|
Some veterans of Vietnam see Iraq parallel
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
Some veterans of Vietnam see Iraq parallel
Fri Nov 7, 6:12 AM ET
By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
Iraq (news - web sites) isn't Vietnam, not yet at least. But as criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war there intensifies, a number of prominent Vietnam War veterans say they are frequently reminded of the way the White House fumbled away public support for the only major war the United States ever lost.
Many who served in Vietnam including members of Congress, former Pentagon (news - web sites) officials and a small but influential group of retired generals have begun to say what those now in uniform cannot: The Bush administration, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in particular, have not leveled with the public about the difficulty of winning in Iraq.
Though the scale of the war in Iraq is vastly different from the one in Vietnam 58,000 Americans died there over nine years, compared with 381 over eight months so far in Iraq these critics say the Bush administration is making mistakes that are eerily similar to the ones Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and military leaders made a generation ago. Critics say the administration has underestimated the determination and skill of the enemy, downplayed the danger to U.S. troops and offered overly optimistic predictions that seem blatantly at odds with the grim news Americans see in newspapers and on TV just like the White House often did during Vietnam.
"The American press and the American public saw our leaders talk about a 'light at the end of the tunnel' that did not exist" during the Vietnam War, said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., in a speech Wednesday. "We can win the war in Iraq," said McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam, "but not if we lose popular support in the United States."
McCain and other critics emphasize that many comparisons to Vietnam are inaccurate. But one that rings true, they say, is a lack of candor.
"This doesn't mean Iraq is a quagmire. It doesn't mean it's not winnable and all that Vietnam stuff. But it's the straight story, good and bad, that we need to articulate to the American people," says Bill Nash, a retired Army major general who fought in Vietnam in 1969 and led U.S. peacekeeping operations in Bosnia in the 1990s.
That former military officers would criticize a Republican president is by itself unusual in the post-Vietnam era, when national defense has been an unchallenged strength for the GOP. What is perhaps most damaging to the White House is the suggestion by prominent military graybeards that the government may be repeating mistakes that undercut support for the Vietnam War effort.
Balancing needs
The debate over the administration's candor highlights the difficulty that any president has in wartime: how to balance the need to be honest with voters with the risk that too much bad news could turn the public against the war. No administration wants to dwell on bad news while rallying the nation for a tough job. But the Bush administration's attempts to filter reality by banning coverage of the arrival of flag-draped coffins at Dover Air Force Base, for example strikes some as overkill.
There is no way to know how many Vietnam veterans believe the Bush administration has strayed too far in its efforts to manage war news. But it's clear that some who fought there are among the government's harshest critics.
"We heard the garbage and the lies," retired Marine general Anthony Zinni told a group of Marine Corps officers Sept. 4, referring to the government's handling of news in Vietnam. "We saw the sacrifice, and we swore never again would we allow it to happen," said Zinni, who fought in Vietnam and went on to command all U.S. forces in the Middle East before retiring in 2000. "And I ask you, is it happening again?"
Dan Christman, a retired Army three-star general who served in Vietnam in 1969, says that if the United States is struggling to maintain order in Iraq a year from now, a battalion of dissenters could grow into a small army. "There are an awful lot of retired officers who agree with General Zinni," he says. "This really resonates."
For the Bush administration, which came into office courting a military that had soured on Bill Clinton (news - web sites), the fallout threatens to alienate a loyal constituency and damage President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election hopes.
Among those who've publicly challenged the handling of the war besides Zinni, McCain and Nash are Thomas White, a former secretary of the Army whom Rumsfeld fired in April; retired general Barry McCaffrey, a decorated war hero who led American troops against Iraq in 1991; and former senator Max Cleland, D-Ga., who became a triple amputee in Vietnam.
The long-term effects that Vietnam had on the military and civilian worlds good and bad cannot be overstated. At war's end, the Pentagon scrapped an unpopular military draft and created the all-volunteer force. The war was so divisive that presidents from Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) to Clinton embraced an informal policy of never starting a war without a clear exit strategy. And the government's manipulation of information in Vietnam infected American politics and led to a mistrust that lingers today.
Veterans split on the issue
Pentagon and White House officials have routinely dismissed war critics as shortsighted, and for most of the fall have run a campaign saying that Iraq is in much better shape than news reports indicate. That tactic has seemed to backfire in recent weeks, however. Two weeks ago, the disclosure of an internal Rumsfeld memo painted a more pessimistic picture of progress, conceding U.S. forces were in for "a long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites). And last week one day after saying that violent attacks in Baghdad just showed that terrorists were "desperate" Bush reversed course and said Iraq remains dangerous.
Paul Van Riper, a retired Marine lieutenant general who served two tours in Vietnam, says the administration's behavior is "almost a repeat" of Vietnam-era rhetoric. "For the president to say these attacks show we are winning is almost Orwellian," Van Riper says.
Not all Vietnam vets are critics. Some, including retired Air Force lieutenant general Tom McInerney and retired Army lieutenant general Ted Stroup, agree with the administration. "The fact is, the media has got it all wrong," says McInerney, who recently visited Baghdad. "The situation there is far better than people realize."
Gen. James Jones, former Marine Corps Commandant and now NATO (news - web sites)'s top military commander, says many positive stories in Iraq have been drowned out by more sensational acts of violence.
"I do worry a little bit about the fact that every time there is an incident, someone draws the analogy and says, 'Well, the coalition is losing its grip,' " says Jones, who served in Vietnam in 1968.
A dividing line
On July 17, the commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East did something that has been rare in the Rumsfeld Pentagon. He publicly contradicted his boss.
Gen. John Abizaid, who graduated from West Point the last year of the Vietnam War, said the military was fighting a guerrilla war. The comments were big news because he said publicly what Rumsfeld and other Pentagon civilians had refused to say for months as they downplayed the insurgency in Iraq.
Dale Davis, a former Marine intelligence officer who now teaches at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, says Abizaid's comments marked an important milestone. "That was a very clear message. He was saying, 'I'm not going to soft-sell this,' " Davis says.
Davis says the administration's credibility problem in Iraq is reflected in statements that started before the war and continue: When looters pillaged major Iraqi cities, Rumsfeld dismissed the problem as "untidiness." Rumsfeld once said the violence in Baghdad, which has included attacks with truck bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and land mines, was similar to crime in Washington, D.C.
"Clearly, there is a belief among the politicians in the Bush administration that any admission of error or mistake in Iraq is a bad political move," Davis says. "It wouldn't be hard for the administration to say, 'Yeah, we made some mistakes, we need to do this better.' That is the essence of the problem."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...vets-usat_x.htm |
|
|
| occrider |
| I would agree with McCain's assessment. |
|
|
| Transcender |
The White House administration has proved nothing of those accusations to Iraq. They had enuogh time just to falsify provements but they didn't! All they've shown is some satellite photos where some kind of oil storage facilities can be seen. They aren't interested in Iraqi people liberation, they only need a lot of cheap oil.
Meanwhile people keep dying... |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
What I can't understand is why people think military engagements are supposed to be neat and tidy. When throughout history has there ever been military engagement of this magnitude that has had definite starting and more importantly ending points? The United States goes into a country the size of California with a population of 24 million, and people think that all resistance stops just because we say major military combat is over? For a while it's going to be messy and there are going to be Americans killed.
Since the Iraq war began we have lost a total of 386 Americans (http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html), in Vietnam we lost that amount in the first two months (http://members.aol.com/forcountry/kiamonth.htm). So if we're going by body count, I don't see a similarity. The only other comparison is the time frame, so far we've been in Iraq less than a year. Vietnam lasted six.
I think if anything what is under-reported in this "war," is the side of the Iraqi population that has shown benefit and is greatful for the removal of Saddam from power. The bulk of media reports I see deal with the tiny few and their affects as they kill Americans or other targets.
Again, I just don't see where the nievete that a large-scale military action should be over as cleanly as it begins comes from. I think we need to take a holistic approach to history and realize that although most wars have "dirty" endings, not all of them turn into Vietnams. |
|
|
| Dmatrox |
From the news, i see more freedom in Iraq, but less governance.
Its such a useless war for the US, they waste a lot of money and people on a war that isnt even about defending their own country. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
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
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/...458012480868804 |
|
|
|
|
