George W. Bush has finally acknowledged that the American military operation in Iraq has become a great deal like the quagmire of the Vietnam War. That’s good. What’s not so good is that Bush has taken the wrong lesson from the Vietnam War, and concluded that the United States should have remained in Vietnam for even longer, and that the same is true for the failed military occupation of Iraq.
President Bush says that ending the American occupation will cause a bloodbath. However, the experts disagree. They say that the bloodbath that Bush says he wants to avoid has already begun, and has been caused by the length of the American military presence in Iraq, not because the United States has not been fighting in Iraq for long enough.
John Johns, a former Brigadier General and an expert in counter-insurgency, says Bush’s conclusions are based upon a selective interpretation of military history. “What I learned in Vietnam is that US forces could not conduct a counterinsurgency operation. The longer we stay there, the worse it’s going to get,” he explains.
Steve Simons of the Council on Foreign Relations, which could never be accused of having a bias in favor of peace, also says that Bush’s understanding of the problems that occurred after the American pullout from Vietnam is mistaken, saying that the violence “happened because the United States left too late, not too early,” and adding that “It was the expansion of the war that opened the door to Pol Pot and the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. The longer you stay the worse it gets.”
Historian Robert Dallek describes Bush’s blunder in more blunt terms: “What is Bush suggesting? That we didn’t fight hard enough, stay long enough? That’s nonsense. It’s a distortion.”
It’s worth noting that this issue does not necessarily end with the completion of George W. Bush’s second term in office. Republican candidates for President echo Bush’s claim that prolonging the military occupation Iraq is a good idea.
(Source: Agence France Presse, August 23, 2007)
bush is not wrong. the dems bugged out of vietnam and all the deaths that followed are directly their fault. we should not have bugged out but have allowed the military to win the war which could have happened very quickly.
I didn’t know Nixon and Kissinger were Democrats. But hey, you learn something new every day. I also learned from walt that the United States’ spending of $531.5 Billion (2005 dollars) on the war in Vietnam was “not allowing the military to win the war.” That wasn’t enough support, see.
Oh please! If we leave, we’ll make it worse? Seriously, the connection between Iraq and Vietnam had more to do with how we got in, than how we plan to get out.
1) Neither was an actual, declared war, which allowed the president to get around wartime appropriations.
2) We entered both wars without realizing that we were stepping into the middle of a civil war.
Looks like somebody was too busy taking bong rips at Yale to pay attention in his history class.
http://www.yourcivicdoody.com
Just what in the hell does Dubya know about Vietnam in the first place? Not only was he less than adequate in his History classes; but he had enough pull (Daddy) to wangle a commision in the Texas Air National Guard, where he spent his time in steely-eyed determination and protecting his country from that pesky Mexican Air Force that was waiting to attack us while all the rest of the Armed Forces was lollygaging over in SE Asia…a real hardship tour…especially that time when the Officer’s Club’s ice machine broke. My Gawd, they had to drink Jack Daniels WITHOUT ice!!! Hell, even Dick(less) Cheney had to wangle 5 student deferments! I’ll pay attention to their vast wartime experience on the day that I’m given irrefutable proof that Hell has frozen solid.
Bush and the neocons have gotten most everything they’ve attempted wrong. Their foreign and domestic policies are corporate-serving agendas at the expense of human lives and treasure. Corporate Amerikkka is happy but the electorate, for the most part, isn’t. Whether “we” can do anything about it in the coming years remains to be seen.
Uh, Walt, if American victory in Vietnam “could have happened very quickly”, then how come, with years and years and years of war, the victory never came?
Is this a new Republican definition of “quickly”? Does quickly now mean within two or three decades?