THE VIETNAMIZATION OF IRAQ By Richard Reeves (We are leaving soon)

NNN0LHI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 04:52 PM
Original message

THE VIETNAMIZATION OF IRAQ By Richard Reeves (We are leaving soon)

Edited on Sat Sep-13-03 04:58 PM by NNN0LHI

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030912/79/58tif.html&cid=123&ncid=1501

WASHINGTON -- OK, here's the plan: "Iraqization." We get the hell out of there in double-time and turn the place over to any bunch of guys wearing the local uniform.

I know, of course, that there is no valid comparison between our frustrating occupation of Iraq and our frustrated liberation of Vietnam all those years ago. My president tells me so. And that means we should not compare Iraqization with "Vietnamization," the way President Nixon finally talked our way out of South Vietnam. But they are variations on a theme: Turn the mess over to the locals and pray for them.

Read between the lines of what our guys are saying this week:

"Rather than flooding the zone with more Americans ... it is, we believe, vastly better to continue to invest in encouraging the Iraqis to provide the kinds of increases and ramping-up of their own security capabilities. ... I don't believe it's our job to reconstruct the country. We work with the Iraqis to pass off to them the political responsibility for their country -- they already have a cabinet; they already have a Governing Council; they already have city councils. ... That's our exit strategy." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, speaking last Wednesday at the National Press Club

more

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

papau

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 05:48 PM
Response to Original message

1. 1966 re dux - even exact same words - hope it is truth this time

:-)

in 66 it was local control and training and elections not stopped or influence by the outside (ignoring the US agreement to elections in 54 - and the fear then caused by the Ho win in the North - and the projected Ho win in the south - that caused Ike/Dulles to call off the election in the South and thus begin the war) -later the better speech writers for Nixon gave us "Vietnamization"

:-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cat Atomic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 06:06 PM
Response to Original message

2. They've been saying that for months, but the fact is that

Edited on Sat Sep-13-03 06:07 PM by Cat Atomic

there will be large American military bases in Iraq for years to come. That's the whole point- to control the resources of Iraq and to have greater influence on the region in general by having a large military presence.

I've no doubt that they'd love to hand off little annoying things like infrastructure, basic civic services, and gestapo duty to the locals. The actual Iraqi population is just a nuissance to our "liberating" Commander-in-Chimp.

They don't have an exit strategy because they have no intention to exit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DemocratSinceBirth

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 06:40 PM
Response to Original message

3. The Analogy Between Iraq And Viet Nam Is Seriously Flawed

We lost 55,000 + American soldiers in Viet Nam and killed millions of Viet Cong soldiers and G-d knows how man civillians with our bombing...

Viet Nam was supported and resupplied by two competing superpowers-China and the USSR.

Iraq is a fine mess..... The mother of all foreign policy disasters.....It has poisoned America's reputation in most of the world but it's not Viet Nam....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karlschneider

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #3

6. No, it isn't Viet Nam. It's worse. Because

VN didn't have either the strategic or economic incentives for neocons that Iraq does. Picking up and leaving, probably the best long term thing for the Iraqis, is not an option for the PNACers. It would
devastate their whole agenda and raison de etre.
And now after being interrupted by a crazy neighbor who was running down the street naked, I have lost my train of thought (just back 5 minutes later).......
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NNN0LHI

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. Much worse because...

Edited on Sat Sep-13-03 08:28 PM by NNN0LHI

...Vietnam never had the chance of escalating to our shores in the most violent ways imaginable regardless of whether we stay or leave. Invading Iraq surely will do that.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftchick

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 06:40 PM
Response to Original message

4. rate the article!... and

I don't think this will happen before the election. If the aWol chimpass is reselected, it will never happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bemildred

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 06:46 PM
Response to Original message

5. Yes, indeed.

Good piece.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Starpass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 06:59 PM
Response to Original message

7. My God, It's exactly what I said a few days ago

I asked in a post how he was going to "clean it up" by next summer so he could declare great victory. Many of you said exactly what that article says. We are going to dump it on an ill prepared militia, have exelections to pick one of our hand picked goons, run away and call it a victory and let the people rot. Any civil war, horror, etc. will be called the responsibity of the Iraqis and their government.........Think not--well that IS EXACTLY what Rummy and Powell just said days ago to Afghanistan (bu-bye, it's been nice). These people are lower than criminals. And the American people will buy it hook line and sinker and compiment themselves on be such "great, wonderful people".

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Beetwasher

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 08:12 PM
Response to Original message

9. Has he been reading my posts?

I posted this theory a few weeks ago...It really comes down to cutting their losses. They'd have to give up the oil fields for the short term and cut their losses and then maybe go invade Iran or something....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

alcuno

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-13-03 08:19 PM
Response to Original message

10. They get to be in charge of the security and we get to be in

charge of the oil; protected by our military. That's been the plan all along.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:15 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.