0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 08:43 pm
For mcGentrix:
Quote:
Published on Thursday, September 18, 2003 by the Atlanta Journal Constitution
Mistakes of Vietnam Repeated with Iraq
by Max Cleland


The president of the United States decides to go to war against a nation led by a brutal dictator supported by one-party rule. That dictator has made war on his neighbors. The president decides this is a threat to the United States.

In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war. All they are looking for is an excuse.

Based on faulty intelligence, cherry-picked information is fed to Congress and the American people. The president goes on national television to make the case for war, using as part of the rationale an incident that never happened. Congress buys the bait -- hook, line and sinker -- and passes a resolution giving the president the authority to use "all necessary means" to prosecute the war.

The war is started with an air and ground attack. Initially there is optimism. The president says we are winning. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense says we are winning. As a matter of fact, the secretary of defense promises the troops will be home soon.

However, the truth on the ground that the soldiers face in the war is different than the political policy that sent them there. They face increased opposition from a determined enemy. They are surprised by terrorist attacks, village assassinations, increasing casualties and growing anti-American sentiment. They find themselves bogged down in a guerrilla land war, unable to move forward and unable to disengage because there are no allies to turn the war over to.

There is no plan B. There is no exit strategy. Military morale declines. The president's popularity sinks and the American people are increasingly frustrated by the cost of blood and treasure poured into a never-ending war.

Sound familiar? It does to me.

The president was Lyndon Johnson. The cocky, self-assured secretary of defense was Robert McNamara. The congressional resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The war was the war that I, U.S. Sens. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and John McCain and 3 1/2 million other Americans of our generation were caught up in. It was the scene of America's longest war. It was also the locale of the most frustrating outcome of any war this nation has ever fought.

Unfortunately, the people who drove the engine to get into the war in Iraq never served in Vietnam. Not the president. Not the vice president. Not the secretary of defense. Not the deputy secretary of defense. Too bad. They could have learned some lessons:

• Don't underestimate the enemy. The enemy always has one option you cannot control. He always has the option to die. This is especially true if you are dealing with true believers and guerillas fighting for their version of reality, whether political or religious. They are what Tom Friedman of The New York Times calls the "non-deterrables." If those non-deterrables are already in their country, they will be able to wait you out until you go home.

• If the enemy adopts a "hit-and-run" strategy designed to inflict maximum casualties on you, you may win every battle, but (as Walter Lippman once said about Vietnam) you can't win the war.

• If you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive strike but also pre-emptive war, you own the aftermath. You better plan for it. You better have an exit strategy because you cannot stay there indefinitely unless you make it the 51st state.

If you do stay an extended period of time, you then become an occupier, not a liberator. That feeds the enemy against you.

• If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.

• If you want to know what is really going on in the war, ask the troops on the ground, not the policy-makers in Washington.

• In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations.

Instead of learning the lessons of Vietnam, where all of the above happened, the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense have gotten this country into a disaster in the desert.

They attacked a country that had not attacked us. They did so on intelligence that was faulty, misrepresented and highly questionable.

A key piece of that intelligence was an outright lie that the White House put into the president's State of the Union speech. These officials have overextended the American military, including the National Guard and the Reserve, and have expanded the U.S. Army to the breaking point.

A quarter of a million troops are committed to the Iraq war theater, most of them bogged down in Baghdad. Morale is declining and casualties continue to increase.

In addition to the human cost, the war in dollars costs $1 billion a week, adding to the additional burden of an already depressed economy.

The president has declared "major combat over" and sent a message to every terrorist, "Bring them on." As a result, he has lost more people in his war than his father did in his and there is no end in sight.

Military commanders are left with extended tours of duty for servicemen and women who were told long ago they were going home. We are keeping American forces on the ground, where they have become sitting ducks in a shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.

Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance.

Max Cleland, former U.S. senator, was head of the Veterans Administration in the Carter administration. He teaches at American University in Washington.

© 2003 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 08:57 pm
hobit, Just goes to show, it's easy for most people to send other people's loved one's into harms way when they don't understand the reality of wars. The new world policy should be that the leaders of the country that wish to go to war do hand-to-hand combat until one is killed. The two countries go back to business as usual. Only one gets killed for their beliefs. Betcha that never happens.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 09:54 pm
Timber posted:


hat the misperception the preceeding President was vilified and impeached for lies relating to sexual misbehavior is indicative of the failure of some to "Get it". It is not that a lie was told, or that the lie concerned private matters; rather it is that an elected official lied under oath. The issue is the violation of oath, not the particulars. Had the lie been about flyfishing or bicycle maintenance, and isuued under oath, it would have been no less egregious, no less serious an assualt on and contempt for the rule of law which defines our nation.


I have always said that Clinton would have been better off to cop a plea to a reduced charge of masturbation ...
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 09:56 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Timber posted:


hat the misperception the preceeding President was vilified and impeached for lies relating to sexual misbehavior is indicative of the failure of some to "Get it". It is not that a lie was told, or that the lie concerned private matters; rather it is that an elected official lied under oath. The issue is the violation of oath, not the particulars. Had the lie been about flyfishing or bicycle maintenance, and isuued under oath, it would have been no less egregious, no less serious an assualt on and contempt for the rule of law which defines our nation.


I have always said that Clinton would have been better off to cop a plea to a reduced charge of masturbation ...

Perhaps an opponent in a future debate will tell him,"You sir,are no Peter North!"
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 10:00 pm
I find it particularly insulting, as a redblooded American, that he couldn't have had better taste in Bimbos. Really, you'd think The Most Powerful Man In The World would attract real classy stunners, not Jerry Springer guest candidates.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 10:15 pm
I think its the whole Arkansas thing. You know, big haired hefty southern mama types! Smile Paula Jones was just creepy, but there is something sort of attractive about Monica. She has that co-dependent low self esteem look. If you are looking for an easy time of it, those sort of girls are usually fair game, although it doesn't say much about one's own personality if one preys on such women.
I always thought the "slick Willie" moniker was apt, for he always struck me as the sort of chap who looked to do things he could "get away with." I don't think our current president is too different, although he has been puritanized by his finding of Jay-suss, and instead goes after profits and power.
This is also why I never wish to see Hillary in the white house. She strikes me as another Bush, who would see nothing wrong with "taking what she could get" and then letting someone else clean up the mess. I actually blame her and Hubby for the whole Enron, Worldcom, etc.. mess. The presidencies from 1992-2004 may be later typified as president sleazy followed by president cheesey. Sad
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 10:28 pm
Clinton's Presidency will forever be known as 'sex between the Bushes'.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 10:40 pm
Not really. I think Clinton will be known for saying during the grand jury inquiry, "It depends on what
the meaning of the word 'is' is."
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2003 11:37 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Clinton's Presidency will forever be known as 'sex between the Bushes'.

That's certainly been the highpoint of the day ... a much welcomed uplift. Thanks, Gel ... that was priceless.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 04:43 am
From the Grand Forks Herald (hey, blame Google):

Quote:
Tapes suggest bin Laden ill or dead

After examining new video and audio tapes of Osama bin Laden that were broadcast last week, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the fugitive al-Qaida leader is probably ill or injured and could be incapacitated or even dead.

Three administration officials, all speaking on the condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified, said the videotape, which showed bin Laden hiking in the mountains, could have been made up to two years ago and that an audio track of bin Laden speaking was recorded separately, also some time ago, and overlaid on the video. The only recent recording was a second audio track, recorded by bin Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri.

The two audio tracks, one of bin Laden and one of Zawahri, were recorded in different locations and are of very different technical quality, said one intelligence official, suggesting that the two top al-Qaida leaders are no longer together after years of being virtually inseparable.

The officials all cautioned that it's impossible to draw any firm conclusions from the tapes, but they said the new material has strengthened the belief that bin Laden is ailing and that Zawahri may now be running al-Qaida or preparing to succeed a weakened bin Laden.

"I think there's a pretty broad consensus that bin Laden's probably alive but not well," said one senior official.

Some analysts have offered alternative explanations for the old tapes, including one holding that bin Laden may be healthy but so worried about his security that he's unwilling to allow anyone near him with an audio or video tape recorder. [..]

The officials said a takeover of al-Qaida by Zawahri wouldn't have much effect on the organization because bin Laden and his top aide have long worked closely to drive the United States out of the Middle East and to topple regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Muslim world that they consider corrupt and dependent on the West.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 04:49 am
I, one of many, have always wondered why Clinton was being asked the questions. The right wing did it's job as well as it could in this case, it failed to bring down the President, but it did manage to damage, which is, of course, the first principal of war.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 05:07 am
Iraqi ex-defence chief surrenders


Ex-defence minister: US pledged to treat him well
Iraq's last defence minister under Saddam Hussein, former General Sultan Hashim Ahmed, has surrendered to US forces in northern Iraq, a Kurdish mediator says.

Mr Ahmed - number 27 on the Americans' list of most wanted former regime officials - reportedly gave himself up in the northern city of Mosul on Friday after weeks of mediation.


Story
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 05:16 am
Why has the US pledged to treat him well? I thought pre emptive self defence meant killing the enemy.

Or is it that pledges of good treatment will encourage Saddam and Osama to emerge from their respective caves?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 05:29 am
Didn't you know, we're only there to kill the civilians? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 06:28 am
Brand X wrote:
Didn't you know, we're only there to kill the civilians? Rolling Eyes


And all this time I thought we were there for the oil...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 07:33 am
For Hobibob:

U.S. Showed Its Postwar Might

By David Behrens
Staff Writer


Editor's note: As the United States begins the hard job of helping Iraq rebuild after the punishing war, it is useful to review how the United States successfully rebuilt Europe at the end of World War II.

World War II ended in 1945, but two years later the nations of western Europe were still struggling to rebuild their shattered economies.

During six years of combat, nations on both sides of the war had lost millions of civilians and people in uniform. As in Iraq, many cities had been devastated by air raids and by ground combat, creating a vast number of dispirited citizens.

In the most desperate need were America's two principal allies -- Britain and France -- and two of its enemies in the war, West Germany and Italy. The war was over, but people were upset and angry over the shortage of jobs, decent food and housing. Peace had not lessened the pain for many people.

After the bitterly cold winter of 1947, the first inkling of help came from the United States that summer: an aid program known as the Marshall Plan.

U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall proposed the idea on June 5, 1947, during a Harvard University commencement address. The plan was aimed at reducing hunger, homelessness, sickness, unemployment and political instability among 270 million people in 16 European nations.

The plan also was meant to address potentially troubling political developments: In France and Italy, Communist parties had attracted new followers with promises of a better life, while in Greece, Communist guerrillas were fighting a civil war to overthrow the government.

Rebuilding Iraq

This spring, the United States and its allies have promised a similar postwar program to rebuild Iraq. President George W. Bush has assured the Iraqi people that the United States "will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens -- and then our military forces will leave."

Most historians say that it would be wise for Americans to leave Iraq as soon as possible. Recalling the U.S. occupation of Germany after World War II, Harvard professor Stanley Hoffmann has said, "The lesson there was that it was a brief period," and by 1949, that nation was in control of its own affairs.

But the rebuilding of Iraq is likely to take many years and many dollars. For economists, the Marshall Plan is still considered a useful example of "economic diplomacy," a graceful way to help a war-ravaged society.

The Marshall Plan

Marshall had been a four-star general and the U.S. Army's chief of staff during World War II, overseeing the growth of the Army from a small force of 200,000 to more than 8.3 million soldiers by the end of the war.

Named secretary of state in early 1947, Marshall told the Harvard graduates that Europe's immediate needs for food and other essentials would be much greater than its ability to pay. "She must have substantial additional help or face economic, social and political deterioration of very grave character," he said.

Earlier, President Harry Truman had planned to help postwar Europe with his Truman Doctrine, economic and military aid aimed at limiting expansion of Communist influence. By then, most of eastern Europe had fallen under dictatorial Communist control.

Congress moved swiftly to start the rescue mission. It voted on some $597 million in interim aid to prevent economic collapse in France, Italy and Austria. Meanwhile, delegates of 16 European countries drew up a list of needed raw materials, food and technical advice.

In 1948, Congress voted $5.3 billion -- just the beginning -- to meet these needs. In the next four years, the U.S. gave more than $13 billion in aid, most of it to Britain, France, Italy and West Germany.

Europe, Rebuilt

With dollars pouring in, their economies soared. All kinds of industrial production rose a remarkable 35 percent, while some specific industries, such as steel and chemicals, recorded even sharper increases. And politically, the Communist party lost key positions in French and Italian governments, while the guerrilla movement in Greece was defeated.

For the most part, the plan did not feed individuals or build homes, schools or factories. The idea was to rebuild the economy and major industries. So the plan created new jobs, boosted income that people could spend and spurred Europe's foreign trade.

In addition, loans allowed Europe to buy equipment from U.S. firms and to send people to visit and study our factories and farms.

The Marshall Plan was a revolutionary idea, requiring recipients to cooperate in solving common problems. Marshall always called it the European Recovery Program -- never the Marshall Plan -- since he felt so many Americans contributed to the idea. Nonetheless, history remembers it as the Marshall Plan. Taxpayers had contributed $11.8 billion to the plan, and European countries paid back another $1.5 billion in loans.

When Marshall was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953, he modestly refused to accept the award as an individual -- only as the representative of the American people, who put up the money to save Europe from disaster.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 08:05 am
In the first years, half of the 13.2 billion $ was food. (Overall, more than 60% was spent on primary products and intermediate inputs.

The UK, btw, got highest sum (3.2 billion $), and the Western Zones (from 1949: Federal Republic Germany) the lowest sum.

source: The Marshall Plan (pdf-file!)
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 08:12 am
McGentrix, I don't see your poiint. This administration is unlikely to approve a Marshall Plan for Iraq and Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 08:23 am
Interessant!Schroder in NY Times
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2003 08:26 am
Another quotation from yesterday evening:
Quote:
BERLIN (Reuters) - France is ready to help train Iraqi soldiers and police, President Jacques Chirac said Thursday after meeting German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
During their meeting in Berlin, Schroeder raised the possibility of offering such training to help stabilize Iraq, Chirac said.

"If the chancellor confirms this position, France will take the same (position) for the same reasons," Chirac told a news conference.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/16/2025 at 04:51:42