Clark: Iraq won't be Vietnam

ALMATY, Kazakhstan, April 25 (UPI) -- Former NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark said Iraq won't be a Vietnam for the United States and counseled Washington should start negotiations with countries around Iraq to put an end to growing violence in the region.

"Iraq won't be another Vietnam," Clark said over the weekend at the fourth Eurasian Media Forum in Almaty. "The U.S. military had no high-tech dominance that it has today." Clark, who sought the Democratic nomination for U.S. president in the 2004 race, said Washington should convince nations neighboring Iraq that a stable Baghdad is in their interest.

"I think we should now work through the United Nations," he said. "Enough is enough." A veteran of several wars and operations, including Vietnam, Clark said he did not anticipate the Iraq war would have gone on this long. "

It was clear to me that we would get Saddam (Hussein) maybe in two to three weeks," he said. "I didn't anticipate the violence that is now following."

http://about.upi.com/products/perspectives/UPI-20050425-063851-6152R
-------------------------------------------------------------------

As the media becomes more pro-war again so too does democrats.

out.now.

It has been a quagmire for years now.

OUT! NOW!

RL

Too many parallels -- it feels like I've seen this film before.

Vietnam is one of the man reasons Dems aren't trusted with the military.
Clark is politically smart not to tie these two together. Americans have to be comfortable with trusting foreign policy and the military to democrats again. B*sh has f'ed things up so much this is a new opportunity for Dems to establish credibility in this area again but we are not going to do it by bringing up Vietnam with Iraq. Didn't we hear it enough in the last election?
Bringing other neighboring nations to the table is the only way to minimize the dammage being done to our Armed Forces.

...we've been in Iraq for less than two years and already have close to 1600 dead.

Vietnam War Dead by Year
<http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/vietnam_war_casualty_lists/statistics.html#year>

Iraq is Northern Ireland.

There's more than one way to skin a quagmire.

You have the tribal foundation of Afghanistan and the urban terrorism of Algeria.

Then there's the Ba'ath fortune amassed during Saddam's reign, skimmed and tucked away just in case the Ba'ath party was deposed. As of 1990, the figure was somewhere near $30 billion (Timmerman, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0395593050/qid=1114448675/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1725024-3440120?v=glance&s=books).

I don't know of any precedent, but that fortune could stand in for "superpower backing" like USSR/China's support of N. Vietnam.

Which aspects of failure does Iraq have? Time will tell!

Your Algerian comparison is well-founded.

Messing around in other peoples' ethnic struggles in what are--at best--ad-hoc countries is dangerous even if you know and care about their history. We can't claim either, and we continue to tell the world how to behave.

Iraq is unique. There has been nothing exactly like it before.

I think they will have 15 years of civil war.

But I think the comparison is apt. Several warring factions, the US acting as traffic cop...

If he says something, a truly smart person will stfu, and listen. You don't have to agree, but you ought to put your massive ego aside and listen.

Wouldn't we all be better off if congress and the administration had done just that when Clark spoke to them about Iraq a few years ago?

It's all a matter of perspective. The metaphor and it's application depends on whose eyes you're looking through. From the perspective of civilians, Iraq does seem very similar to Vietnam. Lies, longer than expected, young men dying in a war that has gone far beyond our understanding. FRUITLESSNESS!!!

As a general, Clark has knowledge we have no access to and is unrelated to our lives. It makes no sense for him to make a statement like this when most people are not going to relate to that expertise.

If he really wants to connect with people, he needs to be able to convince people that he gets where they are and how they see and feel things. People are living a nightmare.

The parent of a soldier in Iraq who lost a friend in Vietnam may very well see a parallel. It needs to be understood as real.

So you really can't say just what statement he made. It's highly unlikely that whatever it was, it was a sudden reversal of his previous understanding and words about the Iraq operation.

I didn't see anything as a reversal. I was pointing out that using military speak will not always be usefully communicative.

War is understood by many people on a level of how it effects us as civilians. It is something that he, as a military man, needs to learn about if he is going to run for office again.

:eyes:

...which demonstrates, first of all, that whatever else you may or may not know, you know very, very little about Wesley Clark.

As was said, you don't have to agree with him to recognize that fact, and for it to open your ears to his opinions.

As to the substance of what he said this time, I have to say that I've so far only seen the briefest of summaries. If it's like any of the many times I can remember when he's given the opportunity to expound at any length (and this would be such an occasion), read the transcript as soon as you can. Note the multiple levels of understanding, the aptness of analogy, the seemingly effortless comparisons and contrasts with historical events and trends from antiquity to today, the ability to extrapolate from past to present to reasonable prediction...

I'll stop now.

Whether you agree with him or not, of course Iraq isn't Vietnam. There are too many complexities for them to be the same. Again, I'll bet you'd learn something by hearing the points of similarity and contrast that he points out. And please don't forget, he's spoken out loud, long, and accurately long before and ever since in opposition to the Bush invasion.

Plus I suspect the reporting here is of the right-wing variety. Clark certainly didn't "echo" any views of Pearle.

if he weren't such a tough old bird.

He was likely saying what he normally does.

And you're right. I think that Kerry and Clark both know more about this whole situation than folks like us. I can tell that Clark helped Kerry with his Iraq speeches during the campaign. They sound very similar when speaking on this supject.

Clark would rather cut off his tongue than side with the neocons.

Remember General Clark supported the Vietnam War and thought US involvement there was moral. He refused to see that the Vietnamese were fighting foreign colonialism.

Unlike Iraq tody, Vietnam, at lease the North Vietnamese, had a strong government that was able to fill the political vaccum caused by US withdrawal and collapse of the South Vietnamese dicatorship. Vietnamese also had a strong national identity that is lacking among the 3 major groups in Iraq -- Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. Iraq has at best a weak confederacy, but if the US pulled out today, Iraq most likely would descend into chaos, a la Balkans, and that chaos could pull in neighboring nations as they try to either assert their goals in Iraq -- Turkey aborting a Kurdish nation and Iran backing the Shiites against the Sunnis -- or just stymie insurgents and terrorists from crossing their borders -- Jordan and Kuwait.

Now, may I get the source where you got this information that you posted?
Remember General Clark supported the Vietnam War and thought US involvement there was moral. He refused to see that the Vietnamese were fighting foreign colonialism.

Thank you in advance for your follow up on your statement not yet backed by the "f" word, i.e., FACTS.

"high-tech dominance that it has today"

This is my main issue with Wes, who I otherwise like, he is a firm
believer in the hi-tech horseshit shoveled out in tons by the defense
Corps. He would have to be to survive and prosper in the military as
it is today. A more skeptical attitude is needed, both for defense of
the public's wallet and to prevent us walking into boodoggles like the
present war and VietNam on the theory that we are invincible or
invulnereable or the like. When you start with the assumption
that you are invincible, your strategy and tactics are likely to suck
from lack of proper attention to what the enemy might do.

against an enemy fighting a guerilla war?

unfortunately, I think we might get an answer to that question in venezuela in the not-to-distant future.

The preview in Colombia has been nothing but ugly, and it's what,
four decades now?

Plan Venezuela is probably a little more extensive.

all we need now are the troops.

and the importance of diplomacy.

Really, you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Clark.

First there's the fact that we are running out of people, taking first time guardsmen at up to 39 years old. And don't depend on a 39 year old to be most effective in a fire fight. He'll be busy thinking about the family and worrying if the spouse remembered to send in the mortgage payment.

Then there's the procurement debacle. equi
Reenlistments are far below target rates. The draft looms large for those who will have to face it.

If BUSH calls for the Draft, he is history (please, almost want that - not really, just IMPEACHMENT)!

I think he'd never admit defeat. Not Mr. Smirky Chimp, but maybe $$$ Corp's are growing tired of his economic disasters. Granted, most certainly are well-vested overseas, but something else is looming here.

Was Iraq a deterrent just to get into Iran, where 1/2 the world's oil reserve is? What terrifies me the most is certain European leaders are sympathetic to Iran "AND" the Price of Oil's luv fest visit w/the Chimp this weekend.

Don't like it. Don't like the gut sick feeling one bit.

He'll be busy thinking about the family and worrying if the spouse remembered to send in the mortgage payment.

If they even have enough money to MAKE their mortgage payments on military pay.
Some of them are thinking about whether their family still has roof over their heads.

Uh Oh. Some (many?) of us did. This comment needs to be explained.

Some of us underestimated how badly the administration could screw up the post war.

Some of us assumed the pentagon would have sent in enough ground forces to secure the peace.

We may have assumed that US service personnel would have adequate supplies, training, and equipment to protect themselves.

Some people thought that the money that was taken from the US Treasury to rebuild Iraq and bring security to the civilian population would be spent appropriately.

Some of us assumed they'd employ the plan the State Department created rather than ignoring the plan.

Even after the illegal invasion, things could have been done differently.

Hoping things work out well isn't support for the war.

I remember even the media whores had on lots of panelists to tell us all about how the war was gonna be. I distinctly recall hearing there would be hand-to-hand combat in close quarters and that it was basically going to be urban guerilla warfare.

I knew this was how it would be and it seemed common knowledge here on DU during the build up.

I've never really had a problem with Clark (my issues having only been with the over-zealous among his supporters) but this is a disappointing thing to hear from him.

Julie

Clark saw it coming and spoke publicly about it in warning.

The fact is, that we don't know shit about what Clark said or the surrounding context of what Clark said from this goofy ass UPI "news" article.

"It's not candidate X, it's his supporters." For the love of all things beautiful, we've been down that road a million times and it leads us no where. I don't really care what you think of Clark or his supporters. I'm not going to let mischaracterization of his statement go unchecked, though. I think you're on the verge of characterizing this truthful statement as something "pro-war".

Personally, I was concerned we'd lose thousands to chemical weapons. I was always hoping it would go smoothly. There's nothing "pro-war" about that.

I don't know if you saw this or not, but it might interest you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1421005&mesg_id=1421413

I hope that doesn't sound mean. I don't intend for it to.:hi:

"I think we should now work through the United Nations," he said. "Enough is enough."

Clark always opposed the war in Iraq.

Of course, if Bolton gets the okeydokey, we'll be in shit up to our nose. (Right now, it's only at about the neck level. LOL!)

using the UN fully to resolve this. She referred to the NATO model of multi-lasterlism. (LA Times Festival of Books speech)

Clark is right about there being a difference, Viet Nam does not have a significant portion of the worlds' oil reserves. Supposedly one of the primary rationales was to stop the spread of communism in Viet Nam. Iraq was based on false rationales that changed at the death of the previous one under the weight of truth. sp

Isn't that another Moonie operation?

I'll be interested to see this from other sources, although I admit it does sound like Clark.

He warned Bush not to do it, but admitted it could be done quickly because of our excellent military...but the DIFFICULT part was keeping the peace. And he was right! However,it is even harder than he anticipated. NOW THAT WE ARE THERE...(Thanks to bush*) we must see to it that part of the world remains peaceful and doesn't end up in a whole middle Eastern war with all those other countries. Now...where do you think Clark erred and why Dems shouldn't support him? What would you have us do? I know I'd like our soldiers home NOW...but I'm afraid of what will happen if we just leave. I believe if we could have gotten bush* out of the equation (If Clark had been elected)...we'd have had a better chance for peace.

The biggest mistake this country ever made was putting bush* in office and the second greatest mistake was not electing Clark to fix all Bushes blunders.

but venezuela might.

Because he doesn't believe in circle jerks, that's why, he believes in talking back. He believes the only way to defuse the disproportional amount of influence the right wing has developed over ordinary Americans is to let them hear the other side of it. He even goes on FOX News. He even asks his supporters to call in to right wing radio and get the Democratic message out there. He tells us to write letters to editors of conservative newspapers and rebut the propaganda they call journalism. He wants to get the Democrats we've lost BACK so we can get rid of Bush and have a decent country again. Should he just let Richard Perle talk freely, say whatever he wants all over the world, have the last word on the subject?

eom

The day is yet young, but I'm willing to bet that's the one that sticks.

10/10

I got it from somebody else; I think it is a bumper sticker.

But it IS funny!

Even in the context of the war itself, it has already been qualitatively different from Vietnam. Nominally, the Vietnam War was a "police action" on behalf of an existing pre-established government, ostensibly resisting incursions from another nation. (Of course, the Vietnamese saw it from the inside, and called it the American War...)

Iraq is another matter altogether. This time, there is no question who the invader is. If we were to equate Iraq with Vietnam, we would have to put ourselves in the position of the French imperialists to make the analogy work at all. Then there's the whole matter of the justification for invading in the first place -- economics and geopolitics with an eye to the rubber industry for the French occupation of Vietnam, versus pride and unfocused vengeance with a thin veneer of national security for the American occupation of Iraq.

Clark is also right about "a stable Baghdad" being a matter of regional interest, and such assertions would doubtless be met with enthusiastic agreement from any current government in the middle east. The issue on which they will part ways is whose stable Baghdad it will be. On this, I expect the Saudis, Kurds, Turks, Iranians, Syrians, and Israelis to be absolutely irreconcilable. Meanwhile, the people who would benefit most from stability in Baghdad are occupied with matters of pure survival outside the "Green Zone."

While Vietnam is not an absolutely appropriate comparison, in terms of pure repetition, we may want to brush up on what happened to Ngô Đình Diệm.

Comes these photos of the troops not having fun for Halliburton, Brown and Root and Bechtel.




A dead GI from the Ist Infantry Division lies where killed in house to house raids in Falluja. As he
entered the house the home owner jumped up and killed him.



A dead American is loaded on the hood of a Humvee after being killed by a sniper in Baghdad.

or Iraq-nam or Viet-raq. The situations and circumstances that lead to these tragedies should not be conflated.

You look at those photographs and see shades of Vietnam.

Your alter-ego in Bushland looks at them and imagines Iwo Jima or Bastogne.

The corporate newsmedia weighs which of the two groups has ascendent buying power at any given time and adjusts its slant accordingly.

I agree with Clark on this much -- the occupation of Iraq is it's own beast, it could have been avoided (certainly in its current form), and it should have ended long ago.

No freaking way we can win. Even if we nuke them we lose. You are correct that this should have ended long ago. But just like Vietnam. Too many wealthy people are getting more wealthy with the needless death of our troops. And the unending crusade to control the natural resources that unfortunately for our troops our government is intent on stealing.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

as a human being, but these remarks are disappointing.

Of course, the situations in Iraq and Vietnam are not identical, but they are similar in that in both instances we overestimated how much we could accomplish with military power. By now, we should have learned that military force does not win on political, social or spiritual levels. To win on those levels, we need to use understanding, respect and persuasion. Military superiority is useful to maintain the status quo in crisis situations -- such as the civil wars in what was Yugoslavia.

With military force, you can temporarily change the political structure of a nation, but you can't cause permanent change unless you can connect culturally. As in Vietnam, the cultural divide between the U.S. and Iraq is too great, and we aren't bridging it as far as I can tell. To bridge it, we would have to change, and we are not going to do that. Our best strategy is to get out and let the Iraqis and their neighbors decide on Iraq. Clark is wrong here.

You say:
"...let the Iraqis and their neighbors decide on Iraq."

Clark says:
"...Washington should convince nations neighboring Iraq that a stable Baghdad is in their interest.

But you're right and he's wrong? You both make the same argument.

You say:
"By now, we should have learned that military force does not win on political, social or spiritual levels. To win on those levels, we need to use understanding, respect and persuasion."

Clark says:
"I think we should now work through the United Nations," he said. "Enough is enough."

Again, you're not proposing anything contrary to what he suggested.

Also, the NATO actions in the Balkins didn't "maintain the status quo". The actions stopped a genocide. Ask an Albanian.

if we change chimpy's policies and start acting responsibly.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050425-063851-6152r.htm

Consider the source. And look at the shoddy reporting:

<snip>
Responding to questions on the U.S. rationale for war on Iraq, criticized by many in the international community, Perle defended Washington's position.

"We went into Iraq because we felt Saddam was a threat," he said. "We went to liberate the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator who has killed millions of people."

He added: " Whether we were able to find weapons of mass destruction or no but we did the right thing by intervening in Iraq."

Clark echoed those views. "We in the USA feel that people are created equals and they should have their say in there governments," he said.
<unsnip>

Note that Clark did *NOT* echo Perle. He did not say we did the right thing by intervening in Iraq; he made a general statement about democracy.

Clark echoed those views.

Everybody in this thread knows Clark's views. Everybody in this thread knows they are the direct opposite of Perle's views. Everybody in this thread knows Clark accurately predicted violence and chaos following the invasion of Iraq six months before the invasion. Everybody in this thread knows he *never* advocated the invasion Iraq. Everybody in this thread knows he has blasted the Bush administration all over the country and all over TV about this war.

Yet. A broken link. A few sentences that are OBVIOUSLY INACCURATE in two right wing sources and almost everybody in this thread is ready to believe it.

Thank you, vikegirl, for trying, but I despair some days that DUers will ever stop kneejerking.

but I do not read that publication.

If I want to read disinformation, I use a source that is at least well-written.

Washington Times - a rag if there ever was one! And, yes, Clark sure as hell wasn't FOR Perle, in fact, he ripped him a new one...*(Anybody have the link for the transcript?)

http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/

third mike down...april 6, 2005

and for your good eye. That's some FINE journalism :sarcasm:

it amazes me that Republicans can not be acutely embarassed by their leadership most days.

something is not right here...very poor reporting
just a tiny thing that popped out at me
"they should have their say in there governments"

in THEIR governments. Any first year J-school student would know that. Perhaps English is a second language for this reporter.

Those kind of grammatical errors scream out at me. And it's a straight cut-and-paste job from their website. Also, this:

He added: "Whether we were able to find weapons of mass destruction or no but we did the right thing by intervening in Iraq."

No "t" in "not." Their editors suck, or Perle is an incoherent looney.

Edit: Or both.

Are these acceptable sources for the LBN forum? Seems like a bunch of steaming bullshit.

"Washington should start negotiations with countries around Iraq to put an end to growing violence in the region."

He is also a multilateralist:"I think we should now work through the United Nations".

So to say he is pro-war is not accurate.

(Don't get me wrong, I love democracy, and think it is great, but the Jefferson kind of democracy, not the "Bush" kind).

For one thing, folks that are proponents of gun barrel democracy just naturally assume that their brand of government is best and they assume that every other nation/culture will just accept "democratic liberation" by a "democratic" foreign power.

Unfortunately, these folks also usually equate democracy with global capitalism. They usually are born into fairly well-to-do families, have had lots of opportunities handed to them, have lots of money and are somewhat unable to grasp the difference between them and the people whose lives their brand of "global capitalist 'democracy'" has impoverished or destroyed.

That said, the word QUAGMIRE has been being used frequently by DU members since well before the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps military strategists may want to study DU for some insight before Bush invades his next victim.

KICKED in a guerrilla War.

He's made exactly your point many times.

capitalism and expansion. He seemed, IMO from the information that I read, to somewhat equate "democracy" with capitalism and the "American Way".

I use the term "gun barrel" in the sense that Gen. Clark seemed to assume that capitalism and democracy are necessarily related, and that this type of democracy should be spread throughout the world because it is good for American transnational corporate business interests and therefore for America and the world.

But it is certainly possible that he has changed his opinions/beliefs over the past few years though.

NEVER.

I don't know what you've read, but it certainly hasn't been his own words.

In fact, he's been speaking out for some time, essentially ever since his retirement from the military, about our failure in the West to recognize and deal with the effects our economic expansion has on the rest of the world.

And he hasn't changed his views on it at all. I'd like to see some source that shows he ever believed that "democracy should be spread throughout the world because it is good for American transnational corporate business interests."

He does believe in encouraging economic development in under- developed countries. But by keeping the transnational corporations in check, for the good of the people and the good of the environment. He also believes in encouraging democracy, altho VERY clearly not "at the point of a gun." Your characterization of his views are about 180 degrees out from reality.

recently to what you've written, i.e. that each country's version of democracy will be unique to their own culture and will grow from within the people's hearts rather than being imposed from outside.

(I'm sure the Clark supporters know the article I'm referring to).

words that he still un an unapologetic imperialist. I read talk of a balance or rather imbalance of military power between the US and te Iraqis, but no indication that he considered the US was in the wrong even being there.

Why would he have changed from his previous right-wing Republican positions, anyway? He's even in favour of the School of the Americas.

One of the "pro gun barrel capitalist 'democracy' folks"???

If so, you don't know JACK about Wes Clark.

This whole thing is being taken out of context and without regard to the source. The conference took place in Almaty, Kazakhstan, before an international audience, so of course Clark was restrained in his remarks. And UPI is in fact Mooney-owned. The OP ran in the RW Washington Times as well (also Moon's). You think they don't know what they're doing? Let's not fall prey to their propaganda, ok?

At least this one is working for me:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050425-063851-6152r.htm

VERY hard, after listening to him criticize the invasion before it began and its disastrous aftermath.

I really, truly hope he didn't stick his foot in his mouth this way.

see this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1421005#1421159
I also have a hard time believing Clark stuck his foot in his mouth like that, and it's even harder given the sources we are to look at.

edit- wrong link

today. (Ameircan Soldiers.)

We were 'high-tech' compared to the Vietnamese and we got our asses kicked in Viet Nam.

WTF are you gonna do with all your 'hi-tech' weapons in a fucking guerilla war?

I'm having a very hard time believing that General Clark said something so foolish.

Those people who died in the helicopter a few days ago should prove to anybody that is fallacy

but Clark knows that the 'hi-tech' US weaponry can pretty much flatten anything that it chooses to (e.g. Falluja).

marines going house to house and bombs being dropped.

This hi-tech bullshit, this idea that with fancy war toys that we can somehow invade a country and make 24 million pissed off people do what we want,....that is the height of fucking hubris. It's what got us into vietnam and its what got us in the current quagmire.

I like Clark. I supported Dean, but I would have been perfectly happy with Clark as a candidate. I'm just hoping that he takes a look at what he said and bites his tongue for sounding so fucking stupid.

n/t

to the right of Sir Hillary, I won't be there for him come 2008.

from some corners for supposedly becoming "pro-war" and doing a supposed "flip flop" on his anti-war position. These charges are being made by people who apparently weren't familiar enough with his position to realize that it hasn't changed.

It's also very easy for RW sources to misrepresent or twist someone's words to use against them. The corporate media seems to be very interested in doing that to both Clark and Dean.

Better than anything I've heard from Kerry or Clinton on the topic. Color me impressed. I don't read this as pro-war at all.
It is well past time to get the UN in, and the US out.
No permanent US bases in Iraq!

Kerry has said the same thing consistently - 1) Help get an Iraqi security force as quickly as possible, training outside the country if necessary 2)International deplomacy and involvement 3) Genuine reconstruction and 4) elections. As he said on the day of the Iraqi elections, he felt the other 3 elements he thought were needed were being done and that they really were probably at the point where it was the last time they could possibly get it right. He was blasted by the right for not cheering Iraq as a total success story at this point, especially as Lieberman and Clinton were pretty positive in their comments.

In the Judy Woodruff interview, Kerry disagreed with the Democracy is breaking out all over the middle east nonsense. This was brave as the MSM view was that the Palestinian problem, Lebanon, and Iraq were all heading in the right direction.

Kerry on MTP (and during the campaign) argued that we needed to NOT have permanent bases. Kerry is probably the most likely possible candidate to join Kennedy in recommending getting out. The big difference (per both Kerry and Kennedy) in their approaches was one of process. Kerry still felt that doing what he recommended would get us out and leave Iraq less unstable than otherwise. He did say that January was the last window for doing this. I trust that if Kerry is convinced that our presense can't help, he will be one of the strongest voices for getting out.

I disagree with you lumping Kerry with Clinton (either Bill or Hillary) because they, along with Bayh and Biden are far more in line with the Democracy on the move lines. If I were clustering positions; I would put Kerry closer to Kennedy than to (Clinton, Bayh, Biden) who are closer to Bush et all. Clark, I would put slightly to the right or the same place as Kerry.

Iraq is not Vietnam, it is Iraq.

Iraq is worse than Vietnam in how we got there and the reasons given. The blatant lies for going into Iraq have not been surpassed by anything that we have ever experienced.

Just because Vietnam is a good metaphor for "disaster & quagmire"....technically Iraq is it's own disaster & quagmire, and does not need to piggyback off of Vietnam in everyway to make that point.

In reference to High Tech weaponry, it is absolutely correct that in 2004-05 the US arsenal contains more High Tech weaponry than it did back in the late 60s and early 70s. This is a statement of fact, and cannot be denied.

I believe that when we simplify one thing to match another, we blur certain lines of facts in order to come up with the match.

Although we shall not forget the history and lessons that we learned via Vietnam (because we are then bound to repeat history and those errors), we also cannot alter the present occurence just so that it will coincide with a past event. In generalities Iraq is similar to Vietnam in that they are both wars that didn't have to be fought....however, beyond that, it is in viewing and acknowledging the unique circumstances presented to us in the Iraqi model that will allow us to learn the new lessons that are to be found specifically with Iraq.

Just like it is wrong and incorrect for the NeoCons to use the reconstruction of Germany and Japan as parallels to Iraq....

So is it wrong for our side to simply equate Iraq to Vietnam and be done with it.

If we wish to call Iraq another Vietnam to advance the notion that we may again lose this war, as we did the other...that's one thing; However, this is a gamble....because it is possible that Iraq may not end up like a Vietnam....and if it doesn't, what happens to the thesis of those on our side who maintained the need to equate the two? Will they then be judged as incorrect and mistaken? Do we want to set ourselves up to have to provide an explanation if the end result for the two end up not so similar? I don't think so.

believe that just because you have a bunch of gee-whiz techno-bombs, that that somehow gives you an advantage in a guerilla war. It emphatically does not.

In the 1960's we had much more sophisticated blow-em-up gadgetry than the Vietnamese and it proved absolutely worthless.

This crazed idea that super dooper 'smart' bombs and the rest can somehow pacify a nation of 24 million supremely pissed off Iraqis will sink this country. It is insanity. It is hubris. It is blind to reality.

I like Wesley Clark. I really do. I think he would have made a great candidate. Where he comes up with this most recent crap (I'm withholding judgment until I am absolutely convinced he uttered such hogwash) is completely beyond me.

It's a f-d up mess, but no, it is not Vietnam. Vietnam is Vietnam, Iraq is Iraq. That's not to say lessons from V can't be applied in Iraq but that is not to say They aare the same/

:D

heh

American hubris. When will we get rid of it?

If you're going to post an article that will start so much fuss, the least you could do is include a link to it in its entirety.

On edit: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050425-063851-6152r.htm
Read it closely, it's high quality journalism :sarcasm:

He basically saying "Why is this taking so long, shouldn't we be done by now?..."

WTF:wtf:

Why not? Most of us who have had the sightest exposure to the History of that region easily predicted the Iraqi Resistance to an invasion and occupation by a White Christian army.

Even george*s daddy, poppy bush predicted the Iraqi Resistance.
"Trying to eliminate Saddam... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... we would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq... there was no viable 'exit strategy'.. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."---Poppy Bush

The other issue is the statement about hi-tech dominance.
The US CERTAINLY HAD Hi-Tech dominance in Viet-Nam.

I usually agree with the General, but these remarks worry me. I hope he offers SOME clarification.

I am sure it is accurate. :sarcasm:

If I wanted to read a rightwing rah-rah rag posing as a news source, I'd choose Newsmax. :puke:

But he is an experienced military man and a realist. The source of these quotes is dubious, but even taken out of context as many here are doing, they still don't paint Clark as anything but analytical and realistic. We DO have superior force in Iraq and that is why we prevailed in the initial conflict. Clark also said numerous times that we would very likely face an insurgency. I have to believe he was expressing his amazement at the level and tenacity of it, not that it existed. The military could use superior force if they wanted to level every town in the country, but obviously Clark, like most of us, doesn't view this as a desirable outcome. That's why he sensibly suggests letting the UN intervene. How this is out of line with mainstream DU thought and makes him "pro-war" is just beyond me. He's trying to suggest a rational solution to a fucked up, irrational mess that he said we should not undertake. But now that we are there, he wants to help his brothers in arms and the people of Iraq by finding a way out other than something insane like dropping Daisy Cutters on Tikrit. Which isn't really too far fetched when you consider who is calling the plays in this ever more desperate clusterfuck. Clark is a brilliant and honorable man who says what he thinks and tries to act on it. We could do a lot worse - and we are.

by the way.

And you are right, General Clark has said that we'd "supercharge" insurgents if we went to war.

Anyway, it's good to read your salient points. :toast:

It only goes to show how ridiculous and petty some DUers are.

and is a United Nations Task Force member. Anybody who thinks Wes Clark pro-war is clueless about Gen. Clark; believing everything you read from the Moonie News Network (e.g., UPI and The Washington Times) won't feed you anything but propaganda:

"General Clark currently serves in leadership roles with a number of non-profit public service organizations, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Distinguished Senior Adviser), the Center for American Progress (Trustee), the International Crisis Group (Board Member), City Year Little Rock (Board Chair), the National Endowment for Democracy (Board Member), the United States Institute of Peace (United Nations Task Force Member), and the General Accountability Office (Advisory Board Member)."

http://www.securingamerica.com/biography
__________________________

And here's Richard Perle's complaint about Wes Clark when they appeared together at HASC September 2002 hearings on whether or not to go to war in Iraq:

"(Clark) seems to be preoccupied, and I'm quoting now, with building legitimacy, with exhausting all diplomatic remedies... ÊSo I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait."

- Richard Perle, PNAC Iraq war-mongerer, before HASC on Sept. 26, 2002

Earth to General Clark: Iraq already IS Vietnam, and we need to take steps to make sure it doesn't get any worse.

Yet.

But please keep in mind -- UPI is about as credible a news source as its Moonie-owned twin, TheWashington Times. I'd be interested to read a
full transcript by a news source that is not a rightwing rag before I make
anymore comments.

it's not "another Vietnam?

The "we're much more high-tech today then we were in Vietnam" argument just doesn't cut it.

To the Vietnamese the US Army at the time was comparitively "high-tech" so Clark's argument, or should I say excuse, is false.

But I believe that to be delussional thought, except in coming from those who have served. To my knowledge, the only one I know who has actually served and has responded to this thread is JaiWKC08.

If it so pleases those DUers who think that they have finally found something to criticize Gen. Clark about, please note the source, note the audience to whom he was speaking to (for those who believe he should speak more plainly...the man is speaking at a forum on such matters in a foreign country), and note the entire thread....including those who, like myself find that this is not the "foot in the mouth" statement some are salivating for.....no matter how bad they wish it.

What Clark possesses, that many of us don't, is the knowledge about Vietnam (was there...almost lost his life...so did that) on which he wrote a dissertation, and the arsenal currently available to the U.S. Based on his many years in the military and his vast experience. IMO, that knowledge must be assumed to be greater than most, and certainly greater than the overwhelming majority of those who are currently determined to shake their heads and scream out "oh No, he didn't" on this thread.

I have already opined on the fact that we can holler all we want...that Iraq is just like Vietnam , and it still won't be so. And in the end, if Iraq comes out with a different end outcome then did Vietnam....all those that know more and better than this General will have a lot to explain. It is most wise to acknowledge the similarities (and there are some) and the difference between the two conflicts. It is too simplistic to call it just another Vietnam and wait to be proven wrong. Lord knows, I sometimes wish it was another Vietnam....and therefore, I would already know how it all will end. But I don't know how it will end, and neither do you.

In reference to Clark's High Tech comment (oh ma gad...lookit what he said...they exclaim in unison...wringing their hands), there is a difference between stating a point of fact and advocating a stand on the issues as they are currently. Clark is not stating that we should use any of this Hi tech weaponry, and in fact, is on record for stating that EVEN IF Iraq had WMDs, this war was still a wrong war.

He is, however, stating that the military might of the United States, as it currently stands, makes it unbeatable, one way or the other. The question as to what the costs to bear would be considered reasonable for a victory was not part of what he discussed....as that was not his point. Gen. Clark is not stating what it would take, nor whether the U.S should or would be willing to utilize what would be required to "win" a victory.

Clark's point was that when compared to the Vietnam era, it is a certain that the United States and it's satellites, it's High tech weaponry and it's advanced technology, and it's trained personnel are in a better position than ever before to determine the outcome of any given battle. These facts are what they are.

Clark has always advocated that Iraq would not be as easy as the Admin thought it would; no cakewalks for America. But this is two years out, and Clark is stating that we are not even close.....and that should be a disturbing thought for all of us (especially the NeoCons).

I pity those who wish that Iraq would just fall apart to prove the point that Bush was wrong. Or that America would suffer a bad defeat in a battle, lose a lot of soldiers....and then we could wave the "I told you so" finger. Although such an occurence might "feel good" to some, the ramifications of such an outcome would not be a good one for the world....at this point.

For those pacifist who are worrying about the Iraq War....I would hope that your concerns go beyond proving a political point. Whether we win or lose, the real point....this war should never have been fought. Wes Clark does not deviate from this point....so he is in agreement with most of us.

The important outcome that we should be rooting for, at this point, is that the Iraqi people will be able to live relatively safe lives at some point....and that our Soldiers will be able to come home safe and whole.

It would be wise to weight what the real point to this thread is....and again, consider the source, first and foremost.

Some will most likely have their chance to beat up on Wes Clark and call him wrong at some point in time....I just don't think that this is the one. Have patience.....cause everyone is bound to fuck up at one point or another....if you truly keep a close eye. Clark is not perfect nor immune from that....just like Dean, Edwards, Kerry or any of the other "Democratic leaders".

My point is, however, wait for a real point of argument instead of attempting to conjure one up. It doesn't do us any good to stand with the enemy against one of our own at the drop of a hat.......just cause we can twist and bend this...here and there. It just looks cheap and opportunistic.

I'd like to add something: Early in 2004 or maybe even before that, when he had to testify about the atrocities in Bosnia, etc, he was being interviewed via satellite. Couric gave him carte blanche to bash the war in Iraq, but he refused to be overtly negative, and he said why: he was on foreign soil, and he wasn't going to do that outside the borders of the US. I think it was simply a matter of principle to him, not criticizing the US govt when he was out of pocket and unable to take the heat for it. It was unseemly to him. He is a man who has learned to carefully choose his words, or at least be available to defend them if need be. He thought it would be unpatriotic. At least, that is my take on it.

I really like Wes Clark. I think he loves the US, and wants it to return to days of prosperity, integrity, and the freedom the Framers intended. And as another poster said, unless Bill Clinton was in the meeting, Clark was the smartes one in the room.

CBS was right about him. And most people I knew who served in MAC-V knew it.

We'll have to see what history has to say about Myers. But geez... ya think it's any accident that Don "Shock & Awe" Rumsfeld picked an Air Force general for his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? WTF do you expect him to know about guerilla warfare, or how to fight it?

Clark doesn't get a free pass on making statements because of the bars on his shoulders.

It's already WAY past it-- miles down the road and gaining speed. This misadministration has made Viet Nam look like a Sunday picnic with all their groundbreaking nastiness and horror. Murder, mayhem and unrestrained torture-- sex, lies, and everything but the videotape-- the man is deluded.

Anticipate THIS, mofo. :nuke:

A war is a war is a war but are they the same? It depends upon what yardstick is being used. People die, there is massive destruction, and it takes years to reconstitute a society, so in those terms they are the same. But if one had deconstructed Vietnam and was closely following the path of the Iraq war, well, one might be in a philosophical position to say: "no, they are not the same."

One of Clark's master thesis--not Oxford's, a different one--was to deconstuct the Vietnam war by analyzing every decision made as documented in the Pentagon Papers. The theses earned him a "first" and is often cited in ponderous papers. So, from Clark's vantage point, I don't doubt that he made that statement. In fact, somewhere on this computer is a video of him making that same statement with his accompanying explanation: absence of a proxy army, underlying divisions in the country, and level of in-country operations.

Since his last trip to the Gulf, he has been saying that Arab armies need to take over. I'll risk an assumption, that since he is in close communications with moderate leaders in the Gulf, this is something that is being seriously discussed. Don't expect to hear about it in MSM and never in the Moonie Times.

Clark is philosophically opposed to empire: their perfect union may not be our idea of a perfect union. But he does believe that reform must come the Gulf region if the fundamentalist ideology is to be negated, and that reform must come from the people of those countries.

So paint his statements however it rocks your boat, aid Rove in anyway you chose, but your beliefs will not become reality simple because they are not based on truth.

"I didn't anticipate the violence that is now following."

Then I question his judgment.

A cursory look at Iraq's previous history of occupation under the British should have clued him in to this. Not to mention the animosity that exists between the different religious groups.

Like all people the Iraqi's do not like having THEIR country occupied by a foreign power & being told what to do.

I find it hard to reconcile this statement "I didn't anticipate the violence that is now following." with his apparent intelligence.

Iraq is not Vietnam. It is not possible to compare the two wars. The world has changed and the dynamics are different. No longer do we have two superpowers confronting each other. There is no country that can make us exercise any self-restaint toward the people of Iraq. No press tells what really goes on there. No anti-war movement that is mobilized in this country.

What bothers me about Clark's statement is the fact that he, nor any of the upper brass, anticipated the continuing violence. That does remind me of Vietnam.

normal folks running things, there wouldn't have been as much violence as there has been. But considering that those in power are fucking up at every opportunity possible in the worse way......the violence is not dying down.

I didn't even think things could get as fucking messed up as they have. I mean, no matter what you think of this war, it didn't have to go this totally screwed up route.

Remember that the GOP and the Neo-Cons want us to think that the violence IS dying down. I give Props to Clark for making the intentional statement....that indeed, it has not.

Clark warned during his 2002 testimony that things could get bad.....and stated that we were, even now, crowing too loudly about the sunrise.

Again, I would have to see a transcript....cause I don't think that Clark said what he said in the way that the moonie times are reporting it. So for those ready to believe the Moonie paper.....good luck in swallowing the propaganda whole and raw...and without water. I hope you don't choke....when it comes to light as what Wes really did say....in context.

Except, the DOD are not normal folks. My experiences in the military tell me that the brass never takes a long view of any conflict or situation. Their mind set has them totally unprepared for modern warfare.


General Clark, in my opinion, is one of the few senior officers who had any understanding of what is required of the military in the 21st century. I think his record shows that.


I hope Clark continues to speak out. We need people like him to lead. And as far as what is printed in the media...well, I feel like I am able to understand military matters as well as or better than any bought and paid for reporter or Op/ed shitforbrains.

Btw, I'm a Clark supporter. What I see is some obvious dislike of the general (to put it mildly). But if this is the best you have to bash him, well its damn weak. What is scary like some have said is that our military (including the pentagon and whatever else) didn't even remotely anticipate what is going on now, not to mention just having enough troops to secure the weapon piles found. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Clark has stated time and time again his dislike for the war and how it was executed, its of course easy to ignore what you don't want to hear. Personally I believe alot of people dislike Clark solely based on him having a career in the military, and thats fine. There isn't anyway to ever make you listen to what he has to say, a lost cause you might say. I have no problem with that.

Iraq is a very complicated and serious issue, just because Clark said it wasn't another Vietnam and then people go ape shit... I find to be very disturbing. There are a hundred ways to look at Iraq and why it may be like this war or it maybe like that war... hell I'm sure if one were so inclined they could compare it to the Greco-Persian wars from 499-479 BC. Goddamnit its just like those damn Persians trying to take over the world!!

First, I'm certainly glad Clark didn't say he thought Iraq was going to be another Vietnam on foriegn soil. I'm sure that would have given the terrorists a lot more optimism. You simply do say those sorts of things in that kind of context.

Secondly, I don't trust the integrity of this article. There are numerous grammatical errors, and more glaringly quotes are taken out of context in a misleading way. The "Clark echoed these comments" line being a prime example. That error makes me question the integrity of the entire article.

I can't comment anymore on this because I don't know what Clark really said, or in what context.

He said enough was enough. He said we need to work through the United Nations.

He's saying very similar things to Kerry and Dean, actually. And none of their stances have changed.

We illegally invade a country for trumped up reasons and lies.. and people fight back...and this doesn't sound like a logical consequence to some people? This wasn't "anticipated"?

People fighting back is unheard of somehow?
Iraq is a first for a nation fighting back against oocupation?
Even if other groups are throwing in with Iraq to fight the Americans, this hasn't been done before?
In the annals of war, this has never happened before now?

It boggles the mind that people can seriously claim this wasn't "anticipated".

I thought he was against the war to begin with though. Why did he not anticipate it? How could he not anticipate the violence? It all boggles the mind.

He predicted chaos and violence when he testified before the House Armed Services Committee six months ahead of the invasion.

Of course he anticipated the violence.

What boggles the mind is how DUers can find this right wing spew to be believable, acceptable, and true!

and not just a few quotes reported by a right-wing source and obviously taken out of context?

Also the link doesn't work anymore.

It didn't work when I first saw this OP early on.

All this speculation, all this shocked horror and betrayal, based on a right wing link that never worked. :eyes: