Vietnam War - The 'More Troops' propaganda.

denem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 07:06 PM
Original message

Vietnam War - The 'More Troops' propaganda.

Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 07:15 PM by denem

Gen. McChrystal's message to Washington seems to be: 'More Troops' or we lose' (Time quotes below).

For those who can remember, how did the LBJ administration sell their troop surges? Would it be correct to say it was along the lines of 'Victory is just around the corner', more troops will seal the deal'?

Whatever else, I don't remember the Obama Adminstration, talking about Victory, around the corner or otherwise.

Is the only thing in common the fall back position 'We can't afford to lose this one'? We must defeat the communists / terrorists, or they will treaten us across the world.

What do you remember?

TIME

McChrystal's Afghanistan Failure Warning

(WASHINGTON) — The situation in Afghanistan is serious and growing worse and without more boots on the ground the United States risks failure in a war it's been waging since shortly after the terror attacks of September 2001, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, says in a confidential report.

"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander's Summary. His 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by President Barack Obama. (snip)

"Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating," McChrystal said of the war's progress.

While asserting that more troops are needed, McChrystal also pointed out an "urgent need" to significantly revise strategy. The U.S. needs to interact better with the Afghan people, McChrystal said, and better organize its efforts with NATO allies.http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1925115,00.html

We now know McChrystal is requesting 20 - 60K more troops. 'Wrong strategy, we're losing, Help!' doesn't sound much like Westmoreland.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lerkfish

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 07:16 PM
Response to Original message

1. I vaguely recall the propaganda (used most recently by Bush)

that the deaths of the already fallen mean we can't give up without victory or we render their sacrifice meaningless.

which is one of the most obscene concepts ever perpetrated on the human species.

by that logic, we have to keep fighting until we're all dead, if the cause is futile.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

denem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. Thats MAD

heh.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mari333

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. +1 its the stupid concept of saving face

and its PR..which makes me puke, it is PR and a fucking commercial. kids die for a PR commercial.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jwirr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. LBJ got away with that because up until then we had never openly

lost a war. He knew the nations ego pretty well. It doesn't work as well now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

denem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. 'Victory Soon' or 'Victory at any cost'

or both?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

blues90

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 07:20 PM
Response to Original message

5. It was a long time ago , I was 19 and we did have the draft

Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 07:21 PM by blues90

As far as I can remember LBJ just said he needed to send in more troops because the war had spread out and we could not lose this one or the communists would come and take us all away. That was 1968 which was the height of the Vietnam lie. Kissinger played a big roll in selling the war and adding troops. He probably has more blood on his hands than anyone. Powell was involved too.

We were not wanted there anymore than we were wanted in Afghanistan or Iraq. Nixon got it into Cambodia .

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lonestarnot

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 07:26 PM
Response to Original message

7. McChrystal likes war. He chose a career based on war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tierra_y_Libertad

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 07:35 PM
Response to Original message

8. Obama will sucker us like LBJ did. Fewer troops than requested so he can be seen as a dove.

Worked for LBJ...for awhile.

More troops. More patience. More money. Different war, same results.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

madrchsod

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 08:22 PM
Response to Original message

9. it`s obama`s war now and....

he has only one choice..he has to withdraw.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Monk06

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-11-09 08:48 PM
Response to Original message

10. Take the Canadian deployment and put it into perspective. The combined forces

Edited on Sun Oct-11-09 08:49 PM by Monk06

of Canada, the US and Netherlands were making good
progress until Obama was elected.

The Canadian contingent of 2830 troops along with
US troops now standing at 68,000 an additional
60,000 makes 128,000.

This isn't like Viet Nam it is Viet Nam. It's the
Westmorland strategy all over again. Double your
troop strength when the enemy is gaining so that
the US looks like it means business. Anything else
is "cowardly abandoning a loyal ally."

The 1st war in Afghanistan destroyed the USSR.

The tribes of the Hindu Kush have never been defeated
not by Greeks, the Brits, the Russians or NATO (US hand puppet)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 11:11 PM
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.