Retired generals compare Iraq fight to Vietnam War

[dArKeR]

AFP , HANOI
Sunday, Sep 12, 2004,Page 5

America's increasingly drawn-out campaign in Iraq is the reason the Vietnam War remains such a contentious issue in the US presidential election race, retired Vietnamese generals say.

The elderly officers said they were not surprised the war, which left more than 58,000 Americans dead, had become a key battleground between President George W. Bush and his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry.

"Americans, rich and powerful, have still not come to terms with their defeat at the hands of smaller, poorer people," said General Hoang Minh Thao, a respected historian of the Vietnamese army.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/09/12/2003202591

[steely]

1. The quote is interesting...

I think it's because most of the sheeple are narrow minded isolationists whose fear is exploited by the rich leaders' call to nationalism - who in turn abuse their power for ulterior motives.

I don't think it's so much that in general they haven't come to terms with defeat - unless you equate it (the definition) with not learning a damn thing from the past.

[teryang]

2. True, true, true...

<"The lessons of the war still have historical, military and moral validity," he said.

From the very start of the Iraq war in March last year, Vietnamese generals forecasted that their former adversaries had a long, bloody struggle ahead.

As was the case in Vietnam, they predicted that the US military would face heavy losses as they became drawn into a guerrilla conflict without the support of the population.<snip>

The war profiteers looking toward their dividend checks and their own bottom lines naturally see the ground forces as Armed Forces Lite that will somehow result in a different outcome than Vietnam. It is often stated among those who can't come to terms, "We lost the war at home, not in Vietnam" and "If we had only taken the gloves off," and "We should have bombed Hanoi into dust," all evincing an ignorance of the true nature of warfare which takes places in a political, cultural, economic and strategic context.

There are four key factors militating against success in Iraq:

1. The disproportionate effort required to sustain military operations at the end of supply lines over seven thousand miles long.

2. That this disproportionate effort is opposed by assymetric tactics which take place at leisure in the enemies front yard with about $100.00 worth of explosives in the bomb hidden by the roadside. These tactics were planned ahead of time and the techniques and resources have been widely disseminated so as to be institutionally self sustaining.

3. That our rejection in the heart of Islamic cultural is a natural process that cannot be changed due to our own human resource limitations.

4. The enormous cost of the war is economically and politically profitable for only a small sector of the American economy and does not meet essential cost/benefit criteria either to the official government budget process or to the economy as a whole which is being diverted from the major historical challenges it faces. This is why Bush and the majority in Congress tell pentagon military leaders "anything you want, you got it, just tell us." This is not only profitable for them as shareholders but politically necessary. They are trying to present the cost/benefit issue as irrelevant by appearing to make available virtually unlimited resources without constraints. However these statements are not true as the lions share of expenditures is continuing to be made on cold war weapons procurement. This is why shortages of essentials such as personnel, water, body armor and suitable armored vehicles have plagued this effort.

[llmart]

3. I recommend everyone here......

go to your local library and request a video "The Fog of War". Watch Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during the VietNam war, and if you have any illusions that the Iraq war is noble, you'll lose them immediately. This guy speaks from experience.