Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Basra Battles Echo Vietnam's Tet Offensive -- Will We Ever Learn History's Lessons?

By Conn Hallinan, Foreign Policy in Focus. Posted April 25, 2008.


The Bush administration needs to be reminded that Iraq is not a war -- it's a country.
Advertisement

One battle rarely wins or loses a war, at least in the moment. Gettysburg crippled Lee’s army in 1863, but the Confederates fought on until 1865. Stalingrad broke the back of the German 6th Army, but it would be two-and-a-half years before the Russians took Berlin. War – particularly the modern variety – is a complex mixture of tactics, technology, and politics. Then there are the intangibles, like morale.

But while a single battle may not end a conflict, it can illuminate an underlying reality. This reality generally gets lost in the thunder of propaganda, illusion, and wishful thinking that always accompanies the horsemen of the apocalypse.

Now that some of the dust has settled over the recent battle of Basra that pitted Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army against the armies of the United States and Iraq, it is time to examine what that clash meant, and what are some analogies that might help bring it into focus. There were certainly echoes of Vietnam in last month’s fighting, and some of those parallels, particularly to the 1968 Tet offensive, are worth a closer look.

Remembering Tet

As Frank Rich pointed out in The New York Times, there was indeed a whiff of Tet in the debacle in Basra. Just before the 1968 attack, U.S. General William Westmoreland made his historic “light at the end of the tunnel” prediction. In recent testimony before the Senate, General David Petraeus said the United States was making “significant” progress in Iraq, and his spokesman, Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, bragged that the United States had the Mahdi army on the ropes: “We’ve degraded their capability.”

“There is a parallel to Tet here,” says military historian Jack Radey. “’We have won the war, violence is down, the surge works’ [the U.S. told itself], and then Kaboom! The Green Zone is taking incoming.”

Radey argues that the American “victories” against the Vietnamese in the period leading up to the Tet offensive were an illusion. “If the enemy seems to be missing from the picture, this is not proof you have wiped him out,” he says. “It is more likely proof that you have lost track of him, and he will, at his own chosen time, find ways to remind you of his presence.”

Which is exactly what Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi army did.

According to historian Gareth Porter, the United States mistakenly concluded that the ceasefire Sadr declared six months ago was a sign that the Mahdi army was vulnerable. When the Americans began attacking Sadr strongholds – more than 2,000 militia members and leaders have been arrested since last July’s truce – and the Mahdi army did not react, the United States was convinced that the militia was weak.

Other Analogies

But Tet is not the only relevant Vietnam analogy. The other parallel was Operation Lam Son, the 1971 invasion of Laos by the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN). The United States pushed South Vietnam to attack Laos in order to demonstrate that the ARVN could stand on its own two feet, and to make the point prior to the upcoming 1972 U.S. elections that Nixon’s policy of “Vietnamization” was working

Instead, U.S. audiences watched as panicked ARVN troops clung to helicopter landing skids in their desperation to escape from Laos. Lam Son “was a disaster,” writes historian A.J. Langguth in Our Vietnam: The War, 1954-1975: “Vietnamization became one more doomed fantasy. After 10 years of training and costly equipment, South Vietnam’s troops seemed to be no match for the Communists.”

Radey says the Lam Son analogy is a useful one. The invasion didn’t work “because the [ARVN] soldiers didn’t believe in the cause they fought for,” while their opponents, with far less fire power, “believed in what they were doing. Vive la difference.”

As for Iraq and the recent fighting: “Was anyone paying attention the last time this lesson was taught in Vietnam?” Radey asks. “Did anyone do the reading? Hello? Do I have to start throwing chalk?”


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, basram vietnam

Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) columnist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 25, 2008 12:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"You're beginning to believe this illusion we're spinning here."

Paddy Chayefsky


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Terrorist Posted by: Luther Blissett
What IS it about Texas?
Posted by: Tom Degan on Apr 25, 2008 1:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the second time in a generation, a half-witted dingbat from Texas has led this country into an untenable quagmire in a far away land.

Come to think about it, that last paragraph is grossly unfair to Lyndon Johnson. For all of his faults (and there were many) at least his heart was in the right place in many areas. For all of his epic flaws, there was at least a few good things to come out of his administration. When the dust is settled, it will not be said that one positive thing was achieved for America during the eight wasted years of George W. Bush's reign of error - not one.

Which reminds me: Last night on Hardball it was reported that the president of the United States made an appearance on a TV game show called, "Win Lose or Draw". A GAME SHOW! Can you imagine in your wildest dreams, Jack Kennedy, Richard Nixon - or even a dingbat like Ronald Reagan, for Pete's sake - doing something so stupid??? How much further is this asshole going to trivialize the presidency?

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What IS it about Texas? Posted by: willymack
» Presidential TV appearances Posted by: brunowe
Please correct me
Posted by: Plexius on Apr 25, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if I am wrong, but, except for Israel's slow annexation of territory, has ANY nation managed, during the last twenty years, to take over militarily and remake any other nation on earth? So why do they/we keep trying? Has the world changed so much that this is no longer possible?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fourth Generation WarFare Posted by: Phenix
Ok, I will correct all you ninnys! War is a racket!
Posted by: Nightstallion on Apr 25, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If all you will hear is expert testimony here is the game they play in clear unabashed terms:

WAR IS A RACKET

by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient:


Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired
About the Author



CHAPTER ONE

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS SAID READ THE MAJOR GENERALS BOOK: WAR IS A RACKET!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Spot on! Posted by: CanuckKid
Yes, it is still all about the oil. . .
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 25, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The attempt to take over Iraqi oilfields is still going strong - that is the only reason the U.S. is still there. Oh, there are other interests, like setting up the permanent military bases, but goal #1 was and is the capture of Iraqi oil.

Lets go back one year ago, to March 2007, and see what the real agenda behind the Petraeus surge actually was:

"Perhaps the crassest expression of money-grubbing glee came in the Wall Street Journal, which published an article March 4 celebrating the unlocking of untold riches, including “dozens of untouched oil fields loaded with proven reserves and scores of exploration blocks that may prove a magnet to international oil companies.”

The draft law lists 51 oil fields, 27 in production and the balance with proven reserves, as well as 65 exploration blocks. The fallow fields and exploration blocks are located in every region of the country, while the working fields are concentrated in the northern region around Kirkuk and in the southern region near the border with Kuwait. Citing a cabinet document, the Journal reported that “Iraqi officials must first agree to the framework of contracts to be used when negotiating with foreign oil companies by March 15 if the country’s draft hydrocarbons law is to be submitted to parliament for its approval.”

The draft law calls for reviewing and renegotiating contracts with Russian, French and Chinese oil producers, signed under Saddam Hussein. These countries, which initially opposed the US invasion, are expected to be cut out of any lucrative oil deals in favor of American and British companies.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorsed the draft law February 26, after months of bitter conflicts among the representatives of rival bourgeois factions within Iraq—Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite—over the terms of the deal. Approval is likely in the Iraqi parliament, although not certain, as news of the agreement is sure to provoke widespread popular outrage over the sell-off of the country’s most valuable resource."


And just look at who is in charge now: Petraeus & Odierno - a soldier's worst nightmare and an oil executive's best friend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent comment, TC. Posted by: HughScott
Iraq Battles Show We Have Yet To Learn Vietnam's Lessons
Posted by: xvictor on Apr 25, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're lousy history students. Bush's cadre and his bungling foreign policy sadly demonstrates that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's So Frigging Obvious
Posted by: ssegallmd on Apr 25, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There’s nobody trying to win in Iraq except the grunts. All energy is spent to perpetuate the occupation and warfare, and it’s working very well, thank you very much.

The only reason to be in Iraq is for the benefit of the corporations that profit. And, except for the stolen oil, they profit by the American taxpayer paying those corporations to do what they do in wartime. In Halliburton’s case, that appears to be furnishing troops with the shoddiest supplies possible at the highest price possible. For Blackwater, that appears to be by providing mercenary services. For GE and Westinghouse, that appears to be by providing weapons and weapons sytems. Those corporations interests are to perpetuate war, not win it. There never has been any intention of winning (read ending) that “war” and there never will be. It will never end unless something equivalent to the anti-war movement of the 60’s and 70’s ends it, and I don’t see that happening.

Our news sources, including nonmainstream outlets like AlterNet continue to present the Iraqi problem to us as if America is trying to restore order and vacate Iraq. Hence analyses of why we should have learned from the Tet offensive. Forget Tet. And Basra. The same thing was true in Vietnam. That war’s purpose. Like this one, was to be fought, not won. The war industries with the help of Johnson and Nixon fought long and hard to maintain that war. Some say Kennedy was killed for threatening to end it. That’s believable to me. He was obviously killed by Americans for some reason, and I can’t imagine what else it would have been.

Everything that you hear and read about Iraq, even from the left, assumes that America is struggling to restore order in Iraq. No, America is struggling to prevent order and to keep its enemy fighting. And the credulous American people remain supportive of the stated mission. For longer than America fought the Germans and Japanese in WWII. Without suspicion. With overwhelming numbers of clues missed repeatedly. We know that CHENEY KNEW that the conflict would erupt into interminable civil war. We know there never was an exit plan. We know that we were lied into war. We know that multiple bebunked excuses were given for invading Iraq. We know that a military force that was known by American generals to be inadequate in number was sent to Iraq and maintained at that inadequate level. We know that the Iraqi police force and military were deliberately dismantled clearing the way for guerilla civil and antiamerican warfare. We know that bases and palaces for American consulates were being erected from the beginning. Yet America still doesn’t suspect the truth. It talks about incompetence, poor planning. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s a stunning display of collective stupidity. Who’s to say that Americans don’t deserve to be taken to the cleaners?

That’s the lesson that should have been taught by Vietnam. America deliberately perpetuates smouldering military actions that never end for the purpose of shifting citizens tax dollars to war profiteering corporations.

Vietnamization indeed. Like Iraqiization: Iraqis standing up so that America can stand down. Over the military-industrial complex’s dead body!

Plexius wants to know why we keep trying and “failing” at these missions. Who says they’re failing. Every new day of war is another $380,000,000 American citizens are putting in the profiteers’ pockets. xvictor has been listening to the liars.

As HeKnew alludes, everything that is said is a lie. Good for you. And I think Nighttallion gets it. And thoughtcriminal.

Here’s a great Leonard Cohen song for you called EVERYBODY KNOWS. The America version should be called “Hardly Anyone Knows”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's So Frigging Obvious Posted by: edgeofnowhere
Winning is a relative term........
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Apr 25, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone seems to think that we are losing in Iraq, but every conflict has winners and losers. The winners are the defense contractors and bankers that make substantial profits from this perceived disaster. The losers, as usual, are the dead and wounded soldiers and the sorry ass taxpayer and average citizen who not only foots the bill, but sees a degradation in government social services and personal income as the dollar is devalued on a daily basis. Neither the democRATS or the republiCONS are going to end this bonanza until they are forced to. And even if they ARE forced to end it, their handlers will find another place to gin up a war. Hey, folks Murka has about 750 military garrisons scattered across the globe -- what do you think they are FOR? We are the most militaristic political entity in the history of the planet and our business is WAR. At this point in history, the elite who pull the strings on the pols have decided (ala PNAC) that we should control the world's dwindling resources through whatever means necessary. Too bad all those countries have a bunch of ignorant citizens that don't agree! So, live simply, trade your dollars for real goods and be sure to buckle up -- it is going to be a bumpy ride all the way down!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lets not forget Posted by: fearn
» RE: Lets not forget Posted by: ssegallmd
What about both parties in Congress who enabled this war-turned-occupation in Iraq?
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 25, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, I guess they're "forgiven". In any case, it's not that Bush doesn't know. It's that he just doesn't want to care. You progressives and liberals must STOP looking at the president as simply "dumb" and realize that the motherfucker is a pro and has been collaborating with both parties and the monied, military, and zionist interests. In addition, we need a REAL OPPOSITION, not a phoney one.

If you San Francisco residents can do one thing successful to push for a real solution, you'd vote CINDY SHEEHAN in and Nancy PEE-LOW-SICK OUT OUT OUT !! It's time to get your butts off the couch and vote to BULLDOZE both parties out of office come November and put in REAL Progressives and Liberals such as Ralph Nader, Cynthia Mckinney despite her controversies, Cindy Sheehan, etc ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The parallels are
Posted by: rsmohio on Apr 25, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
uncanny. For a good look at these similarities, read "Ravens in the Storm" by Carl Oglesby, president of SDS in 1965-66. His book has nothing to do with Iraq and there is no actual intent to draw parallels. That's the beauty of it. You can see them easily in the reading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One thing the neocons DID learn from Vietnam:
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 25, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A draft can generate violent, nationwide antiwar protests.

With that possibility in mind, the founders of Bill Kristol's neoconservative extremist organization, Project for New American Century (PNAC), made an all "volunteer" army a primary goal.

Not coincidentally before PNAC was formed, one of its founders, former Congressman Donald Rumsfeld, successfully introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that killed the draft.

Another PNAC objective was the use of preemptive warfare to enforce U.S. foreign policy. As it turned out, thanks to the Bush 43 admininistration, PNAC got its way.

For more information about PNAC and a list of 225 members including rightwing Democrats in liberal clothing, visit my nonprofit investigative website, www.FreedomCentralUSA.com.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, also the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com -- the only website about George W. that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Minimalists/Marginalists
Posted by: Quannah on Apr 25, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Bush administration needs to be reminded that Iraq is not a war -- it's a country."

And it's not only a country, it's the Cradle of Civilization for Pete's sake! And it's not only a country, it is (or was) 20 million people - not just land.

This administration has managed to de-humanize an entire country. They have ruined that nation's national treasures, its artifacts, its historical monuments, its storied history. Without so much as a glance backward.

And people thought the Taliban was barbaric to blow up the giant Buddah statues in Northern Afghanistan!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Minimalists/Marginalists Posted by: willymack
The one thing history teaches is that man learns nothing from history
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Apr 25, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hegel said "The one thing history teaches is that man learns nothing from history..!"

We learned absolutely nothing from Vietnam we did for a short time it was called the Powell Principal of overwhelming force..

As well as always having an exit strategy but Rumsfled tossed that down the toilet and Bush couldn't give two shits now how many Troops loose limbs or die or are maimed or commit suicide it's not in his genes to care or his upbringing as a spoiled snob elitist little dick..that he is..

Of course the difference is that during Vietnam we all got a big dose of the horror every night at dinner time of what went on that day..the war was in our living rooms blow by blow now we get Obama from noon to night or Hillary this or Hillary that..yada yada till you want to puke or throw the TV out the window..

They are using Hillary and Obama as the white noise interference to jam the real news from us and the truth as well..

No blood no guts no summary executions or burning babies that all being hid no bodies of our Troops nice and clean and Billions per week flushed down the drain and Nancy Pelosi can't wait to piss away another $178 Billion..!

Another real perversion is how the right wing has re-written the true history of the waste and stupidity of the Vietnam war and how we the young people and liberals were right..

Vietnam as a waste and a stink hole of a country and the Communists sued to to bleed us and bleed us of money as well just as we are bleeding in Iraq and ruining our economy and prosperity for this stupid shit in Iraq..

Iraq will be our ruin just as Vietnam nearly was and if we attack Iran as is planned and being planned by Gen. Petraeus and Bush Cheney and McCain it will only get worse much much much worse real bad..out of control and perhaps lead to Armagddon which is what so of these sick bastards want..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will we?
Posted by: audiodef on Apr 25, 2008 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Basra Battles Echo Vietnam's Tet Offensive -- Will We Ever Learn History's Lessons?

No.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hope the US loses
Posted by: deang on Apr 25, 2008 12:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unlike in the 60s/70s, it's now taboo to hope that the US loses militarily, but I do hope that. I only wish that the cost for Iraqis wasn't so high. There are those who argue, justifiably, that the US only lost in its attack on Vietnam technically, that the US won in its overall goal of destroying Vietnam and preventing it from flourishing and developing. Vietnam still hasn't recovered from the massive US assault to this day; Vietnamese are still dying from unexploded bombs, cancers and birth defects caused by US chemical warfare, etc. The same will be true of Iraq, especially since in actuality we've been attacking Iraq since 1991.

I hope the US loses, but I wish Iraqis could escape the effects of our destruction of their country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good for you! Posted by: chief of okeefe
Stupid
Posted by: owlsliveintrees on Apr 25, 2008 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a vast oversimplification. The stupidity of this article is evident in the fact that the author seems to think Basra is apparently the spitting image of 15 separate events in Vietnam. Jesus, can we get over this Vietnam analogy? It's Iraq it's not Vietnam. Just because they both went badly doesn't mean that analogies are appropriate. Communist nationalists with funding from China fighting for a country with little natural resources are not the same as Islamic tribalists with funding from Iran fighting over huge amounts of oil. Sadr is not Ho.

This interpretation of the Tet offensive is VERY problematic and sounds like communist propaganda. Wait, this Conn Hallinan guy...who is this dude? Wait, he's not a historian he's a far lefty journalist. Tet was more of a PR move than a military victory. The benefit of Tet to the communists was that it contradicted assessments made by the Johnson administration and undermined all credibility. It helped erode support for the war, because it was huge news. Is Basra huge news? The media hasn't and won't make a big deal of it. It's not like you here anyone around here going "I thought the Bush administration was coming clean about Iraq, until this Basra debacle."

It's just like a journalist to try to make some stupid comparison, when a historian would say "uhhh...what?"

This article is dumb. This Hallinan guy has been pounding the table with his assessment that Iraq is a worthless endeavor for years now. It's not like he's suddenly going to change his mind, even if the circumstances warranted because that would expose him as a idiot who was wrong the entire time. This article is the same one that's been posted over and over. It tries to stand out by making bizarre analogies. Gettysburg, Tet, Basra. Shut up already.

Can we have some solutions to Iraq instead of stupid nobodies trying to sound smart with historical analogies? And no, leaving Iraq to a bloody civil war is not an appropriate solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stupid Posted by: doubter
» RE: Stupid Posted by: vivachavez
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 25, 2008 5:20 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, we will


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Problem The US Has in Iraq...
Posted by: opmoc on Apr 25, 2008 5:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is that the soldiers who invaded in 2003 did so to get Even with those Muslim shites who did 9/11

They were all fired up

5 Years later the same soldiers sent on their umpteenth tour of the god forsaken shit hole of Iraq knows that the only reason they are there is to steal the Iraqi's Oil

And most young American Soldiers are good God fearing men who attended the Cheney Youth training sessions at their local Christian Churches

And they just want to go home to their girlfriends and wives

They no longer want to be part of the US Government's Smash and Grab

And the Iraqi's Know this basic fact and will eject the invaders one way or another eventually.

The fact that all the political elite pretending to get someone elected as a president - completely ignores the reality in Iraq - just displays how completely out of touch America is with the real world.

I will spell it out

NO - America Cannot Steal Iraq's Oil By Force.

America could have got the entire lot - just by being nice and using a bit of old fashioned bribery

IDIOTS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We didn't learn
Posted by: Hughv on Apr 25, 2008 11:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was in Vietnam for the Tet offensive, serving as an Infantry Platoon leader, 25th infantry division.
I had only been in-country a few months at that point, but it was already clear that this was a weird war, unlike anything we learned about in training. "Villages in Blue on the map are friendly. Do not return fire from these villages." But, if they're friendly...?
The bottom line is that hundreds of my fellow soldiers began dying and getting wounded even faster, and all for no good reason that was apparent to us in the field. Go on about politics and strategy all you want, but a dead 19 year old soldier needs some serious national defense justification. There was none in Vietnam and there is none in Iraq.
It's justifiable to call this administration guilty of war crimes and to ask that they atone for their crimes.
Ponder 58000 dead bodies, mutilated by bullet wounds or artillery rounds in a losing war run by another gang of incompetents and opportunists and you may well conclude we learned nothing at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bolzhidar balkas
Posted by: bozhidar on Apr 26, 2008 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
resistance by palestinians has utterly failed. not much is left of their land and what's left, is in shards.
i also assert that the armed resistance by iraqis will also fail.
partisan resistance has succeeded because mighty empires also fought germany while at the same time aided partisans.
nobody is helping iraqis (except iran?) nor is any land fighting US.
US came to win. iraq is already a success to the ruling class; it'l, i educe, never give it up.
what's 4000 dead soldiers to super and very rich amers? what would be even 50000 dead soldiers?
US can and probably will break the evil empire into four states: three puppet and the fourth for US army; probably in syrian desert, away from population.
and play one country against the other two and rotate them for a new favorite.
it's not bush who does the planning or aiming; i think, it's pentagon/state dep't.
and they are controled by the ruling class.
bush/cheney/rice are mere politicos. they are experts about how to get elected; thus their sphere of knowledge is just too narrow, too political to be able achieve longstanding US goals: expansion by any means; includes hironaga.
what al-bushy is doing is not a novelty. US has under its belt at least 50 major aggressions in the last 150 yrs.
and, folks, bush knows it; thus, no guilty feelings; he knows he'l eventually receive even accolades.
history of that aggression will be written, not by houswives but by the same people who have been selling wars. ok! enough crying, bozh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You may be right, but... Posted by: chief of okeefe