Please explain...
I truly don't understand why few, if any, either in the blogosphere or MSM see no parallels between the testimony this week of Petraeus and Crocker and that, admittedly a while ago, of Westmoreland, Abrams, MacNamara, Laird and others.
For me, it is truly dejavu. The same questions and the same answers.
The reality is when we leave -and we will - there will be some sort of bloodletting. Hells Bells, its going on now. Will it get worse - likely.
But part of the problem is us. And that will change when we leave. Viet Nam is now a functioning country growing along with the rest of Asia. Iraq will, in its own way, go a similar, yet different.
For me, it is truly dejavu. The same questions and the same answers.
The reality is when we leave -and we will - there will be some sort of bloodletting. Hells Bells, its going on now. Will it get worse - likely.
But part of the problem is us. And that will change when we leave. Viet Nam is now a functioning country growing along with the rest of Asia. Iraq will, in its own way, go a similar, yet different.
Advertisement
I sure as hell wouldn't call Vietnam any sort of model country - still has a very repressive and controlling government.
But yeah - the arguments of the military men today do echo those of that last nightmare to a great degree. Just a little more time - oh yeah - we have what we need ... blah blah blah
April 11, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you're right about VN - they aren't the poster child for good government, but they are doing a damn sight better than when we were involved.
The regimes we sponsored were pretty repressive to say the least.
And the generals and SecDefs and others all were and still are saying the samo, samo...
And the troops are still dying.
April 11, 2008 3:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sincerely hope some diplomatic/military genius comes up with some ideas to get control of Iraq in such a way that we could leave and not have a vacuum of power.
I wish for this every time more violence is reported.
To my dismay, everyone seems to have an all-or-nothing position on either side.
I'm not an expert but I don't think Iraq can be directly compared to Vietnam - I think the Vietnamese knew perfectly well how to govern themselves, we just didn't like it. Iraq on the other hand doesn't seem to have ANY ability to govern itself, democratically or otherwise.
Petraeus shouldn't be defending a political policy to congress, thats the job of the Administration. Using military leaders as a face to a political policy is bad form, and smacks of despotism.
April 11, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wity1-
I agree with you that the all or nothing approach is likely to cause a blood bath. One of the big issues for me is that it took a guy like Saddam to keep the various factions in Iraq from doing what they are doing today. The Brits had issues similar to what we are experiencing. And nothing I've seen addresses the problem that WE are the problem, or a good part of it.
WE understand little or nothing of the internal political/religious/cultural/historical issues that are critical to any sort of solution in Iraq. so the question I have, given that, what the hell are we doing there and if we leave, how will it make things worse.
The key reason for the decrease in violence is al Sadr and his cease-fire. And we've seen proof of what happens when he twitches a little on that.
I guess, and I've heard nothing to the contrary, though it may be around, that a gradual disengagement or some sort of compromise solution, will only prolong the agony.
Reasonable people may certainly disagree, but I've not seen much reason used when it comes to dealing with Iraq - or the mid-east in general. We tend to ascribe our values and systems on cultures and peoples who we don't understand. I think the British made a similar mistake in the late 1700s with one of their colonies - with similar results.
April 11, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happen to lean towards the argument that the only people that have a chance at helping Iraq control itself are its neighbors. Westerners don't understand and keep trying to put the proverbial square peg in a round hole in regards to management of middle eastern states.
Dismissing Iran and Syria by labeling them terrorist-states and therefore arguing that they don't fit the criteria to weigh-in on the problem is stupid.
Much in the same way Israel and the Palestinians are inexorably connected because of their physical proximity to each other - Iraq and Iran will likely always be in each others business because of the same reason - much like the divorced parents of children, your ex might be someone you wish didn't exist anymore - but thats not likely to happen.
April 11, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink