Republican Senator Chuck Hagel slammed the George W. Bush administration's Iraq policy as "disconnected from reality" in some of the harshest comments to date about the war from a member of the president's own party.
Hagel, a top Senate Republican said to have presidential aspirations, said in an interview in US News and World Report, set to hit newsstands Monday, that US troops are "losing" the Iraq war, and that "things aren't getting better, they're getting worse."
"The White House is completely disconnected from reality," said Hagel. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq," said Hagel, who added that increasingly, fellow Republicans are coming to share his view.
"More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned," he said.
He made his comments as insurgent attacks in Iraq are at an all-time high and as a growing number of lawmakers have begun calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops there.
I want to make a point here. I'm not asking anyone to be a cheerleader for the president, our involvement in Iraq or our prosecution of the War on Terror. That said, I don't understand irresponsible statements like those Chuck Hagel is spouting.
"The reality is we're losing in Iraq?"
By what conceivable objective standard of measurement can that statement be made?
How are we "losing" in Iraq, Mr. Hagel? I'd certainly agree that those who support the war are losing the propaganda battle for the hearts and minds of the American people (nevermind the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people). I would agree that if one defined 'losing' as a perception rather than a reality, you'd have a point. But in real terms, not political terms, how are we losing in Iraq?
Hagel, it seems, is another in a long line of Americans who demand instant gratification and eschew hard work that involves long involvement. We still slog away in relatively peaceful Kosovo, a country still is unable to stand up for itself, yet Hagel seems to think Iraq should have already been delt with.
We're again faced with the results of having a coterie of compromisers in "leadership" positions. People driven by polls, constituent letters and complaints, more interested in their political life than the country's obligations.
Hagel voted for the war in Iraq, and now, when the going is a bit tough, hasn't the sand to tough it out. Why? Well certainly not because of any risk to him personally. No. My guess is its because he see's a risk politically if he stands staunchly by his earlier vote.
Does anyone have any idea what this sort of talk does to the morale of our military?
Responding to Hagel's remarks on US television Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejected his bleak assessment of events in Iraq.
"If you're looking at what is happening politically in Iraq, these people are moving toward a different kind of future than Saddam Hussein could ever have given them," she told CNN.
"The insurgency is losing the Iraqi people, because the Iraqi people have a different kind of future in mind," she said. "That's why we're getting more intelligence. That's why people continue to volunteer for the Iraqi security services."
"We are not going to have to ... shoulder this burden until the day that the last moment of violence is over in Iraq. The Iraqis will have to do that. But we can leave them a firm foundation for a better future, and I think we can do that in a relatively quick period of time," Rice told CNN.
I noted these points in a couple of posts earlier. More Iraqi involvement, more intelligence tips, more of the Iraqis taking charge of their destiny. We even have the Sunnis accepting a compromise to sit on the committee writing the Iraqi consitution.
But we're "losing the war" in Iraq, per Hagel. Imagine if the Chuck Hagels of the world were Senators during the Battle of the Bulge in WWII. He'd have probably been ready to throw in the towel figuring the German army's last gasp on the western front was in fact the beginning of the end for the Allied war effort.
Talk about disconnected from reality.
UPDATE: On the other hand, credit where credit is due, McCain, firmly grounded in reality, on "Meet the Press":
MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line: What should President Bush say to the country about Iraq right now
SEN. McCAIN: "It's going to be a long, hard slog. And I'm asking for your patience. And the consequences of failure are catastrophic. The benefits of success, we're already seeing in some parts of the Middle East. And we have had some success. We're now in the process of a constitution in Iraq. We have had an election that Iraqis proved, contrary to some cynics' view, that Iraqis were willing to even risk their lives in order to vote. We're forming a constitution. We will stick to the guidelines of: August 15, the constitution; October 15, ratification of it; and December 15, an election of an Iraqi government. We will stay the course and we will do whatever is necessary in order to succeed."
That's twice in two days I've agreed with McCain. I'm sure that won't continue, but in the case of Iraq, McCain has it right. And he repeats what the administration has been saying for a year: ""It's going to be a long, hard slog. And I'm asking for your patience. And the consequences of failure are catastrophic."
The argument over whether we should go to or be in Iraq is over. We're there. We now have an obligation to see it through. That's an obligation America has because its leadership on the legislative side made it through their vote to sanction operations in Iraq. Not just the Republicans, but the entire country. It is not useful or productive to anyone to claim we're losing (especially when there's no objective measure which backs that assertion) and to withdraw support politically.
Finish the job. Get it done. Recognize it will be tough, may take a long time and may cost American lives. But the benfits within the region stand to be far greater than our losses.
A democratic Iraq is far less likely to be a base from which terror can spread. And it will be an influence among other countries in the Middle East to push for similar reforms. The more peaceful democratic regimes come to power in the Middle East, the fewer bases terrorists and terrorism will enjoy. If our goal is to defeat terrorist organizations and terrorism then it is to our long-term benefit to ensure success in Iraq and to work toward similar changes in other countries in the region.
What some of our political "leaders" need to do is grow a pair, quit worrying about their prospects in '08 and live up to their moral and political obligations as pertains to Iraq.
UPDATE:Nancy Pelosi joins the defeatist parade and Roy Blunt (figuratively) slaps her:
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) today issued the following statement regarding comments made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) on the House floor Thursday calling, the war in Iraq a "grotesque mistake" and the resources allocated for fighting the war spent "without success:"
"When elected officials back home call the war our men and women are fighting abroad a mistake, the only people emboldened are the enemy.
"Our troops in harm's way need armor and equipment, not second-guessing and cynicism. They deserve to be supported, not demoralized.
"Leader Pelosi's comments during debate on the bill to fund America's military operations in wartime stand in stark contrast to the bravery of the millions of Iraqis who voted in democratic elections for the first time, and the thousands of coalition troops who have given their lives to defend freedom."
The argument over whether we should go to or be in Iraq is over. We’re there. We now have an obligation to see it through. That’s an obligation America has because its leadership on the legislative side made it through their vote to sanction operations in Iraq. Not just the Republicans, but the entire country. It is not useful or productive to anyone to claim we’re losing (especially when there’s no objective measure which backs that assertion) and to withdraw support politically.
Finish the job. Get it done. Recognize it will be tough, may take a long time and may cost American lives. But the benfits within the region stand to be far greater than our losses.
And if nothing else, others will realize the tiger isn’t made of paper any more.
By what conceivable standard of measurment can that statement be made? ——-
What standard? Um, I think it’s called reality.
The average daily KIA rate for "coalition" (read "US") troops so far in June is 2.9 per day. In June, it was 2.84 per day. For the entire war—including the times when one would expect much higher casualties, such as the first month of the invasion when it ran 7.67 per day, the Rape of Fallujah last November when it ran 4.7 per day, etc.—the average is 2.32 per day.
In other words, two years after "mission accomplished," the US is taking more casualties on an average daily basis, day in and day out, than it has averaged over the whole run of the war (and for the last two months, it has been taking casualties at the highest rate since the Rape of Fallujah). And there is no end in sight.
2.9 dead Americans per day is very low number for Washington to crumple up and throw away by historical standards ... but given the alleged training of more than 100,000 Iraqis to bear the brunt of crushing resistance, one would expect US KIA to be going down if the occupation was even holding its own, let alone making any progress.
Furthermore, the latest evidence is that the resistance is growing, not shrinking. Enemies in the "death throes of their struggle" do not build air conditioned bunker complexes the size of four football fields and then abandon them without a fight when they are compromised. If they’re in the last ditch, they don’t have the resources to expand their bases of operation, and they fight to the last extremity to hold what they do have.
The US is no closer to "winning" in Iraq now than it was in April of 2003, and it’s not likely to get any closer. It’s been downhill for nearly two years, and that’s the direction it’s likely to keep going in. That’s a fact, and as I am fond of saying about facts, they remain facts whether you like them or not.
In other words, two years after "mission accomplished," the US is taking more casualties on an average daily basis, day in and day out, than it has averaged over the whole run of the war
Fascinating. I wasn’t aware that our strategic objective in Iraq was 0 casualties.
But just in case that was never our strategic goal, let’s ask another question: what has the KIA rate to do with our strategic objective in Iraq?
I don’t know what your strategic goal is. I assume that the strategic goals of the US government would at least include pacifying the place.
When an occupying force is taking more casualties day to day after two years than it has over the prior course of the war—even after a year of trying to hand the "heavy lifting" over to native forces—and when the resistance is also killing more Iraqis than ever before, that’s objective evidence that the resistance is getting stronger, not weaker.
If you can’t see that, then you’re not living in the real world. Not that that’s atypical of supporters of the war, but if you’re not going to live in the real world, expect people to notice.
The average daily KIA rate for "coalition" (read "US") troops so far in June is 2.9 per day. In June, it was 2.84 per day.
Incredible. To echo Jon’s question, what has this to do with "winning or losing"?
The US is no closer to "winning" in Iraq now than it was in April of 2003, and it’s not likely to get any closer.
Based on what objective standard do you make this assertion (And no, an .06 casualties a day indrease does not constitute proof we’re losing)?
As I argued in the piece, it appears the government formation is going on as planned, more Iraqis are involved in their own security and we’re now receiving more and more intel from the propulation which is helping to thwart a larger percentage of terrorist operations.
It’s been downhill for nearly two years, and that’s the direction it’s likely to keep going in. That’s a fact, and as I am fond of saying about facts, they remain facts whether you like them or not.
What facts? Blather and bluster are not facts. And it’s assinine to pretend this should have all been wrapped up in a neat little ball after 6 months ... that is if you’re actually dealing with reality.
While Jon is off fighting trolls I’ll ask a germane question.
You are certainly right to demand of our pols to "grow a pair" and "finish the job". OTOH, I think it a bit unlikely that Chuck Hagel, Dick Durban, "Cryer" Voinovich, et. al. would engage in their current antics unless they really felt it would resonate at home. I would think that Tom Daschle’s recent "you’re fired!" should point out the danger in abandoning the voters’ real sentiments and that one cannot just finesse over his actions acounter. Accordingly, is it not possible that the constituents of those states really want such portrayals?
Anyone have a finger on that pulse? This inquiring mind wants to know!
I don’t know what your strategic goal is. I assume that the strategic goals of the US government would at least include pacifying the place.
As possible, certainly. But the problem—an unavoidable problem with a low-tech insurgency—is that destruction is easy. Very, very easy. (see: DC Sniper)
Ultimately, our goal is to give Iraq enough time to establish a sustainable (broadly) democratic government. Which is not to say that we’re trying to establish your anarcho-paradise, or even a Jeffersonian Democracy—just a government with the checks, balances and mallability of a democracy.
Frankly, I don’t see any way that we can put an end to the insurgency. So long as we’re there, it will be there. It will be there after we’re gone, too, but so long as we endure to a certain point, it will be unable to defeat the countervailing public demand for a democratic government.
Casualties are a tragedy...they are not necessarily an indicator of strategic objectives. It seems to me that many critics of the war, and you as well, are perfectly willing to conflate the two items; to say that "bad things continue to happen, so we must be losing". That’s an emotional appeal, with no apparent connection to strategic objectives.
Accordingly, is it not possible that the constituents of those states really want such portrayals?
D:
It’s possible. It’s also possible they’re a noisy minority. And I agree that there may be some local political reason for the apparent change of mind.
But here’s the question. Which is supposed to be the priority of the elected leadership in this country?
A) the best long-term good of the country
or
B) their political health?
That brings us back to "grow a pair" and "finish the job", which, I thought, were things Americans did.
If their priority is "A", then we’d not be hearing why we’re losing, but instead reasons why we’re winning and suggestions on how to do it better and faster. If it’s "B", then there’s going to be nebulous assertions about losing and a withdrawl of support (as well as calls for withdrawing the troops) all of which will then be used come reelection time to appeal to the noisy constituency which demanded such action to begin with.
——- It seems to me that many critics of the war, and you as well, are perfectly willing to conflate the two items; to say that "bad things continue to happen, so we must be losing". ——-
Bullshit. It’s not a matter of "bad things continuing to happen." It’s a matter of "the force doing those bad things getting stronger, not weaker."
The resistance in Iraq is getting stronger. At the beginning, it had only the US/coalition troops to fight. It is still killing as many of those troops as ever, while simultaneously inflicting greater losses on the Iraqi forces which have been thrown into the conflict on the US side and sustaining a higher tempo of terror operations.
The US military, on the other hand, is getting weaker. History says that the US needs between 450,000 and 500,000 troops on the ground in Iraq to pacify the place. The 140,000 it has there have been stretching it thin for two years, and now it is failing to recruit adequate replacements for them.
Those are not indicators of success, and they will not become indicators of success, no matter how hard you click your heels together and shriek "there’s no place like just around that corner that Bush and Co. have been babbling about for two years."
Bullshit. It’s not a matter of "bad things continuing to happen." It’s a matter of "the force doing those bad things getting stronger, not weaker."
You think an increase in suicide bombings and IEDs are indicators of an insurgency becoming "stronger"?
The only ways an insurgency can win are either by 1) deposing the Iraqi government, or b) forcing the people of Iraq to support factionalism over nationalism. Historically, Iraqis have been fairly big on nationalism, and they don’t seem too keen on the insurgency. The insurgency doesn’t actually have a strategy. They offer nothing positive to the Iraqi populace. So, exactly how do you think the insurgency will win? What’s the mechanism?
Ultimately, I find this notion that "we’re losing, because a small minority of Iraqis can make a big mess" utterly inconvincing...especially when compared to the fact that an Iraqi government is coalescing around a pluralistic, secular system, and the fact that the Shi’ites, Kurds and Sunni’s are all cooperating to that end. The political escape valve is being used by the important leaders, rather than the violent escape valve.
Bad things will continue to happen in Iraq, but a stable, (roughly) democratic government can obtain regardless of those bad things. Meanwhile, no number of troops can eliminate the ability of free people to do bad things.
The resistance in Iraq is getting stronger. At the beginning, it had only the US/coalition troops to fight. It is still killing as many of those troops as ever, while simultaneously inflicting greater losses on the Iraqi forces which have been thrown into the conflict on the US side and sustaining a higher tempo of terror operations.
Of course it is, Tom. That’s why they’re now killing Sunnis which are their biggest base of support.
You know, I guess it all depends on how you choose to interpret what’s going on. The insurgency has essentially shifted its focus from US troops to Iraqis.
Now you seem to think that means their getting stronger.
In fact, it would seem more reasonable to believe they’re trying to slow down the progress in Iraq by targeting the people in an effort to scare and intimidate them. They go after the army and police because they know that’s the key to standing up the government.
And yet more people join the army and the police despite the risk.
An insurgency that is getting stronger doesn’t then begin attacking its base of support, which is precisely what they’re doing.
And, assuming the sunnis want the collapse of the interim government, it then doesn’t make any sense to agree to a compromise which puts them on the committee to write the Constitution, or make overtures to the government saying, "hey we made a mistake sitting out the elections and do want to be a part of the process."
The US military, on the other hand, is getting weaker. History says that the US needs between 450,000 and 500,000 troops on the ground in Iraq to pacify the place. The 140,000 it has there have been stretching it thin for two years, and now it is failing to recruit adequate replacements for them.
But they are not there to pacify Iraq, as has been covered here and elsewhere. The focus has changed. They’re there to train up the Iraqi and let them take a larger burden in terms of security. That too was pointed out in a cite of Austin Bay where he said, on his return to Iraq, that the shift was obvious.
For that mission, you don’t need 450,000 troops. 140,000 is more than adequate.
Those are not indicators of success, and they will not become indicators of success, no matter how hard you click your heels together and shriek "there’s no place like just around that corner that Bush and Co. have been babbling about for two years."
LOL! No one over here is doing any of that. We’re actually presenting reality based on reports from Iraq. Not calling a six one hundreds increase in the casualty count proof that we’re losing.
The only shrieking I hear is coming from your quarter.
Which is supposed to be the priority of the elected leadership in this country?
A) the best long-term good of the country or B) their political health?
Well, being the cynic that I am, clearly their job today is to stay in office first. That being the case are going to do and say whatever necessary to resonate with their voters. Now, perhaps, the aforementioned pols are simply trying to play all sides of the issue in a Kerryesque manner; playing their constituents for unsophisicated fools.
That brings us back to "grow a pair" and "finish the job", which, I thought, were things Americans did.
Agreed. Perhaps it is the responsibility of every John Q. Public out there to carry the steel and courage that our "leaders" refuse to show. If the citizenry is ready for the task then the message will filter upward. If not then we get the government we deserve.
Sorry, I’m not giving McCain a cookie for his comments. Russert asked him what the President "should" say and he replied with what the President has been saying in almost exactly the words the President has been using.
I’d say a miles and miles better answer would have been "Were I the President I’d say what I’ve been saying all along: that it’s a long tough battle and we’re going to have to keep our determination to do what we have to do there". At least that way he gives the President credit for doing what Russert and others don’t seem to believe he’s been doing.
Jon has this one exactly right. Although he proclaims to disdain chickenhawks, Mr. Knapp appears to be a chickenchicken and his obsession with casualty figures is good evidence. He deserves to be in the mess tent scouring pans when men and women brave enough to serve or send their children to serve, talk of war. There really is no place in a serious discussion for the mewling of those who have no understanding of the human costs of maintaining liberty, which, by historical standards are ridiculously low in Iraq. Got a policy suggestion on how we can do a better job? Come on. Got a criticism about something that needs fixing so we can do a better job? Come on. Decrying the casualties and whining that you want to get back to “your warm bed in Boston” while saying that “we should just pay the King the damned outrageous tax on tea” doesn’t get it.
Exactly, if anything the focus of attacks only prove that the insurgency is becoming more desparate and scraping the barrel for more and more dupes and rubes to send to their 72 raisins.
In case Tom forgot, initially the insurgency targetted US troops. When that became too difficult, they started targetting shiites and kurds. Now they are targetting Sunnis, their only natural ally in the country. Much like starting a fight with your brother to piss off your neighbour. More and more, those captured are Saudis, north africans and more far flung jihadis. The locals have wised up (including the yemenis, jordanians, etc) and have stopped "volunteering" for their heavenly duty.
As a liberal (gasp) who reads this blog regularly, albeit sometimes with my nose plugged, I am disappointed with the above. I read this blog in my attempts not to hear only people who agree with me. This blog (as opposed to crap like instapundit, or god forgive, the national review) is usually at least a tolerable place to seek other points of view.
The original article debunks the idea that we are losing the war in Iraq and calls statements to the contrary defeatist and non-reality based. The response to a reader who argues the contrary and includes some statistics and at least a mildly rational argument to go with them, is simply to say he is wrong, and presumably stupid to boot, with no convincing data to support the counter-counter argument.
I am not an expert in insurgency warfare. I believe that 99% of the statements being made as to whether we are winning or losing in Iraq are politically calculated. I would guess it is extremely hard to tell if we are winning or losing militarily until something really decisive happens.
Of course the real issue IS political. The story from Viet Nam is that US General So and So said to N Viet Namese General Whojamawatchit, "You never beat us on the battlefield," to which General W replied, "That’s true but it’s also irrelevant."
Even dictatorships have a hard time prosecuting wars that don’t have popular support. See for instance, USSR in Afghanistan, or, (oh crap, I don’t have time to look up any more.) To maintain popular support it helps to have had a solid case for going in there in the first place. When the case is contrived (any examples come to mind?) or based on highly abstract and ideological arguments (Viet Nam anyone?) popular support can fall apart pretty quickly. This is not a case of whether you have balls or not (I don’t being a girl and all.) It’s just really hard to see your kids dying if you’re not sure they had to be there in the first place.
So are we winning or losing? That depends on what the Moms and Dads in Iowa or North Carolina think more than just about anything else.
So are we winning or losing? That depends on what the Moms and Dads in Iowa or North Carolina think more than just about anything else.
Actually it depends on the ability to rationally think and analyze what is being reported about the war and come to some sort of conclusion. But you have to know what compromises fact and what compromises spin.
You also have to have some grounding in reality. Iraq isn’t a 2 hour movie which is all neatly wrapped up and concluded in that length of time.
It involves a country of 25 million. It involves tribal loyalties, conflicts among religious and ethinic sects, the introduction of democracy and the rebuilding of an infrastructure that was allowed to deteriorate to nothing. Add to that a bunch that are willing to use violence to stop any improvement in the life of the Iraqis and you have a tough row to hoe.
While that is complicated and there have been some setbacks, it doesn’t mean we’re losing. It means it will take a while to make it all work, just as the administration has been saying for over a year. See the piece here for examples of the challenges being faced and met.
And no, it doesn’t depend on the Moms and Dads in Iowa and NC, it depends on the people of the US deciding to finish a job they’ve taken on. Frankly I see a moral obligation to do so, but that’s primarily because I’m old fashioned and feel that is something the America I grew up in does.
BTW, thanks for reading the blog and participating with comments.
Oh, and it was COL Harry Summers talking to a NVA Colonel when the "irrelevant" remark came up. Speaking of NVA Colonels, seems the North Vietnamese strategy is now the Jihadist strategy.
From NVA COL Bui Tin (in a 1995 WSJ interview): Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
"We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."
Sound familiar? And, as we all know, they were aided and abetted by fellow travlers right here in the good old US of A.
In the first place, you hit the nail on the head, insofar as the "center of gravity" is popular opinion. But you make it sound as though the fathers and mothers in Iowa and NC have access to all the information. In reality, what they know, historically, has been based on what the press tells them.
Or, to put it differently, in Vietnam, the 1968 Tet Offensive was presented as an American defeat, when by any metric, including the VC’s own assessments, it was a clear American victory.
As for the idea that dictatorships and democracies need popular support, let’s keep a few things in mind:
In Vietnam, the American people mostly supported the war from 1965 (introduction of American ground troops in a combat role) to 1968 (Tet Offensive portrayed as major US defeat). Even then, there was still very significant support for the war effort (part of Nixon’s appeal).
As for the USSR, they stayed in Afghanistan for about a decade. Not exactly a "collapse" of their war effort. Nor is it at all clear that they withdrew due to domestic opposition—-arguably, the foreign policy repercussions (wherein they were perceived as aggressors), and the concomitant undermining of some of the Left’s arguments in Europe and elsewhere that the USSR was peace-loving had something to do w/ it. Indeed, the Soviet military never deployed that much into Afghanistan (no more than about 5 divisions, iirc).
Of course, Soviet adherence to niceties such as the Geneva Conventions were also somewhat less than our own—-Afghan civilian casualties were enormous, on a scale not seen in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
My compliments, varda, it is a rarity that that a liberal makes a comment that makes any sense - and yours does. Must be the product of your expeditions outside the liberal cocoon. Look out, though, the door may slam and leave you outside with people like neocon.
If you really knew all along Iraq would last this long and get this bloody, then you should have said so years ago. You didn’t. You said it would be easy. You said we’d be welcomed as liberators. You said Saddam had WMDs. The only question is whether you were lying, or just stupid. And that doesn’t matter much, really. You’ve landed America in a huge, endless mess. Where’s the patriotism in that? In other cultures you’d be expected to commit ritual suicide after bringing such a catastrophe on your country. That’s too much to ask, but you might at least admit your error and resolve to stay out of matters which are simply beyond your ken. Dr John Dolan
Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
"We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."
Sound familiar? And, as we all know, they were aided and abetted by fellow travlers right here in the good old US of A.
Oh yes the dreaded "fifth column of hippies won the war for Hanoi" theory.
Has it ever occured that the simplest way to win a war when attacked by Hanoi, would have been to attack and occupy Hanoi? Then lets see a war where Uncle Ho defeats the Americans by running away through the jungles, having no victories.
If you really knew all along Iraq would last this long and get this bloody, then you should have said so years ago. You didn’t. You said it would be easy. You said we’d be welcomed as liberators. You said Saddam had WMDs. The only question is whether you were lying, or just stupid. And that doesn’t matter much, really. You’ve landed America in a huge, endless mess. Where’s the patriotism in that? In other cultures you’d be expected to commit ritual suicide after bringing such a catastrophe on your country. That’s too much to ask, but you might at least admit your error and resolve to stay out of matters which are simply beyond your ken. Dr John Dolan
If you really knew all along Iraq would last this long and get this bloody, then you should have said so years ago. You didn’t. You said it would be easy.
No, we didn’t. We said it would be a "long, hard slog". We said it would be a difficult process. We said it would take a lot of work.
Once again, the utter lack of historical knowledge and context is breathtaking.
Vietnam occurred in the context of Korea, the Chinese intervention there, and the spectre of nuclear war. By your "logic," we could just as easily have solved the problem by simply nuking all of North Vietnam.
The reality, however, is that the memory of several million Chinese intervening in Korea was still a very real one in the minds of LBJ’s decision-makers. You may want to consider precisely why LBJ prevented the USAF from bombing the Red River dikes, or proceeding much farther north than Hanoi.
It was also unclear the extent to which the Soviets might choose to support Ho’s regime. Indeed, it is worth remembering that "We Were Soldiers Once" occurred only three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when everyone thought that mushroom clouds appearing over US cities was a very real possibility. A major factor preventing the mining of Haiphong Harbor was the fear that Soviet merchant ships (openly carrying SAMs to North Vietnam) might be sunk, killing Soviet sailors and leading to a US-Soviet confrontation.
To suggest that the US could/would, then, simply seize Hanoi is, frankly, ignorant, ahistorical, and as divorced from reality as suggesting we could have ended the Cold War in 1972 by simply nuking Moscow.
The argument over whether we should go to or be in Iraq is over. We’re there. We now have an obligation to see it through.
We have a bit of a conundrum. If I help the President achieve his goals in Iraq, I guarantee he will engage in triumphalism and use any resulting success politically, boasting that his resolve saw us through. OTOH, I do not wish the U.S. or Iraq to fail. Thus, I propose a thought experiment: Suppose we on the left offered to commit ourselves fully to helping nurture the naiscent Iraqi democracy IF the folks who got us into this mess were to resign in favor of an administration led by, say, Wes Clark, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, or Hillary Clinton (or pick your favorite non-neocon). In theory, would you accept such a bargain? If not, I think it means one or both of two things: You believe going into Iraq was not a mistake, or you are being just as politically calculating as you’re accusing the left of being. Thus I disagree that we should stop talking about whether we should have gone in because it is quite relevant to the ongoing political scene.
And then there’s the obligation to see it through. I think most posters here hold to the idea that our major mistake in Vietnam was that we lost the will to fight at home, and thus failed to commit fully to a military victory. I think our major mistake in Vietnam, aside from getting involved in the first place, is that we waited so long to pull out. Had we done so back in 1968 under much the same terms that we did in 1975, untold thousands of lives (conservatively) would have been saved, and in so doing we might have normalized relations with Vietnam years before we ultimately did. I’m not saying that Iraq=Vietnam; I am citing Vietnam as an example where the "obligation to see it through" logic is weak. I think it may also be the case in Iraq, though frankly I’m not sure yet.
The Fools’ Crusade in Iraq is in its final throes. And you deadenders know it. So where’s your sense of personal responsibility? I thought your guys were the champions of taking responsibility. Why don’t you privatize the debacle, admit that it’s yours? C’mon, I just want to hear one Bush fan say, "I was wrong and I’m sorry for hurting America so badly."
The reasons you have stated are all valid reasons. All reasonable, sensible reasons why the USA did not attack Hanoi. The fact that this made Hanoi invincible and greatly assisted Ho in winning the war are secondary. In the context of the bigger picture losing in Vietnam was better than being on the recieving end of Soviet aggression.
Now can someone please explain to little old me (historically ignorant and naive as I am) why America fears Saudi Arabia as much as the Soviet Union? Simple small words would be nice.
