Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/21/04 5:02 pm:
Bradd,

No, it is NOT what we did in Vietnam... SPECIFICALLY because the politicos didn't have the stomach for it, because the home front (that's people like you) didn't let them.

First of all, in Vietnam, we won EVERY BATTLE... and then gave back what we had taken in that battle. That is not an all-out asault. That's just BS. That is the 'moderation' that Adm. Fisher argued against (see my original answer). The CORRECT response would have been to not back off, and to continue hitting the Cong and the Minh whereever they hid. We didn't do that. We backed off and let them go back into hiding. That shows a lack of perseverance, and a lack of willinness to take the battle to it's inevitable conclusion. That is NOT how to win a war.

Second of all, in Vietnam, we never used the carrot. As I said in my response, the solution is a two parter... and in Vietnam, we never used the second part. We never tried to convince the NV or even the SV that capitalism, freedom, democracy, etc. could benefit them. Without that, there is no incentive for the enemy to give up its current course of action.

The whole point of my (and Bush's) approach is to show the enemy the futility and terrible cost of their approach... and then show them a way out that is beneficial to them. That is how you fight a philosophy.

There is no parallel between Vietnam and Iraq... not in the current situation, and not in the solutions.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Bradd on 12/21/04 5:41 pm:
Elliot:

You're terribly naive.

Firstly, the side that wins the LAST battle wins the war.

Your second point is historically inaccurate. We tried our damndest to convince them of all you said. I know. I was there. Were you?

Clarification/Follow-up by Bradd on 12/21/04 5:53 pm:
To Purplewings:

Apparently, I've hit a nerve.

Instead of just trashing those you disagree with, why don't you offer something of more substance?

Like maybe a coherent rebuttal?

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/21/04 6:07 pm:
Bradd,

Nope. Wasn't there. Others of my family were, though.

And at no time did the US military as an institution a) fight full out with the intent of winning, and b) offer the opportunities of capitalism and democracy and technology to the Vietnamese.

Heck, we knew where SAM City was for years before we bombed it. We knew where Ho Chi Minh was and never went after him. We knew where the real military targets in the North were... and we never went after them. W spent the better part of 6 years bombing empty fuel depots, abandoned train tracks, and other non-targets, rather than REAL military and civilian targets. The concept was called "limited engagement" and is a term that I'm sure you are familiar with, having been there. "Limited engagement" is EXACTLY what Adm. Fisher was warning against.

The sole exception to "b" was our drug trade... the Vietnamese drug trade flourished throughout the war. But with that minor exception, we did NOTHING to show them the advantages of our system. There was no institutional attempt backed by the US government to win the 'hearts and minds'.

Can you document a single childrens' park built by the US Army in Vietnam? A single school or university? A single factory? A single civilian hospital? (Forget what individual soldiers might have done... I'm talking about institutional stuff, backed by the military hierarchy and the government.) Lots of these have been built in Iraq, and all of it has been documented.

In fact, the NLF did a better job of winning hearts and minds than we did. They took land from wealthy land-owners and distributed it to the peasants, and promissed to protect the land and retake it from the US forces if it was captured. The result was that the peasants were both greatful to and reliant on the NLF. We did NOTHING to counter that move, and so the SV peasants supported the NLF and went against us. The NLF used the very tactic of 'hearts and minds' that I am advocating, though on a lesser scale that we are currently capable of. In fact, the success of the NLF in this regard is PROOF THAT THIS IDEA WORKS.

The contrast between Iraq and Vietnam is VERY stark in that regard, and easily verifiable. We didn't fight the war of hearts and minds in Vietnam, and we only fought a limited engagement there. In Iraq, the solution is an all-out engagement, and full use of the hearts and minds 'tactic'.

I think that part of the problem here betwen us is that you are seeing General Westmorland's "Search and Destroy" operations as an all out engagement. It wasn't. It was still a limited engagement, despite the aggressiveness of S&D tactics. It was limited in that you guys were attacking worthless, meaningless targets that were not the REAL way to win the war. That wasn't your fault as a soldier, nor was it really Westmoreland's fault. It was the GOVERNMENT'S fault for handcuffing you guys, due to political preassure... caused by the anti-war movement.

Now, you have become part of the very movement that caused all your problems in Nam. You really need to re-think your position in light of historical facts.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Bradd on 12/21/04 6:57 pm:
Elliot:

You seem sincere, and I can't re-do Vietnam here. I suspect you didn't live through the period. Well, that's ok, I didn't live through the a lot of stuff that I have opinions on, so I get it from books.

We lost in Vietnam essentially because we played world policeman. You can scratch out the details until the cows come home, but we LOST. Many people (not me, sadly, I supported our involvement up to 1968) understood that in Vietnam we attempted to do something that was wrong.

Like today in Iraq, there were lots of theories from the administration (BOTH Democrat and Republican) and reasons why we were there. NONE of those reasons were true. Read the Pentagon papers. The American public was lied to - and the result was over one million dead. For what?

In Iraq, we have been lied to again. This time it's weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Qaida. As these "theories" become so obviously untrue, the debate changes to other reasons. Doesn't that tell you something?

Your patriotism is good, but it's misplaced. It's an old story. I'm always confounded by how you on the right side of the political spectrum dislike big government, but seem to be in thrall to anytime we use our military - a HUGE part of government.

Your arguments seem to me to be naive and thoughtless. I'm sure my position strikes you the same way. Don't trust your government, Elliot, but watch then like a hawk. And, above all, read history. Machiavelli for a start.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/22/04 8:07 am:
Bradd,

You say above that we failed in Vietnam because we 'played policeman'.

With all due respect, that's baloney.

We lost, not because of our REASON for being there, but because of our METHODOLOGY.

For all intents and purposes we have been acting as "policemen" for decades now, in every conflict in the world. We do it in Africa, in Asia, in Europe, and in the Middle East. USUALLY we do it at the behest of the UN. The UN usually asks us to be their hammer whn something needs to be fixed, because their own "UN Peacekeeping Forces" are incompetent and they know it. In a few cases, we did so on our own, without the UN's approval or request. Vietnam was one such case. Iraq was another.

The point I am making is that 'playing policeman' is not the reason that we los Vietnam, and it is not what is causing us trouble in Iraq. We've played that role elswhere, and nobody claimed that that was the reason for our troubles. "Playing policeman" isn't what causes the problems... HOW you play policeman is.

It was our tactics in Vietnam that caused us to lose. We are NOT using the samke tactics in Iraq. Ergo, there is no similarity between Vietnam and Iraq.

>>>The American public was lied to - and the result was over one million dead. For what?<<<

One million, hmmm?

Bradd, that "one million" figure is bullsh*t. EVERYONE knows it. That number has been completely debunked as poor statistical analysis based on poor data gathering. There have not been one million people killed in Iraq (except by Saddam over a period of nearly 40 years).

Think about it: the war started 643 days ago on March 20, 2003. In order for there to have been 1,000,000 deaths, we would have had to average approximately 1,555 people dead PER DAY!!! Now, I don't know about you, but even on the worst days since the war started, I never heard ANYONE claim 1,500 deaths in a single day... not even Saddam's supporters.

>>>In Iraq, we have been lied to again. This time it's weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Qaida. <<<

They weren't lies... the connection between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda has been thoroughly documented, and pictures of al Qaeda training sites in Iraq are available on the web. And if Saddam didn't have WMDs, then how, exactly, did he gas the Kurds and the Iranian troops? How did he launch scuds at Israel in the first Gulf War? What exactly did Israel blow up in Iraq in 1981? Of course Iraq had WMDs. Of that there is no question. The only question is what happened to them in the days and weeks prior to the war. The answer is that they wre hidden in Syria and possibly Iran as well. But to say that there were no WMDs is a bit untrue, considering how many thousands were killed by Saddams chemical weapons.

>>>As these "theories" become so obviously untrue, the debate changes to other reasons. Doesn't that tell you something? <<<

Nobody has changed the arguments. You just have only been paying attention to the arguments that you want to hear. Bush stated quite clearly, as early as his address to the UN, and even earlier, all the reasons to be attacking Saddam. The NUMBER ONE reason was Saddam's support of terrorism. But it was hardly the only reason. The problem is that you have ONLY been paying attention to the WMD argument, and not to any of the other perfectly valid arguments... nor have you paid any attention to the historical evidence that proves the WMD case.

>>>I'm always confounded by how you on the right side of the political spectrum dislike big government, but seem to be in thrall to anytime we use our military - a HUGE part of government.<<<

That's because a strong military is a tool of small government. The tools of big government include taxation, misplaced diplomacy, poorly negotiated and unheeded treaties, and bureaucracy. I'll take a strong military any day of the week.

>>>Don't trust your government, Elliot, but watch then like a hawk. And, above all, read history.<<<

I have read history. Quite a bit of it, actually. My best friend is an historian, and I've picked up a thing or two about historical analysis. And I know not to trust the government. "Watch what they do, not what they say", is my political outlook on life. But I like Bush because he is one of the few politicians out there that actually tries to make what he does and what he says one and the same... and I agree with what he does.

>>>Machiavelli for a start. <<<

Been there, done that. I think MY outlook encompases Machiavelli to a much greater degree than yours does. You could be one of Machiavelli's victims... I would be one of the princes he describes. I'm not beyond a bit of political manipulation, or even military force in order to accomplish my goals... the safety of the USA and its allies. Machiavelli may not have been nice, but he was RIGHT. Bush is either a really good guy, or else he is Machiavelli's modle of a perfect leader: deceitful, but with an image of being mercy, honesty, humaneness, uprightness, and religiousness. If he is a good guy, then fine. And if he is a 'perfect leader', also fine. Either way, his policies are good for America, and it doesn't make a difference which he really is.

By the way, Machiavelli didn't write history. He wrote philosophy. But then, I'm a well-rounded reader.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 12/22/04 12:43 pm:
Just read this report that suggests it may have been a suicide attack. I was thinking something simular yesterday when initial reports said that "pellets" had dispersed from the blast. I do not know of many mortars that act that way ;but I am not a munitions expert either .

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/22/04 1:15 pm:
Tom, I'm pretty sure that there are a few anti-personnel mortar rounds that have that sort of "claymore effect". The Davidka for one. But you are right, that sort of pellet disbursal is more akin to an anti-personnel mine, tripwire device or a human bomb than a mortar or RPG round. It probably was a suicide attack, or at least an infiltration with a bomb. Which leads to all sorts of questions about base security and who was given access to the base and the mess hall that shouldn't have been.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 12/22/04 4:09 pm:
Tom and Elliot-

Tom..I heard that report also. I heard it on CNN news earlier they are reporting that they think it might had been a suicide bomber. From the blast hole that ripped through the top of the tent it would be hard from any tv viewer to know otherwise. Mortars and rockets both leave blast marks with similar patterns. The bomb from the inside exploding out would do more parallel damage because it starts at ground level. That was one hell of a blast to had been just a concusion grenade so if they are reporting "pellets" than I'm thinking claymore mine size, at least the ones I've set off threw hundreds of shratnel pellets. I rememeber us having special tank shells that would dislodge shratnel for hundreds of feet.


Anyway again gentlemen let's not sidetrack the issue here. They must secure the perimeters. It was a given that they should had background searched every staff worker, soldier, or media for credentials. If this turns out to be an inside job than obviously someone dropped the ball. One screw-up and people loose there lives over dinner...literaly.



Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/22/04 5:04 pm:
You are absolutely right Bobby. The perimiters need to be secured. I also think that properly arming and training the administrative and support staff (as opposed to just the combat troops) and telling them what to look for would be a huge force multiplier for defensive and security purposes. I have never understood the concept of a soldier (even a REMF or admin guy) not being armed. In Israel EVERY SOLDIER IN UNIFORM, no matter what his day-to-day task might be, is armed and trained. They have to be... they are so much smaller in number than the enemies they face.

So yes, more secure perimeters... but also more armed and trained soldiers to keep their eyes open for security risks.

But that is an institutional issue that needs to be taken up with the Echelons Beyond All Reality.

As to the question of whether it was a mortar or a bomb, I'm not so sure that the blast damage we see in pictures is indicative of anything. I'm certainly no bomb expert, but I have read a few things. As I understand it, if it was a "shaped" explosive that was for some reason shaped to point up rather than out (which could indicate an amateur bomb maker rather than a pro, or might just indicate that the suicide-bomber was wearing it wrong), you might get that sort of blast effect as opposed to more parallel damage. We don't have enough info yet. Your idea of an anti-tank weapon is a good one, though, and I'll keep it in mind.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Bradd on 12/23/04 6:29 pm:
Eliot:

This is a few days later, but I want to correct one misinterpretation you made.

The one million dead referred to Viet Nam, not Iraq. I think it's pretty clear in the context.

Have a Happy and/or a Merry.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/24/04 11:52 am:
Sorry, fo the misinterpretation, but it WASN'T very clear. The beginning of the paragraph that mentions 1 million dead referenced Iraq, and I didn't realize that you had switched back to Vietnam. Sorry about that.

Nevertheless, my argument stands.

Elliot