Vietnamizing Iraq, Iraqicizing Vietnam

[KoKo]

Long, thoughtful article by Tom Englehardt who lived the 60's and Vietnam. Worth the read for those of us Populist/Progressives who feel our "wars" are draining our resources and causing us to lose "our own freedoms" here at home while claiming we are bringing "freedom" to others. Last poll I heard was that 68% of Americans were in favor of bombing Syria because of ISIS. The tide has now turned for support for "endless war against ISIS" according to General Dempsey and the usual Think Tanks. I don't hear much of anything from our Left organizations about this and little about the meaning of Hagel's resignation. Maybe it's just the "holidays" and people need a break. Article is cross-posted from PMRG.

------------

Published on
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
by
TomDispatch
Iraq War 4.0?

Imagine if some other nation was behaving like the U.S. has behaved towards Iraq
by
Tom Engelhardt

Vietnamizing Iraq, Iraqicizing Vietnam

In the meantime, think about what we would have said if the Russians had acted as Washington did in Afghanistan, or if the Chinese had pursued an Iraq-like path in a country of their choosing for the third time with the same army, the same “unified” government, the same drones and weaponry, and in key cases, the same personnel! (Or, if you want to make the task easier for yourself, just check out U.S. commentary these last months on Ukraine.)

For those of a certain age, the escalatory path the Obama administration has set us on in Iraq has a certain resonance and so, not surprisingly, at the edges of our world, familiar words like “quagmire” are again rising. And who could deny that there’s something eerily familiar about it all? Keep in mind that it took less than three years for the Kennedy administration to transition from the first several hundred American advisers it sent to Vietnam to work with the South Vietnamese Army in 1961 to 16,000 armed “advisers” in November 1963 when the president was assassinated.

The Obama administration seems to be in the grips of a similar escalatory fever and on a somewhat similar schedule, even if ahead of the Vietnam timetable when it comes to loosing air power over Iraq and Syria. However, the comparison is, in a sense, unfair to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. After all, they were in the dark; they didn’t have a “Vietnam” to refer to.

For a more accurate equivalent, you would have to conjure up a Vietnam scenario that couldn’t have happened. You would have to imagine that, in May 1975, at the time of the Mayaguez Incident (in which the Cambodians seized an American ship), just two weeks after the South Vietnamese capital Saigon fell, or perhaps even more appropriately in terms of the dual chronologies of the two wars, in December 1978 when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, President Gerald Ford had decided to send thousands of American troops back into Vietnam.

Inconceivable as that was then, only such an absurd scenario could catch the true eeriness of the escalatory path of our third Iraq war.

Four More Years! Four More Years!

Try to imagine the reaction here, if the Russians were suddenly to send their military back into conflict-ridden Afghanistan to refight the lost war of the 1980s more effectively, bringing old Red Army commanders out of retirement to do so.

As it happens, the present war in Iraq and Syria is so unnervingly déjà vu all over again that an equivalency of any sort is next to impossible to conjure up. However, since in the American imagination terrorism has taken over the bogeyman-like role that Communism once filled, the new Islamic State might in one sense at least be considered the equivalent of the North Vietnamese (and the rebel National Liberation Front, or Vietcong, in South Vietnam). There is, for instance, some similarity in the inflamed fantasies Washington has attached to each: in the way both were conjured up here as larger-than-life phenomena capable of spreading across the globe. (Look up “domino theory” on the meaning of a Communist victory in South Vietnam if you doubt me.)

Continued .....a long fascinating read...at:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/11/25/iraq-war-40

[F4lconF16]

1. K&R

[Enthusiast]

2. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Thank you, KoKo.

[Martin Eden]

3. US actions PERPETUATE this jihad

One of many keen insights from the article:

One thing we do know, however: as long as the global giant, the United States, continues to escalate its fight against the Islamic State, it gains a credibility and increasing popularity in the world of jihadism that it would never otherwise garner. As historian Stephen Kinzer wrote recently of the movement’s followers, “To face the mighty United States on Middle Eastern soil, and if possible to kill an American or die at American hands, is their dream. We are giving them a chance to realize it. Through its impressive mastery of social media, the Islamic State is already using our escalation as a recruiting tool.”

It should be painfully obvious by now that US military action in the Middle East cannot achieve the stated goals, results in horrible unintended consequences, and enriches the MIC while draining funds from our domestic budgets.

The Powers That Be undoubtedly understand this. Hell, they engineered it.

[KoKo]

4. "The Powers That Be" undoubtedly understand this. Hell, they engineered it.

Agree and I would hope this would be part of Progressive/Populist Movement to move beyond THIS POLICY....going forward.

It's not helpful to the people of this nation or to the World at Large, imho.

PRIORITY: REVISE OUR INTERNATIONAL POLICY!

STRICT OVERSIGHT.

Who will step up to the Plate on the Dem Side?

Only person I know is a Repub from the other side of my State..to dismantle our War Apparatus....Rep. Walter Jones...but, he's horrible on Women's Rights...I don't know how to compromise on this.....but, he's really a thoughtful person with definite convictions that I agree with on spending more for ME/War Involvement......but, he's a "Pro Lifer," who really has convictions that way, that I differ with. So it's a CONFLICT that can't be resolved...except to decide whether Women's Rights are more important than Ending our Conflicts in the ME paid for with our Tax Dollars we have little or NO say so over the funding of.

So....there I am....and many of us might be in the same situations in our Own Home States.

[Martin Eden]

5. Regarding the GOP representative from your state

In a functional two party system, areas of common agreement can be found and acted upon. It's not necessary for every issue to be a matter of a complete ideological package in total opposition to the ideology on the other side of the aisle. For that matter, even within a Democratic Party that started acting like a real Democratic Party, there would still be disagreements on some issues.

When it comes to voting, it's nearly impossible to find a candidate you agree with 100% all the time -- but that doesn't necessarily amount to a choice of the lesser evil (which, unfortunately, we have a lot of now). I wouldn't automatically vote against a candidate who was "pro-life" but I will continue to vote against every GOP candidate for national office until the Republican Party looks a lot more like Eisenhower than Ted Cruz.