Somebody tell me again, why are we there?

Some are saying that the Vietnam-Iraq comparison is unfair. They are right, it's worse.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001317.html[/url]


...and all the king's horses and all the king's men......




Geno

Comments

  • 18 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • It's possible to draw comparisons, of course, but the big thing is that the death toll can't be compared. It was routine to lose anywhere from 200 to 400 guys A WEEK during the height of Vietnam, and we had a standing army of 400,000 in-country. Our current losses in Iraq are less than 3,000. Now some might say that the policy makers drew the wrong lessons from Vietnam, which is to say that we went into Iraq understrength in order to lessen the casualties and the impact on public opinion. The Army Chief-of-Staff essentially lost his job when he reported to Congress that we'd need a 400,000 man army over there to accomplish the mission. Only time will tell if the Bush administration got it right or wrong, but one thing is for sure. We haven't lost nearly the troops we did in Vietnam, and I feel we never will.
  • As I said in an earlier post on another thread, the only difference I can see between Iraq and Vietnam is geography.

    I don't feel we will lose as many troops in Iraq as we did in Vietnam (58,000) simply because of technology. We can fight from a more secured position and body armor has contributed to the lower mortality rate (the downside is that we are seeing more amputees in Iraq because the extremities are unprotected).
  • In some ways the Iraq War is similar to Vietnam and in some ways quite different. But the biggest similarity seems to be the gradual increase of distrust (disbelief) in the government resulting in (or from) the increased angst over the death of too many young people.
  • Bottom line...regardless of the reason we started it...we now have to finish...or it will be a hotbed of discontent and all the bad things it was purported to be before we began.

    Frankly, I think we all know by now that the hunt for WMD's was bogus...and we just have to deal with the reality that Congress gave the President what he wanted in the face of a horrible tragedy...and now we'll fix it.

    Questioning the reason we're there doesn't equal not supporting the troops. If we didn't question, I'd be more concerned.

    Our military personnel have done wonderful things in Iraq/Afghanistan...and history will reflect that. I don't know that the motives for the war will fare so well, though.
    JMO
  • The primary falacy in your conclusion is that 'we started it'. Further escalated by your conclusion that the WMD theory was bogus. Just hold on, girl, it will all fall into place for you. If we 'thought they were there', then 'we thought they were there'. There has been a multitude of events indicating WMDs were indeed there. There are also developing discoveries that indicate they may,in fact, be there yet. But, even if not so, you go with the info you got. Otherwise, you get your ass attacked from the flank. And, then, people of your mentality will be screaming "Why didn't the government of my country act when they should have?"



    "Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
    Charlie Chaplin




  • We were riding on a crest of success in Afghanistan, revenging the violation we felt due to the tragedies of 9/11. Bush's bravado moved him to make too big a commitment with too few resources based on too little inaccurate information and now he is too stubborn to admit it. With Vietnam (large generalization here), folks learned of the secret unauthorized campaigns that killed and abandoned our forces in Cambodia and the other areas around Vietnam and became disenchanted with the leadership lies and miwrepresentation. Here we started with the misrepresentation re the WMDs that we thought we were over there to prevent and destroy, and it turned out we were there either to avenge the errors of Bush #1 (leaving Sadaam alive); or to fulfill W's GI Joe dreams.....
  • The 9/11 commission report couldn't come up with any indication of WMD's. None of our allies have come up with any...we've been there long enough that if they had been there, we'd have found the evidence.

    No commission or report has shown that Iraq had ties to 9/11. Even the administration has backed of from this claim, however unwillingly. We did "start it"...and in doing so, we now must finish. The government must be stabilized and order restored to the country.

    We can't leave now.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-24-05 AT 09:07AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Whatever you believe I truly hope the support for the soldiers remains and doesn't turn to what those returning from Vietnam experienced.

    My BF will be coming home on Sept. 12th (keeping my fingers crossed as I haven't heard from him for 45 days now) for 10 days of leave after serving in Iraq for a year. He will return for at least another 6-8 months. I honestly hope that while back in the US he realizes how much we are supporting them and doesn't have to go back with anything additional on his mind.
  • It's such a polarizing discussion...but I don't understand why questioning WHY our service men and women were sent should equate to NOT supporting them.

    I see it as the exact opposite. We value their lives, families, and committment...therefore, it is important to ask the hard questions and know that their service is for the greater good. They are following orders, serving their country, and bringing honor to themselves and families.

    I hate the Vietnam references, but what if the country as a whole and never asked WHY. When would it have ended? When would our troops have returned?

    This situation is different in many ways. But I hate the thought that seeking answers makes anyone think that I don't support our military or am any less patriotic.


  • Months ago when you heard people protesting, you also heard them say they still supported the troops, but thought Bush was lying to them.

    Now you hear them say end the war and bring our troops home. The mother who protested outside of Bush's home in Texas admitted the other night on tv that she was against all war, even the war against Afghanistan, and would have been even if she hadn't lost her son. It looks to me like she leads the call to bring our troops home.

    My husband served in Nam. He can attest to being fully aware of the protests happening here, even without some of them being brought to him there (ie Jane Fonda, etc.) And that was before cable tv the internet was so available.

    I asked him months ago his opinion of how the troops were taking the protests here. Could they feel support of the protestors, as well as understand the protests? He didn't think so. He said when you are so far from home you need to feel your country is behind you. This was before I ever heard anyone call for an end to the war. It must be much worse for them now.

    I don't know if we should have gone there or not. I don't know everything Bush knows, and I don't know that I would have made the same decision even if I did. What I do know is that you can't go into a country, destroy its leadership and government, and then walk away because you suddenly decide the original reason no longer matters.

    And, more importantly, you can't expect your troops to feel your support when you constantly say their presence over there is a mistake. It really doesn't matter how much you feel you support them, if all THEY feel is that you don't.
  • I'm not saying people don't have a right to protest, but figure out ahead of time how you will explain to him the demonstrations going on and what you'll say about moveon.org, if he asks. You might have an advance conversation about such things with somebody on the base. You're right that you do not want him returning to duty with the additional worry that the troops are not supported.



    "Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot."
    Charlie Chaplin




  • I have deep respect for those who are putting their lives on the line every day. However, I could never say the same for those who put those brave young people there.
  • Not that a lot of anti-war folks would ever stoop to truly listen to career military, but my dad (WWII, Korea, 2 tours of Nam) who was career military always said you will not find anywhere on earth anyone who wants and understands peace more than a career military person.

    By the same token, they comprehend why there is and always will be a need for war.

    Most countries and the UN (another story there) thought Iraq had WMDs, even Saddam thought they did, so why aren't all those leaders and the UN and Saddam considered LIARS? I guess because their last name isn't Bush.

    I know all of you must be tired of my always same old line, but it is so crystal clear to me.....it is either them over there, or us over here. Personally, I prefer them, over there and believe this war will help ensure for our kids or at least our grandkids that there continues to be a free America.
  • Your first sentence partially explains why Colin Powell (remember him?) argued so strenuously against the war in Iraq. But Powell's main reason was that he didn't think that we would be able to sustain the force level there necessary to accomplish the mission. Our strategic intent has become a shifting target. First it was WMD's, now the goal is to establish a working democracy, and "bring freedom to the Iraqi people." What is the threshold of failure? My prediction is that within 5 to 10 years Iraq will be governed by a theocracy, much like Iran is now. Will we THEN admit that the war was a mistake? Or will the target shift yet again?


  • Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.
    Albert Einstein

    I find it unfortunate that we are in a situation where questioning our leader results in our troops feeling they are loosing support. But what would happen if we stopped questioning and gave him free reign? That is a frightening thought I’d rather not entertain.

    I am not military, but in 1996 I spent 4 months in Kuwait setting up day camps for American dependents. We traveled all over the country (yes, we didn’t have far to go), visited the Iraqi tank graveyards, met with government officials, interviewed Kuwaiti students, etc. In that time, I gained an interesting perspective from the youth of that country on why we were really there in the “conflict”. Whether founded or not, they truly believed it all a matter of economics and thought Americans to be greedy and ruthless…..to engage in a conflict solely for economic gain. To support their theory, they pointed out all the establishments I’d visited that were new to their country…..McDonalds, Dairy Queen, Burger Queen (nothing can have the title of King besides himself), Victoria’s Secret, and of course, the oil.

    I know that’s a little off subject, but that experience will always make me question why.

  • Of course I remember Colin Powell and admire an awfully lot about him. Though he was and is an important man, he is after all only one man with his own opinions. Just as I am only one woman with my own opinions.

    Personally, I don't view our strategic intent as shifting because I seem to recall in my feeble memory that along with WMDs, freedom for millions, etc., and et al, there was at the onset and continues to be through today an ongoing thread from Mr. Bush that we fight them there or we fight them here. But then, I don't need him to tell me that. Those who died on 9/11 provide me all the proof I need.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-26-05 AT 02:01PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Then why aren't we fighting Sudi Arabia?

    Ooops! Meant "Saudi," but you get the idea. It just seems to me that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 have a much stronger connection to Saudi Arabia than they do to the former Iraqi gevernment, yet there we are in Iraq, just as the neo-cons have wanted for years, WAY before 9/11.
Sign In or Register to comment.