Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iraq is indeed another Vietnam for America
reefdiver    2/24/2007 12:41:08 AM
I'm convinced that Iraq has indeed become America's new "Vietnam". How so? * The US is again fighting an enemy counting more on manipulating the US media in destroying American stamina and morale than in winning battles. They don't win any battles - they just win television sound-bite time. A very small minority has their (horrific) vision and hopes televised. Its once again looking like a good strategy. * The US is fighting a proxy war with a foe being largely funded and provided arms by another country or countries. Such a war has the potential to go on indefinitely ala Vietnam. * A liberal anti-war congress is once again looking to assure that American does not win, but rather decides to give up. They're putting more effort into fighting the President and the military than they're willing to put into fighting the enemy. And the enemy, noticing their actions, will only ratchet up their efforts - killing more Americans and Iraqi's (in ways to attract the most media attention). I believe this last fact is impossible to deny at this point. Congress is directly endangering American soldiers. * Politics are dictating the war, resulting in ROE's dangerous for American soldiers (e.g. the Shia militia's have been largely left alone until recently and will probably never be disarmed and dismantled.) * The US is unwilling to attack the source of the continuing problem at this point - Iran - just as they were for the most part unwilling to directly attack North Vietnam for most of the Vietnam war. * Once again the US may simply pull out - abandoning people the US promised hope to. Its possible another million civilians could be killed - just like in Vietnam (although Saudi-Arabia has promised to intercede if this starts happening - talk about trouble...) Its a proven formula the enemy is using. Its almost guaranteed to work. They know this and have told us so. So I say - quit denying its another Vietnam because it is. I believe the liberal Democrats are trying to do their best to assure it is. They want another Vietnam, its in their power to assure such, and they're going to do it. They'll do anything in their power, at any cost, to attempt to shame Bush and the Republicans. They're determined to see their predictions come true. So please tell me I've got it all wrong...
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
BadNews    Ya Know Shek   2/24/2007 11:32:51 PM

Sorry, here's the link to the article I quoted at the end of my last post. 

 




The New York Times Speak Demo talk not fact. Your very article quotes praises from Gergan and Carl Levin, real unbiased folks yes?
 
I would rather see a George Bush as president than ANY Democrat in the field right now. mistakes aside
 
Why doesn't the NY Times report about last years reenlistment numbers? Why, because it would point out that the morale of the US forces is more than very high, that is why.
 
If we are seeing a repeat of Vietnam it is only because of extremely one-sided reporting, that is where the corelation is.
 
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews    Print This New York Times   2/24/2007 11:38:40 PM
It was available to you!!!
 
Al-Doura residents welcome Soldiers, security Printhttp://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/M_images/printButton.png" align=middle border=0 name=Print>
Friday, 23 February 2007
Bronx, N.Y., native Staff Sgt. Juan A. Lopez, speaks Arabic with some Iraqi children during his unit’s patrol of a market in Baghdad’s Al Doura district.http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/daily/2007/February/070223_daily_med.jpg" width=330 border=0>
Bronx, N.Y., native Staff Sgt. Juan A. Lopez, speaks Arabic with some Iraqi children during his unit’s patrol of a market in Baghdad’s Al Doura district.
BAGHDAD
? “Face time.” It seems to be a term used more by celebrities than Soldiers, but as Iraqi Army and Police go on patrols with Coalition forces, “face time” is something one unit is saying is very important to their mission of capturing the bad guys.

On what’s become a normal patrol mission in Baghdad’s northwest Al-Doura neighborhood, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Soldiers are using the results of their “face time” to help catch the enemy.

“Our presence is very important,” said Staff Sgt. Juan A. Lopez, a Bronx, N.Y. native. “The [locals] will talk to us and tell us where the caches and insurgents are, they will tell us about new people who have moved into their neighborhood threatening them.

“It’s a positive we are here everyday. That way, little by little, we can make a difference.”                                                                 

On a patrol of one neighborhood in the Humvees, children were peeking out of their gates and waiving to the Soldiers through their bulletproof glass. “Wave at them, man,” Lopez told one of his Soldiers in the vehicle. “They might remember you later and say, ‘hey, I waived at that Soldier when I was a little kid.’”

Lopez, who, back in the Bronx, has a Yemeni friend who taught him some Arabic phrases, uses it to reach out to the community. When he and his Soldiers walk around the market, they are swarmed by young children. Lopez uses his limited Arabic to joke with the children.

In one of the “muhallas,” or neighborhoods, there is a thriving marketplace within what used to be a traffic circle. The locals go there to buy fresh fish, produce, clothes, shoes and other items. As recent as a month ago, insurgent activity forced a lot of them to stay away from the market. Lopez and his unit had seen some fierce fighting there. During the battle, the Coalition forces repelled the insurgents from the neighborhood.

In a way, the locals have, in casual meetings with the Coalition forces, learned to embrace them. During their cordon and search missions, the Soldiers commonly refer to the meetings as “block parties.” It’s not uncommon for the locals to ask Soldiers and Iraqi National Police officers to come in and have some tea.           

According to Lopez, his unit has captured a lot of suspects which is a

 
Quote    Reply

Barca       2/24/2007 11:51:40 PM
"Its a proven formula the enemy is using. "
 
Which enemy are you talking about?
Muslim Extremists or the American Media?
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       2/24/2007 11:54:05 PM

"Its a proven formula the enemy is using. "

 

Which enemy are you talking about?

Muslim Extremists or the American Media?


Aren't they one in the same?
 
Quote    Reply

shek       2/25/2007 9:14:40 AM


The New York Times Speak Demo talk not fact. Your very article quotes praises from Gergan and Carl Levin, real unbiased folks yes?
 
I would rather see a George Bush as president than ANY Democrat in the field right now. mistakes aside

Why doesn't the NY Times report about last years reenlistment numbers? Why, because it would point out that the morale of the US forces is more than very high, that is why.
 
If we are seeing a repeat of Vietnam it is only because of extremely one-sided reporting, that is where the corelation is. 

BadNews,
If this article arouses such a strong ideological response from you, then you are quite far out in right field. 

First, while I've got some issues with some NYT coverage, they've also got some excellent reports and reporters.  Burns is one of the best correspondents in Baghdad, and Shanker is very well respected among the Army's leadership.  As far as your seemingly instinctive reaction trying to minimize this article simply because it was printed by the NYT, I find it to be quite revealing.  First, Gergen worked for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.  That's a pretty strong pedigree.  I guess maybe the fact that he works at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard is what confused you; afterall, JFK was a Democrat.  As far as "praising" Levin, I'm curious to see your logic on that one.  He's mentioned in a single clause that is descriptive of the exchange between GEN Shinseki and Levin, where Levin kept pressing on Shinseki to provide a number.
 
In terms of what I quoted, you can easily go back and research the "flap" that occured following GEN Shinseki's 25 Feb 03 testimony.  Also, Dr. Schake was a ranking member on the NSC staff under Bush 43.  Pretty hard to spin that off as Democratic talk.  Nice attempt at smoke and mirrors, but it doesn't wash.
 
Second, as far as your Bush 43 vs. Democrats comment, I think you still think that I'm a Democrat, which I'm not.  I title myself an independent, although I'm definitely somewhere in the conservative-libertarian realm and would vote Republican in most cases.  However, I use an independent label because I make sure that I don't blindly follow (it doesn't follow that someone who labels themselves by a party is therefore blind; I just like to emphasize that I don't blindly follow an ideology).
 
Third, the NY Times did.  You can look up Thom Shanker's 10 Oct 2006 article entitled "Army and Other Ground Forces Meet '06 Recruiting Goals," where you'll find the following text in the article:

On retaining military personnel, Mr. Chu said, “People who have elected to join the military are willing, despite the burdens we have asked them to bear, to continue serving.”

The Army, Air Force and Marines exceeded their retention goals, the Pentagon said. Lt. Gen. Robert L. van Antwerp Jr., commander of the Army Accessions Command, responsible for recruiting and initial training, said the Army had “defied the odds” by meeting its active-duty recruiting goals in the 2006 fiscal year as civilian jobs have been more plentiful across the nation.

I know that the above doesn't fit into your pre-conceived notion that the press is all the enemy, but feel free to prove that the article doesn't exist and that it doesn't report last FY's retention numbers.
 
Lastly, correlation is not causation.  The causal link of the press to public opinion has been shown to be bunk in the Vietnam case, and in fact, it wasn't one-sided.  Check out William M. Hammond's article "The Press as an Agent of Defeat: A Critical Examination," and you'll see why your fundamental premise is just plain wrong, which then makes your statement about trying to correlate causal effects wrong.  In case you were wanting to conduct an ad hominem attack on Hammond, he's a senior historian at the US Army's Center for Military History and has written a two-volume work on the relationships between the press and the military in Vietnam.  So, if you can provide a differing account to refute his anecdotal and empirical evidence/research, feel free.
 
In the end, the reporting from Iraq has not been perfect by any means.  I have seen some institutional bias at the editor level and some journalists who are subpar, but the reality is that these cases tend to just be playing to their audien
 
Quote    Reply

sofa       2/25/2007 9:40:52 AM
shek, you see the MSM as fair and unbiased?
 
'nuff said.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

shek       2/25/2007 9:46:41 AM

Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 8, 1964, accepting all contractual conditions of registering for the draft. Given Selective Service Number 3 26 46 228.



  • Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964
  • Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968
  • Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28, 1969
  • Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the military
  • Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the United States Army Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Colonel E. Holmes.
    Clinton signs enlistment papers and takes oath of enlistment
  • Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969
  • Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) "registrant who has failed to report...remain liable for induction"
  • Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311, drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to report for induction, is INELIGIBLE!
  • Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40
  • Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976), while a fugitive from justice

All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been refuted by Clinton.

 

 

  Now this says it all about Mr William Jefferson Clinton!. Yes, a draft dodging commie running from war to "Commander and Chief". Oh, and all this, and still found time for a staff who waits 3 years to inform their own man about our W-88 being stolen by CCP,and leaving behind our nuclear arsenal in a briefcase!. I think i have said all that needs saying under Mr Clinton except "Line him up and give him that blindfold and a last cigar!".

 

 Oh and Shek "How many men did Bush 1 send to Kuwait?" And how long did we take to get them there? Oh, and this is not counting the fact that Haliburton has its own security in force today, and saved the Army and Marines 30 battalions of men not washing latrines!. Or would you like to dispute this fact as well? Sorry [edited by SysOps], but the numbers and timeframe don't match the 2 periods in history!. And i don't need to prove who cost us more in Iraq except 1 line from the 2004 Election "Wrong Place,Wrong Time,Wrong War!!!"     Nuff said!

 

 

                                                                                 tigertony


Tigertony,
All of your Bill Clinton ramblings are irrelevant. 
 
Now, for your deployment timeline question, it took under six months to deploy and get in place the 660K troops for Desert Storm (of which the US accounted for approximately 500K).  This was done without any logistical structures being in place in the region, having prepo equipment in place, or having the necessary C2 facilities (and I don't believe they had a TPFDL developped - of course, Rumsfeld through out the TPFDL, slowing down the deployment process for OIF).  Additionally, because of the diverse coalition, additional combined coordinations were required.  Contrast this to OIF, where we had options for the timing of the operation, we had a developed logistics and C2 infrastructure in place, a specific plan (once again, thrown out by Rumsfeld) to execute, some prepo unit equipment sets in place, and fewer troops to deploy (and don't forget, we already had a BCT and the planning/logistics footprint in place in the fall of 2002).
 
Lastly, you don't wash latrines because you don't really have them.  You piss down perforated PVC pipes that are buried into the ground, and you crap into 55 gallon drums that have been cut down and have handles welded to them.  You send your extra duty fol
 
Quote    Reply

shek       2/25/2007 9:47:55 AM

shek, you see the MSM as fair and unbiased?

 

'nuff said.

 

 


You should actually read what I wrote, or else re-read, as in that case, your comprehension skills are lacking.
 
Quote    Reply

sofa       2/25/2007 9:51:29 AM
sorry - biased, except when it isn't, and it's irrelevant anyway.
 
are you arguing that the media has no influence on the outcome?
 
 
Quote    Reply

sofa       2/25/2007 9:52:37 AM
by the way, i'm an idiot.
there. that saves everyone time.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics