quote:

Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison George Stephanopoulos Interviews President Bush on Iraq, the Midterms and His Legacy WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2006 — President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate. Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago. "He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." "George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here's how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw." Bush said he could not imagine any circumstances under which all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq before the end of his presidency. "You mean every single troop out? No," he told Stephanopoulos. Bush also had some tough words for Democrats, saying that pulling troops from Iraq would be the equivalent of surrender. "If we were to leave before the job is done, in my judgment, the al Qaeda would find a safe haven from which to attack. This is exactly what they said," Bush said. The president insisted he was not disparaging his opponents. "It's not questioning their patriotism. I think it's questioning their judgment," he said. When asked whether the midterm elections are a referendum on Iraq, the President replied, "I think they're a referendum, from my perspective, which is kind of like your perspective, which is the Washington perspective, based upon: who best to secure this country from further attack and who best to help this economy continue to grow. The truth of the matter is, as you well know, most elections are very local elections. Sometimes those issues are salient, but sometimes there's other issues at the local level as well." "I'm not on the ballot," Bush said. "This set of elections is much different from a presidential election year." Stephanopoulos pointed out that 72 Democrats running for the House had used Bush in their campaign ads. "Are they saying good things?" Bush joked. "Look, maybe that strategy will work; maybe it won't work. I've always found that when a person goes in to vote, they're going to want to know what that person's going to do. What is the plan for a candidate on Iraq? What do they believe?" Bush said he reads "every casualty." "The hardest part of the presidency is to meet with families who've lost a loved one," he said. October is shaping up to be one of the bloodiest months in Iraq since the war began, and the president assessed the situation somberly: "I'm patient. I'm not patient forever. But I recognize the degree of difficulty of the task, and therefore, say to the American people, we won't cut and run." On the issue of North Korea, said bluntly that if the rogue nation sold nuclear missiles to Iran or al Qaeda, "They'd be held to account." Stephanopoulos noted that after last week's latest nuclear missile test out of North Korea, the president referred to the country as a "grave threat," a phrase Bush has used only once during his six years in office, in reference to Iraq before the U.S. invasion of that country. He asked the president what he means by that phrase now. "Well, time they find out, George," Bush said. "One of the things that's important for these world leaders to hear is, you know, we will use means necessary to hold them to account. "If we get intelligence that they're about to transfer a nuclear weapon, we would stop the transfer, and we would deal with the ships that were taking the — or the airplane that was dealing with taking the material to somebody," he said. "My point is that I want the leader to understand — the leader of North Korea to understand that he'll be held to account," Bush said. "Just like he's being held to account now for having run a test." Bush also suggested that China may be more committed to the recent round of U.N. sanctions than it has let on in public statements. "I'm getting a little different picture from Condi [Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice]," he said. "They don't particularly want to board ships. But, on the other hand, if there's good intelligence, they'll work with us on that intelligence. They're inspecting cargoes coming across their border." He insisted China was not "half committed" to the sanctions. Moving away from the controversial issues likely to play a critical role in the 2006 midterms, Stephanopoulos asked the two-term incumbent which personal quality is going to be important for the next president. "Determination and compassion," Bush said. When asked what advice he might have for his successor, Bush told ABC News, "Stand on principle." Tune in to "Nightline," "Good Morning America" and "This Week," and check back at www.abcnews.com for more of George Stephanopoulos' one-on-one interview with President Bush. http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2583579&page=1

Now brace yourselfs for the republican backspin that this comparison is a-ok because the US and ARVN forces won the "military" part of the 1968 Tet ofensive. Not only is it extremely doubtful as to whether we're winning militarily (outside of the green zone), but even the corp has aknowledged that victory is dependant upon winning the political battle within Iraq ... something that we're losing.

___________________
Retro ...

Ahead of the curve again. Heres when I compared it to the tet offensive in 2005.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...263#post4364210

quote:

Originally posted by occrider but even the corp has aknowledged that victory is dependant upon winning the political battle within Iraq ... something that we're losing.

Yeah, I'll say. We're not losing the political battle in Iraq, its lost, gone. The only conceivable way we could think to gain political ground is if somehow we gain a military advantage and the region stabilizes significantly.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Ahead of the curve again. Heres when I compared it to the tet offensive in 2005. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...263#post4364210

Are we winning militarily today as was the case in the tet offensive? Are we making an impact on the strength of insurgent attacks?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Are we winning militarily today as was the case in the tet offensive?

not in the case of Tet. Tet required the NVA to take over militarily the South as opposed to winning over the hearts and minds thru insurgency, which they failed at as well. in Iraq, we have yet to see the insurgency win over the hearts and minds. something we'll never see.

as in Iraq, "post" Tet relied heavily on spreading negative propaganda through the various media. it worked. we didn't regain pre early '68 Indochina territory until 3 to 4 years later. by then it was too late and the NVA were entrenched.

quote:

Are we making an impact on the strength of insurgent attacks?

we have to be. the insurgency, no doubt, would like orders of magnitude more coalition deaths to be effective.


Bush has made news by "accepting" the comparison which, in itself, shouldn't be news, however the comparison is accurate.

i doubt Stephanopolous in his game of gotcha even thought it that through.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Yeah, I'll say. We're not losing the political battle in Iraq, its lost, gone.

wow, to you maybe. don't tell the Iraqi government that.

quote:

The only conceivable way we could think to gain political ground is if somehow we gain a military advantage and the region stabilizes significantly.

BRILLIANT!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo not in the case of Tet. Tet required the NVA to take over militarily the South as opposed to winning over the hearts and minds thru insurgency, which they failed at as well. in Iraq, we have yet to see the insurgency win over the hearts and minds. something we'll never see. as in Iraq, "post" Tet relied heavily on spreading negative propaganda through the various media. it worked. we didn't regain pre early '68 Indochina territory until 3 to 4 years later. by then it was too late and the NVA were entrenched.

Right, the tet offensive was a smashing military success for the US in the sense that the VC were operationally crippled and they failed to achieve any of there objectives. Despite this huge military success it was a political failure in that it was a huge propaganda coup. My point is that in Iraq we’re not even winning militarily. We’re not crippling the insurgencies operational capacity, and as a matter of fact, military intelligence is acknowledging that we’ve lost certain provinces to the insurgency. The goal of the insurgency isn’t to win the hearts and minds. That much should be obvious by who the majority of their victims are. All the insurgency needs to do to win is foment sectarian strife to the point of civil war. A goal that they seem to be making far more progress towards achieving than our ability to win the “hearts and minds”.

quote:

we have to be. the insurgency, no doubt, would like orders of magnitude more coalition deaths to be effective.

Oh? So attacks are diminishing? Less troops are dying? Last I heard 10 of our boys died yesterday. Last I heard, the past 2 months have been particularly deadly. Let me rephrase my question … I’m not asking if we’re killing insurgents, are we depleting more of them than they are recruiting such that there will be a tangible drop in attacks?

quote:

Bush has made news by "accepting" the comparison which, in itself, shouldn't be news, however the comparison is accurate. i doubt Stephanopolous in his game of gotcha even thought it that through.

Tet was the turning point to which America lost the Vietnam war, the beginning of the end so to speak. For Bush to agree to such a comparison is rather stunning, particularly if he were to understand the historical depth of the comparison. However, in his defense, I shouldn’t give him the credit for thinking that through.

___________________
Retro ...

Propaganda-wise, I think the Americans should have done more to separate the insurgency and the free Iraqi people.
You certainly don't get that sense of separation at times, especially when we even have people here somehow equating extremist Islamic jihad with freedom fighting and American Imperialism with Nazi Germany

If they could only help explain to the Iraqi people how much better off they'd be without the insurgents rather than letting the people figure it out for themselves, this war would have gone a lot better than it has up to this point.

It's obvious the people don't know WHAT to think (for the most part) and are almost willing to go back to what they knew because they don't know anything different.
Sad really.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Although I hug lots of trees and spout hate propaganda in my weekly parades down hippie lane here in my college town, I wasn't really one to make very many comparisons between Vietnam and this current mess of a war. I know a lot of Lefties made that comparison over the years, but I always saw them as two different situations (although granted I did find some similarities).

So I think what Occ said is correct about Bush - I don't think he really understood the depth of his words in terms of the comparison historically. If he did it is truly mindboggling that he would in essence make the argument for the rest of my fellow tree-hugging hippie anti-war bretheren. But to his credit, I think he's finally coming around and making it known public that some other direction or strategery has to at the very least be entertained. Whether or not he actually listens to Baker, Murtha, Powell, or anyone else with some insight on the matter is another issue.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But to his credit, I think he's finally coming around and making it known public that some other direction or strategery has to at the very least be entertained. Whether or not he actually listens to Baker, Murtha, Powell, or anyone else with some insight on the matter is another issue.

To his credit??? Really Opus I'm surprised you even give him that much latitude. I mean christ, virtually every realpolitik foreign policy expert knows that the Bush "stay the course" strategy is, and has been, a failed strategy. What more evidence does one really need? Just do a search of TA posts and that's only a tip of the iceberg.

So between marine intelligence reports acknowledging defeat in Anbar province, between former strategic and tactical commanders who outline administration incompetance, between overly "pessimistic" reports reports by "cut and run" senior intelligence committee democrats, between the serious concerns of senior senatorial republicans, between former high level Bush administration officials who have cried wolf, between the uptick in sectarian violence/insurgent attacks/american casualties/iraqi deaths, between evidence of a continually ineffective Iraqi government, between the lack of any indication of US troops drawing down as Iraqi troops stand up,despite etc., etc., etc. ... we're supposed to give Bush CREDIT for being nearly the last person on Earth (his army of trailing sycophants need a few days to wait for the updated talking points to come out) to realise his strategy has failed???

And for those still doubting that that his strategy has failed ... wow what can I say ... this news story should be unsurprising to nearly every one of us:

quote:

Major Change Expected In Strategy for Iraq War By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A01 The growing doubts among GOP lawmakers about the administration's Iraq strategy, coupled with the prospect of Democratic wins in next month's midterm elections, will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking. Senior figures in both parties are coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame. Agitation is growing in Congress for alternatives to the administration's strategy of keeping Iraq in one piece and getting its security forces up and running while 140,000 U.S. troops try to keep a lid on rapidly spreading sectarian violence. On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates are hammering Republican candidates for backing a failed Iraq policy, and GOP defense of the war is growing muted. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this week showed that voters are more confident in Democrats' ability to handle the Iraq war than the Republicans' -- a reversal from the last election. Few officials in either party are talking about an immediate pullout of U.S. combat troops. But interest appears to be growing in several broad ideas. One would be some kind of effort to divide the country along regional lines. Another, favored by many Democrats, is a gradual withdrawal of troops over a set period of time. A third would be a dramatic scaling-back of U.S. ambitions in Iraq, giving up on democracy and focusing only on stability. Many senior Republicans with close ties to the administration also believe that essential to a successful strategy in Iraq are an aggressive new diplomatic initiative to secure a Middle East peace settlement and a new effort to engage Iraq's neighbors, such as Syria and Iran, in helping stabilize the country -- perhaps through an international conference. One point on which adherents of these sharply different approaches appear to agree is that "staying the course" is fast becoming a dead letter. "I don't believe that we can continue based on an open-ended, unconditional presence," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a centrist Maine Republican. "I don't think there's any question about that, that there will be a change" in the U.S. strategy in Iraq after next month's elections. Richard N. Haass, a former Bush administration foreign policy official, told reporters yesterday that the situation is reaching a "tipping point" both in Iraq and in U.S. politics. "More of essentially the same is going to be a policy that very few people are going to be able to support," said Haass, now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that the administration's current Iraq strategy "has virtually no chance of succeeding" and predicted that "change will come." Many Senate Republicans are waiting for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former Indiana representative Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat. Both Baker and Hamilton have made it clear that they do not see the current administration Iraq policy as working -- though they don't plan to issue recommendations until well after the midterm elections, probably in early January. Many foreign policy experts believe that the commission could sway President Bush more than most such study groups because of Baker's close ties to the Bush family. In an interview this week, Hamilton said there is no "silver bullet" to turning the situation around in Iraq but said frustration is clearly rising over the current course. "I can't walk out the door without someone handing me a recommendation," he said. Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he is open to "significant changes" in the U.S. approach and is hoping the Iraq Study Group can supply them. "I don't think anyone in the administration is pleased about the current state of affairs," he said. "I would hope that members of the administration are willing to learn from past mistakes . . . and choose a different path that would allow us to meet our objectives." How open Bush will be to a change in course is unclear, even as the violence escalates -- this week has been one of the bloodiest for the Americans in Baghdad in months. In recent remarks about Iraq, Bush has sounded a more flexible tone, saying he is open to suggestions for changes and emphasizing that his commanders adjust tactics constantly. He has repeatedly made it clear that U.S. patience with the new Iraqi government is not open-ended. White House officials describe the current turmoil over Iraq policy in Washington as an expected byproduct of the upsurge in violence. Press secretary Tony Snow yesterday dismissed a dramatic about-face in policy -- such as a division of the country or phased withdrawal -- as a "non-starter" and called the idea that the White House will seek a course correction in Iraq "a bunch of hooey." Bush has been adamant that the United States will not withdraw its troops until the Iraqi government can defend itself. Like many who have met with the president in recent months to discuss Iraq policy, author and military expert Robert Kaplan said he detected clear limits to Bush's flexibility. "He seemed genuinely to enjoy the challenges to his policy that we threw at him," Kaplan said, describing a session Bush held with several outside strategists at Camp David in June. "He wasn't at all defensive. He appeared open to any new direction or tactic, except withdrawal, and yet that is what he might be faced with after November." Along with the political debate, there also is growing frustration inside the U.S. military over Iraq, with some officers debating privately whether the situation there is salvageable. In recent weeks, senior military officers have offered a torrent of negative comments, a sharp contrast to the official optimism of the past three years. "We're obviously very concerned about what we're seeing" in Baghdad, Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said yesterday. He indicated that changes to a plan to restore security to the capital are being considered. "We find the insurgent elements, the extremists, are in fact punching back hard," Caldwell said. In recent days, the demand for change on Iraq has been especially notable from inside the president's party: Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, returned from a trip to Iraq saying that country was adrift and all options should be considered. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a conservative Republican from Texas, said this week that she is willing to consider the wisdom of somehow breaking up Iraq. Until now, Democrats' calls for withdrawing troops have been largely irrelevant, but if Democrats take one or both houses of Congress next month, their views could become significant in shaping strategy. Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who would take over the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee, said he favors beginning a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops that "gives the Iraqis notice that they're going to be looking into the abyss" unless they make necessary changes. One version of this option was presented to House Democrats last month by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who outlined a four-step plan that would include a joint declaration by the U.S. and Iraqi governments on a timeline for the departure of U.S. troops, a follow-up international conference on stabilizing Iraq and a greater focus on economic reconstruction. Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who is campaigning to become the new majority leader should Democrats take power, said many in his caucus like the idea behind the Brzezinski plan, though perhaps not all the specifics. "The Iraqis have to understand that there is a time frame," he said. "Our commitment is substantial, but it is not unending." People familiar with the work of the Iraq Study Group say it is also mulling a variant of the gradual withdrawal idea that would move U.S. troops out of Iraq but leave a residual force in the region to keep the violence from spreading and Iraq's neighbors from meddling. Another idea getting a closer look is a new power-sharing agreement that would give more power to autonomous regions -- Kurdish in the north, Sunni in the middle and Shiite in the south -- while weakening the central government. This idea is most closely identified with Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Because there is no oil in what would be the Sunni-controlled area, Biden and Gelb envision some sort of scheme to share oil revenue with the Sunnis to get them to agree to such a plan. Biden said yesterday that if the Democrats win big in next month's elections, "You have a lot of Republicans who are going to openly join Democrats and will push back hard against the president." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...mail/components

And the GOP has known it's been a failed strategy for some time. Yet neither they or Bush are going to affect any change prior to the election which is simply dispicable because our countrymen are dying because of politics. FFS Fox news even called them out on it:



Thank you gop for giving us the least competant government money can buy.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider My point is that in Iraq we’re not even winning militarily. We’re not crippling the insurgencies operational capacity, and as a matter of fact, military intelligence is acknowledging that we’ve lost certain provinces to the insurgency. The goal of the insurgency isn’t to win the hearts and minds. That much should be obvious by who the majority of their victims are. All the insurgency needs to do to win is foment sectarian strife to the point of civil war. A goal that they seem to be making far more progress towards achieving than our ability to win the “hearts and minds”.

the evidence you have of the Coalition losing militarily is that we've taken losses. so now what? if, historically, we fought wars in that manner then the world today would be in much sadder shape than you would suggest. i can't wrap my mind around that mentality, sorry.
all i can say is prepare for more loss...while we prepare for more triumph.

if the goal then of the insurgency is to "not win hearts and minds" like you say, but is to "forment enough strife" to breed a civil war, which you also say they are making progess towards, then i see those two as one in the same. you're being contradictory.

fact. there isn't enough "strife". they don't have the "hearts and minds". we take the battle to them everyday on our terms. we mourn the losses. we help the people. we are winning.

there isn't any credibility to the people who kidnap torture and kill others, and blow up others to forment anything when the peaceful Iraqis know whats better for them. they do. thats why Occrider can only admit to a "possible" civil war right now.

quote:

However, in his defense, I shouldn’t give him the credit for thinking that through.

clever but wrong. if what you say is true then the President would have to have no knowledge of Tet at all because the only signifigance of Tet was just that. "the beginning of the end". highly unlikely. i learned of Tet Offensive in grade school. if one could address the context of Tet in a way to compare it to today like Stephanopolous did and someone correctly agreed to the comparison, then that someone has a better grasp at the history of Tet than what should be given credit for.

Does this not really speak levels about the timing of this change of heart? Like what Occ said, this idea is nothing new, the horse on the failed Iraq strategy has been beaten well past death for some time. All of a sudden the very people who were starkly against this beating begin to change their minds when we're three weeks away from the elections that continue to have a very dismal look for the republicans. When everything was considered, not the body counts, not the increasing violence, not the enormous dissent, no person or people, could get these people to face reality. The one and only thing that could get them to turn their heads was the jeopardy of their power. And we're supposed to give them credit? Yeah, fuck that. Any change of heart at this point is merely their admission of its complete failure.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the evidence you have of the Coalition losing militarily is that we've taken losses. so now what? if, historically, we fought wars in that manner then the world today would be in much sadder shape than you would suggest. i can't wrap my mind around that mentality, sorry. all i can say is prepare for more loss...while we prepare for more triumph.

Ummm no what I said was this:

quote:

My point is that in Iraq we’re not even winning militarily. We’re not crippling the insurgencies operational capacity, and as a matter of fact, military intelligence is acknowledging that we’ve lost certain provinces to the insurgency.

I could care less about the number of deaths in the grand scheme of things if we were acheiving our goals. Why can't you, of all people, wrap your mind around this mentality? You don't have to go to west point to understand the differences between tactical and strategic victories.

quote:

if the goal then of the insurgency is to "not win hearts and minds" like you say, but is to "forment enough strife" to breed a civil war, which you also say they are making progess towards, then i see those two as one in the same. you're being contradictory.

Huh? Why are you twisting my words around to obfuscate the issue? I'm not saying that their goal is to lose hearts and minds. I'm saying their goal is sectarian strife. An environment that provides the perfect breeding ground for Al-Qaeda recruiting, an Islamic fundamentalist state, and to get rid of foreign troops.

quote:

fact. there isn't enough "strife". they don't have the "hearts and minds". we take the battle to them everyday on our terms. we mourn the losses. we help the people. we are winning.

Wow that's some "fact" that. Understand these simple concepts. We're spending billions of dollars a day to simply keep the country from blowing up. We're not effectively reducing the number of attacks. We're not safeguarding the population. We're not preventing sectarian strife. Some 3000 civilians have died in the past 2 months alone ... some of the highest levels since invasion. The violence has only increased in the past several months. The insurgency need only to keep the status quo to defeat us when in fact they're making gains. We can't keep this up indefinitly unless you're supporting major tax increases ... you really consider this winning?

quote:

there isn't any credibility to the people who kidnap torture and kill others, and blow up others to forment anything when the peaceful Iraqis know whats better for them. they do. thats why Occrider can only admit to a "possible" civil war right now.

What the fuck is this? Look asshole, who the fuck are you talking to? One minute you're responding to my statements and in the next fucking instance you're making a campaign speech. If you have something to say in response to my arguments than say it to me. Or as you would say it, it's typical that Q5echo would set up straw man arguments and assign those beliefs to me and then pathetically bash me for a flaccid argument that he himself created ...

quote:

clever but wrong. if what you say is true then the President would have to have no knowledge of Tet at all because the only signifigance of Tet was just that. "the beginning of the end". highly unlikely. i learned of Tet Offensive in grade school. if one could address the context of Tet in a way to compare it to today like Stephanopolous did and someone correctly agreed to the comparison, then that someone has a better grasp at the history of Tet than what should be given credit for.

What? Tet wasn't a turning point of the war?

Out of curriosity have you been drinking? Not to be a grammar nazi but your punctuation seems off tonight.

___________________
Retro ...