We'll succeed unless we quit

[PHISH]

Ugh, after reading on our Presidents latest talking points, I'm really wondering what reality he operates under..

In Visit to Vietnam, Bush Cites Lessons for Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/world/asia/18prexycnd.html?hp&ex=1163826000&en=0ef07311f50a6c85&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

By DAVID E. SANGER 10:05 AM ET

HANOI, Nov. 17 — In his first day in the capital of a country that was America’s wartime enemy during his youth, President Bush said today that the American experience in Vietnam contained lessons for the war in Iraq. Chief among them, he said, was that “we’ll succeed unless we quit.”


...


For some reason I don't remember that being the lesson that was learned from Vietnam... I was hoping this is just a really stupid 'propaganda point' his assistants gave him rather than an actual delusion he's carried into the Iraq conflict. But then...
“The Maliki government is going to make it unless the coalition leaves before they have a chance to make it,” he said of Iraq’s prime minister. “And that’s why I assured the prime minister we’ll get the job done.”

Oh, so essentially they won't make it until they make it? That's really solid, nevermind...

And now the teacher educates us:
“We tend to want there to be instant success in the world,” Mr. Bush said after a lunch with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, “and the task in Iraq is going to take a while.” I really wish he had harped this lesson to himself and his war architects that operated and planned under such a delusion of instant success. That delusion and planning only increased the chances that it could not be such. Probably an appropriate time to spam 'mission accomplished' images.

Until now, when asked what he had learned from Vietnam, Mr. Bush has almost reflexively reached for the same line: That he does not micromanage his generals the way Mr. Johnson did. It is a response drawn from conservative orthodoxy about what went wrong in Vietnam, underlying an argument that had the generals been allowed to fight their way, the United States might have won. As I recall generals were asking for much higher troop levels during the initial invasion of Iraq or any hope of maintaining stability in transition would be a pipe dream...For that being one of the main lessons that the neo-con's harped on as why Vietnam failed and why the Iraq war would succeed they sure failed spectacularily in addressing it.

I'm trying to relate to his thought process, but I think i've hit max disillusionment, only superceded by OJ's book premise.

[polarity]

Probably an appropriate time to spam 'mission accomplished' images.



I've got ya covered.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/polarity231/lolol.jpg

[colin]

Oh, so essentially they won't make it until they make it? That's really solid, nevermind...

that makes perfect sense. seriosuly.

how can we expect a new government to take hold if we don't give them the time to?

i'm not a supporter of the war but there aren't many options right now but to see it through.

[PHISH]

Yeah I was going for the "no shit sherlock" aspect of saying something so obvious. The problem of course lies in how we have executed that transition- if we continue with our current modus operandi that situation will never take place. We wouldn't have 'won' vietnam by 'not quitting' and sending more troops, nor can we 'win' in the current situation with the same approach. It is not our country and the means with which the invasion took place have lost their legitimacy.

[Zogo]

that quote is about as profound as someone saying "we'll live unless we die."
we'd still be in vietnam today if we hadn't pulled out.

btw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZE20lzZZF0

i'm not a supporter of the war but there aren't many options right now but to see it through.

see it through? some conflicts never end when they get exacerbated to a certain level. look at israel-palestine.

[MV8]

We are still in Germany, Japan and Korea, why not take our troops out of those countrys too.
Afterall, weve only been in those nations for 60+yrs...

[Zogo]

We are still in Germany, Japan and Korea, why not take our troops out of those countrys too.
Afterall, weve only been in those nations for 60+yrs...

that's what I've been asking for a few years now.

we shouldn't be the worlds police force.

[Corsair]

Germany makes a nice convenient stopping point for our actions in Europe. Now while I agree we shouldn't be the world's police, as long as we want to be able to instantly react anywhere in the world, having a few bases in Germany is probably a pretty good idea. It's one of the least likely places we have to worry about getting attacked.

The troops in Korea are there for an entirely different reason. They are there to be casualties. Basically, should North Korea ever try something with South Korea, among the first casualties would be US soldiers, which would immediately bring a US response. So by leaving 10-20k soldiers there, they serve little combat purpose (compared to the size of the NK army) but they serve a political one.

As for Iraq: I don't think we should be there now. I do however thing Bush 1 should have finished the job in '91 and outted Sadam then, when we had more international support. But since we are there now, we have to figure our shit out. The problem is that a large number of Iraqis are more than happy to kill other Iraqis. They will be for quite some time. Short of splitting the country into seperate Sunni and Shiite (and Kurd for that matter, but they seem to be getting along fairly well in comparison) states, they are going to be trying to kill each other for the forseeable future. I'm of the opinion that we stick around a bit longer and try to get the Iraqi police/military to the point they can beat up their own insurgents (difficult when members of your police force ARE the insurgents, I know), then bug out.

They are headed for civil war at this rate. I'm putting my money on the side with massive advantage in numbers of people. It'll look bad, because it's easier for small numbers to hurt large numbers with terror/guerilla tactics, but eventually the majority will wipe out/drive out the minority.

Should be fun to watch from afar. In the mean time, I suggest we start actually USING alternate fuel sources, rather than ignoring them because the oil/car industry feels like it.

[Zogo]

Germany makes a nice convenient stopping point for our actions in Europe.

there's no question that it helps if we're trying to be a police force..however in the few and far between instances where we absolutely had to invade an entire country the costs of mobilizing them quickly and putting them somewhere would NOT be greater than the costs of maintaining and upkeeping multiple military bases across the globe 365 days a year.

So by leaving 10-20k soldiers there, they serve little combat purpose (compared to the size of the NK army) but they serve a political one.

yea, but why should we be protecting SK anyway?

As for Iraq: I don't think we should be there now. I do however thing Bush 1 should have finished the job in '91 and outted Sadam then, when we had more international support.

it probably would've gone smoother..but who knows for sure.

They are headed for civil war at this rate.

considering the death toll I think we can call it one now. if not, what has to happen to classify it as such?

In the mean time, I suggest we start actually USING alternate fuel sources, rather than ignoring them because the oil/car industry feels like it.

heheh..won't happen until the last drop of fossil fuel is gone.

[Stayne]

As for Iraq: I don't think we should be there now. I do however thing Bush 1 should have finished the job in '91 and outted Sadam then, when we had more international support.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that we left Iraq because we had successfully removed them from Kuwait, which was the reason for international involvement. We didn't have international approval or support to do anything more. It may have been easier to remove Sadam at that time, but it would have been without international support just as it was this time. The difference is that GHW Bush was a diplomat. GW Bush is a neocon tool.

[Nimble]

As for Iraq: I don't think we should be there now. I do however thing Bush 1 should have finished the job in '91 and outted Sadam then, when we had more international support.

Heh, my history professor just got done explaining this. Off my notes, reason: Colin Powell and other military advisors advised Bush 1 not to invade Iraq, because they feared that if we invaded and ousted sadam. We would put ourselves in the same situation as we did in vietnam. Well something like that lol.

[colin]

Yeah I was going for the "no shit sherlock" aspect of saying something so obvious. The problem of course lies in how we have executed that transition- if we continue with our current modus operandi that situation will never take place. We wouldn't have 'won' vietnam by 'not quitting' and sending more troops, nor can we 'win' in the current situation with the same approach. It is not our country and the means with which the invasion took place have lost their legitimacy.

the problem is that no one seems to understand that the vast majority of the iraqi people were perfectly content before we "freed" them. now that they've lost any form of stability they had i'm sure they're going to be just happy as a clam

they aren't even trying to hide that this war is strictly for our benefit, but it's quickly looking like it won't even be good for that much