there any???

Are you a democrat or republican? Neither right? you probably don't vote either...LOL You are just very judgmental with no suggestions which is probably how your life goes...

I will bet you probably even work for the government and was a jilted "woman" in your past life...

Skool, I hope you're not trying to open up a private practice for psychiatry. If so, prepare for malpractice suits because you're wrong on 99% of your diagnosis.

To answer the last first, I haven't been jilted by any women, but I did work for the government. No, I quit for a better position with the state government. Didn't leave with any bitterness either, sorry. In fact they didn't want to see me go, but that's enough of that. I am democrat, but have no problem voting republican as I have done in the past. It's about the man not the party. So that answers your question on whether I vote or not.

Being gullible by my definition is accepting something at face value instead of on its merit, even when you are faced with the truth. Certainly there's a lot of that spread all over this thread and others like it.

As for my sounding bitter? Don't get that confused with passion. I harbor no bitterness. What I do get tired of is being attacked for questioning what is obvious lies being told to the American public. What because we live in the finest country in the world that absolves our leaders of the responsibility of truth?

My passion you read is about those that question my loyalty or patriotism to this country because I dare ask the question why. All while this is happening, no one seems to have an answer to the fact based questions of why nothing Bush said has come to pass as truthful. Instead I get rhetoric about me being a left-winger, "us hater" as you so elegantly put it, or not being a patriot.

My frustration lie with individuals who refuse to see anything wrong with what Bush has done, even in the face of blatant proof contradicting his statements.

Pointing the finger? Who else am I to point at? Bush initiated this invasion not me. When accountability is the issue of the day, one often falls back on the judgmental argument. He lied, it's as simple as that. Why protect him and his story?

As for what I would do, out of nearly 200 posts, I've only been asked that 3 times, this including your post. So I'll say this again. I have no problem with the fight on terrorism when that is indeed what it is. Our being in Iraq has as much to do with fighting terror as old McDonald actually running farmland in the US.

If you think the US is going to wage a war against "terror" on its own, then you and others that believe that are in for a rude awakening. We need the support of other nations or else we will fail miserably.

But at least you know where I stand Skool. What is your position, since the very judgmental garment you bestowed upon me seems to fit you so well.

As far as your "pychological issues".. you have them and can't admit to them... as far as your "government job" that you left, you sound quite self absorbed as far as they not wanting you to leave.

I apologize for stating that you sound like a jilted woman in your other life.. that was a crack regarding your "sexuality" if indeed you are a man.LOL

I agree with your position "one of peace" just not the tone that is coming across... your points are valid and I agree with them. Bush is a liar and can not be trusted. My c alling you judgemental is how you come across towards not only our government that you "worked" for but to posters and viewers.

I appreciate your honestly regarding how you vote (very brave) and certainly respect that... but I noticed no mention of family which leads me to believe that you don't have one. (See some of your responses...) not very very important but you seem to spend a lot of time making others on this site seem stupid and unintellgent to their views... You come off as a possibly frustrated man who is either frustrated due to lonliness (due to no wife and or kids) or sexual tension. LOL

I am sure you will deny this but your passion is definitely noted and so are all the ongoing postings and responses... do you even have a life????

Friendly advice, take some of your "passion" and find a woman (man) whatever your preference, and show it on an itimate level... You seem very intelligent but not very sensitive. Your frustration lies far beyond idividuals ho refuse to see the wrong Bush has done or is doing.... If that is the case, you always be frustrated.

I agree, people take Bush's word at face value because of who he is.. Just like certain religions take religious leaders words at face value because of who he/she is. I for one need proof except when it comes to certain aspects of my faith.

I believe that some Americans have high hopes in the President, right or wrong. They are "brainwashed" and unintelligent. But there are other ways to address it. It just "frustrates" me to hear someone speak with knowledge and common sense but they throw their words like swords which make the workd inaudible...

Good luck in working out your frustration...

And I'm not suppose to take offense to your postings? You've been attacking my character, my sexuality, my mental state since you started posting on this thread today.

Initially I wasn't going to respond, but my MANHOOD won't let me do that.

First, I am a heterosexual male that love women only. Secondly, I have a woman in my life that I live with. I also have 2 daughters. I have 12 brothers and sisters of which I am the youngest. Indeed we share holidays and meals together occasionally. Their children know mine and vice versa.

As for my profession, I work in the IT field. I make a decent wage, and occasionally my lady and I go to the movies, plays, parks, skating, jogging, and church among other things. So you see, I do have a life.

As for you, in my opinion you are the one sounding very bitter and judgmental. You as much about me as you do about splitting atoms, so how can you make any judgment towards me?

Am I passionate? If you knew me you would know the answer to that question, but because you don't you go on rhetorical binges executing ones character. Is it because of the issues with me or with you?

I don't know you, and I can admit that, but from what I do know over your last post, you are quit to psychoanalyze someone in which you happen to be way off base in every assertion, insulting to say the least.

If you have read all 168 of my posts, you will see exactly what has lead to my passion as do others here on this site. And you come off like you're doing me a favor in your half baked assertions of my character.

Do me a favor and don't do me any favors. However, if you want to debate the threads on this forum, I am always open to it. I'm not opposed to someone else’s opinion. Just those that doggedly hold on to them without presenting anything that resembles fact.

But how could you know that about me in the first place, since it's obvious you don't know me at all. Given your Rookie status on this site, at least post 10 posts before you go on analyzing someone else’s psyche.

touche, gald to hear you have other passions and you voicing your feelings towards me proves me wrong.. you are human and have "a life"...
I don't know you, is true but I learned a lot in your "brief synopsis". I tend to overanalyze.. nature of my fied I suppose...LOL
It is nice to know you have a family that you spend time with and a "lady in your life that you live with". I promise not to do you any favors...LOl

You seem tempermental, somewhat self absorbed, intelligent, not very religious (which you seemed to needed to make a point that you you and your lady go to church "as an activity"), committed to your views and opinions but not committed to life.
You are the baby in the family which probably means you are older mentally than you are pshysiologically and maybe a tad spoiled.
I am wondering how you fit in all of these things and still manage to bite heads off....LOL

That was a joke... i apologize for taking a stab at your sexuality and social life. I can admit to going too far with that. I guess we can all be wrong sometime, I can usually sense some homosexuality via written words or speaking verbally. I am glad to be wrong. I guess 1 outta 6 isn't bad today.

I look forward to reading more from you. Hope it doesn't damper your opinion of my views when reading in the future.


The Rookie

Oneofpeace,

you did not need to answer, buddy. Although you always post sensible contributions about this Iraq topic, your interlocutor came to attack you with charge of sexual frustation or US hating. This is simply irrelevant and put into perspective the possible lunacy of the guy, given his biaised analysis of your comments.

Thank you French. Coming from a guy that posted at least 111 times I have more credibility in your comments. Although that count doesn't totally mean much as you can see with other posters on this site...

What I don't understand is why is skool continually psychoanalyzing me with a very poor degree of accuracy to say the least?

To you skool, going to church is an action therefore making it an activity. My personal relationship with God is just that personal, and not open for interpretations from you.

You call me self absorbed when I chose to respond to your allegations of me not having a life. That's interesting, but none the less make no mistake. This forum is a source of information for me, both to share and to receive. I actually enjoy debating with intelligent debaters. Those that can share facts other that "Bush said so" as the grounds for their position.

As for your profession, I certainly hope it's not in the psyche field. If so, that would explain so many misguided Americans in our country about the war... Had to take at least one swipe at ya, but really I hope you do a better job than you've demonstrated here today. If not, you need to find something more suitable to your purpose in life.

whatever makes your day one of peace... and to JY French, that was very nice of you to come to "one of peace's" rescue. It enlightens me to see that...

Well.. you seem to have the answer to everything, obviously I know nothing.. thanks for the "skooling". I was under the wrong impression I suppose. I guess I was wrong you are very happy and your comments, opinions and views and just "passionate" and you hate debating with the "unintelligent". Wow...
I did however get something out of this. Hope you can accept my apologies again and hope some of the lines between got in somewhere...

Take it easy...LOL

Skool, yes I do accept your apologies. I have nothing against you or your post, just the ones that seemed to analyze me in a negative and untrue light.

Yes, I do like to debate with intelligent people. That isn't an endorsement of your non intellect. I really cannot say that of you at this point...

It's just the party-liners that hold onto everything a leader says simply because he's republican or democrat. Especially in the face of obvious evidence that he misled his country with his statements. There isn't even any acknowledgement with some of them that Bush lied, and the ones that do acknowledge that he "wasn't accurate" in his statements dismiss it and still hold to his word that we are "fighting terrorism".

I've read some of your other posts. Even if you didn't agree with me, at least you can acknowlege that Bush was misleading. When I first started asking the question where are the tons of WMD, I was starting to be called out of my handle here, such as oreo-of-peace among others. It's ridiculous, so naturally after some time I started getting passionate because they have no real answer for their position other than "you can't change anything now so get over it".

I look for reason to justify everything except what God does. God operates beyond human reason, but I haven't met a man that is on that level to date. If you hold a position, you should be able to amply explain why. The reasons of 9/11 is irrelavant to Iraq and was played on to hype up America about the invasion.

No one is happy in all their life either skool. If I alluded to that, then that isn't accurate. I believe the day I become content at my progress in life, will be the day I cease to achieve what God has put me here for.

You have a great day and if you can't take it easy, take it any way ya can :thumb:

Skool, yes I do accept your apologies. I have nothing against you or your post, just the ones that seemed to analyze me in a negative and untrue light.

Yes, I do like to debate with intelligent people. That isn't an endorsement of your non intellect. I really cannot say that of you at this point...

It's just the party-liners that hold onto everything a leader says simply because he's republican or democrat. Especially in the face of obvious evidence that he misled his country with his statements. There isn't even any acknowledgement with some of them that Bush lied, and the ones that do acknowledge that he "wasn't accurate" in his statements dismiss it and still hold to his word that we are "fighting terrorism".

I've read some of your other posts. Even if you didn't agree with me, at least you can acknowlege that Bush was misleading. When I first started asking the question where are the tons of WMD, I was starting to be called out of my handle here, such as oreo-of-peace among others. It's ridiculous, so naturally after some time I started getting passionate because they have no real answer for their position other than "you can't change anything now so get over it".

I look for reason to justify everything except what God does. God operates beyond human reason, but I haven't met a man that is on that level to date. If you hold a position, you should be able to amply explain why. The reasons of 9/11 is irrelavant to Iraq and was played on to hype up America about the invasion.

No one is happy in all their life either skool. If I alluded to that, then that isn't accurate. I believe the day I become content at my progress in life, will be the day I cease to achieve what God has put me here for.

You have a great day and if you can't take it easy, take it any way ya can

[QUOTE]Originally posted by oneofpeace

"If you think the US is going to wage a war against "terror" on its own, then you and others that believe that are in for a rude awakening. We need the support of other nations or else we will fail miserably."

Wrong. They need to support US. (United States)

I do wish the other major countries were with us. I'd work to try and somewhat appeal to them more. I think Russia is the closest to helping in the effort so far, but none of them have really done anything very proactive yet. You would think they'd be more wanting to help now that they see we are having some difficulty and that they'd be obliged to help.

Other countries are willing to help fight terrorism - ie Al Queda. There's global support for that.

They just weren't willing to invade and conquer Iraq without evidence Iraq was involved with Al Queda.

Now Bush has to ask them for help - he can't keep bleeding bloody and money indefinitely - who could? - but he wants it on his terms, ie with the US in charge. Other nations are baulking, and understandably.

Y'know, 99.9% of humanity would want to help the US fight Al Queda. They just don't believe invading and conquering Iraq was the right way to do it.

During the aftermath of WWII, and the reconstruction of Europe, when American GIs were being shot up by Nazi guerrillas called 'werewolves,' American newspapers kept printing: OCCUPATION BOTCHED, and garbage to that effect. ("Whatever bleeds, leads"—such is the media.) Same sh!t you foreign left-wing malcontents are spewing now. Sure, the Democrats in the U.S. are now doing it—they would like a job—even at the expense of endangering the morale of this nation and the lives of U.S. troops. So shame on them—still, they're only digging their own political graves. This nation always comes together when it has to and it will do so again when this partisanship garbage is done in November 2004.

But we don't give a rat's a s s what you pathetic, anti-U.S. foreigners think, Gooogooo. You very well KNOW that WE AIN'T GETTIN' OUT 'TIL THE TIME'S RIGHT and Iraq has a new government and trained security force and military. AND WHATEVER YOU SQUAWK AND SPEW AIN'T GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING. Your rhetoric doesn't amount to a hill of beans, my anti-American 'friend.'

So, keep farting in the wind, Gooogooo—it seems you like the smell....



"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." —Edmund Burke (1729-97)

The problem with you is that you don't understand what the war on terrorism is all about.

Instead, you, and those like you, just nit pick, whine, bellow, moan, kick, and scream on a day to day basis -- which is indicative of a frame of mind that can only be described as monumentally defunct.


--JV

"I was in Dachau when the German armies surrendered, it was a suitable place to be. For surely this war was made to abolish Dachau and all the other places like Dachau and everything that Dachau stands for. To abolish it forever... We must know now that there can never be peace if there is cruelty like this in the world. And if ever again we tolerate such cruelty we have no right to peace."

Martha Gellhorn
American War Correspondent
Spanish Civil War, World War II, Vietnam

If there are any parallels to Vietnam in Iraq they might be….

The fact that troops dieing is a parallel and I'd have to say yes.

The fact that the war is being fought in the media like Vietnam, I'd have to say, yes, because biased media plays to the hands of Terrorism and Saddam loyalists.

The fact that we are trying to be nice and try to keep the Iraqi people from feeling occupied then, yes.

I don’t feel the coalition has been hard core enough in Iraq in the efforts to root out Saddam and his henchmen. Once the 100,000 police are trained and in place, it may free up more troops to go house to house in the North. Unless we go in with true force and root them out, we will be there too long. Taskforce 121 is a new start in that direction.

Other than that, no!

Sordid, what makes you think the US is responsible for the world?

Another thing, if you think we don't move to advance our self serving interest, then I guess this is where we'll just have to part in disagreeance. I just simply do not believe we're fighting for a better world. With all the injustices going on around the world, our fight always remain in the Middle East. This certainly is no coincidence.

Posted by keremiko:

As a conclusion I'd say:

1. War in Iraq is a kind of "Texan answer" to 9-11. Someone posted on this server what it means:
(7 times)*(BANG!!!)<click>(7 times)*(BANG!!!)<click>. This is quite understandable emotionally but not very practical.

2. Installing democracies and bringing other nations to happyness are, of course, great things, but I doubt that even mighty US has enough might to do it. And, of course the US can't be held responsible for this.

3. With all my respect to the US, you can't win in this way. The military played fine, the Iraqi civilians had littlest possible casualties, Saddam's regime is overthrown but what is next? I think that the security measures that have been taken are far more effective then the two military campaigns.

There is a move in robbing manner which the US will never take but it would help to solve their problems: Get all the Iraqi oil, sell it only to US companies at cost.
Results:

1.Price of American-made goods will go down, the economy will be boosted, more jobs will be created.
2. As a large buyer of oil disappears, the price of oil on international market will go down, and other oil-importing countries (including Western Europe) will benefits from this.
3. But the international price will never go down to the cost, then American-made goods will have competitve advantage on international market.
4. OPEC countries will adopt euros as transaction currency, and this will be a strike on US$, but if US$ loose in it's value American-made goods become cheaper fo foreign countries.
5. As the US will be regarded as a robber-country, the EU may ban imports from the US in return the US wil ban imports from the EU.
6. The Arab countries will ban imports from the US also.
7. So, the EU and the US will have to supply their markets needs with domextic industries and will compete on the market of the Pacific region.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — U.S. policy in Iraq is haunted by Vietnam, no question about that. That's why Americans support the war and will keep on supporting it until we win. ("Win" is a verb you rarely heard in the Vietnam era.)[And this is why President Bush will be re-elected.]

We are haunted by the image of Vietnamese who trusted and supported us trying frantically to grab a place on the last outbound helicopter; by Vietnamese putting to sea in rowboats rather than enjoy Uncle Ho's "Workers' and Peasants' Paradise" one more day. We are haunted by the consequences of allowing South Vietnam to collapse. Tens of thousands of executions (maybe 60,000), re-education camps where hundreds of thousands died, a million boat people.

We put them in those rowboats — we antiwar demonstrators, we sophisticated, smart guys. The war was nearly over when I graduated from high school. But high school students were old enough to demonstrate. They were old enough to feel superior to the fools who were running the government. And they were old enough to have known better. They were old enough to have understood what communist regimes had cost the world in suffering, from the prisons of Havana to the death camps of Siberia.

Today we are haunted, in thinking about Iraq, by the fact that a noisy, self-important, narcissistic minority talked the United States into betraying its allies. (Loyalty didn't mean a lot to antiwar demonstrators; honor didn't mean a lot.) We betrayed our allies and hurried home, to introspect. They stayed on, to suffer. We were eager to make love, not war, but the South Vietnamese weren't offered that option. Their alternatives were to knuckle under or die.

It was my fault, mine personally; I was part of the antiwar crowd and I'm sorry. But my apology is too late for the South Vietnamese dead. All I can do is join the chorus in shouting, "No more Vietnams!" No more shrugging off tyranny; no more deserting our friends; no more going back on our duties as the strongest nation on Earth.

Before the switch of commanders from William C. Westmoreland to Creighton Abrams, we conducted the Vietnam War stupidly; that thought haunts us too, and that's why people like Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are running the Iraq war and his Vietnam-era counterpart Robert S. McNamara and his friends and disciples aren't. We are haunted by our having gotten into Vietnam without really meaning to, without having thrashed it out first in a nationwide conversation. That's why the Bush administration laid out exactly what it wanted to accomplish (regime change) beforehand — and why the nation chewed the thing over for months before we opened fire. Regime change is what America wanted and what we fought for and won. Regime change is what we will defend, whatever it takes.

Does Iraq bring back memories of Vietnam? The president's critics say yes, and they are right. Vietnam came to mind when we saw Saddamites torturing their captives on camera. Do President Bush's opponents grasp that those are (or were) real people getting beaten to a pulp, mutilated, tortured, murdered? (If they did, wouldn't they be overjoyed now that the smug murderers have been thrown out, and radiantly proud of America?) Our moral obligations as the world's most powerful nation come strongly to mind when we hear about rape rooms and children's prisons; when we read about captives fed into industrial shredders, and swaggering princelings dragging women off the street to the torture houses.

Voltaire once felt obliged to rouse all Europe over the judicial torture of one man. Europe today reacts with the same charming befuddlement it felt back then: What's all the fuss? Surely, it's none of our business.

The president's critics say that he has made mistakes; right again. He was too optimistic about the difficulties of hunting down a man or a biological weapon in a large country. He might well have been too optimistic about the difficulties of managing postwar Iraq. He was certainly too optimistic about the rest of the world's joining us; too many people were making too much money from Hussein's Iraq for the case by Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair against Hussein ever to be popular, for the world at large to care much about Kurdish infants choking to death on poison gas or about a political dissenter with his tongue cut out. But suppose we sweep up all the administration's mistakes and dump them in one pan of the moral balance. We'll put just one fact on the other side: Hussein is overthrown. What do all the president's mistakes amount to? How much do they count when we step back and take in the big picture? They count zero.

People ask: Are you proposing to overthrow every sadist tyrant on Earth? No, only proposing to be proud that we overthrew one.

Some Bush critics tell us that "Iraqification" is bound to be a failure and a "losing strategy," like "Vietnamization." They are wrong on the facts. Vietnamization was a winning strategy. Several years ago, political commentator Fred Barnes reviewed, in an article for the Weekly Standard, the findings of two books on Vietnam that challenged the conventional wisdom on the war. Barnes wrote, in summary: "What really worked was Vietnamization, the reliance on Saigon's forces as American troops were gradually brought home." He quoted Lewis Sorley, one of the authors: "There came a time when the war was won. The fighting wasn't over, but the war was won. This achievement can probably best be dated in late 1970, after the Cambodia incursion."

But then we got fed up and pulled the plug. We left the bill on the table and walked out, and our allies paid in blood. Yes, we are haunted by Vietnam, and God forbid we should ever again betray our friends to tyrant murderers. Or ever again walk out on a nation whose people are struggling merely to live and be let alone. Or ever again inform the natives prissily over our shoulders on our way out: Look, it's your choice; if you choose to be governed by blood-sucking murderers, it's none of our business.

Yes, America is haunted by Vietnam. It always will be.



By David Gelernter
David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale University and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard.