Iraq and Vietnam
It's regrettable that so much ink still needs to be spilled to remind people why Iraq is not Vietnam. Still, Frederick Kagan does a fairly comprehensive job in the new Policy Review.
« More Democratic foreign policy wisdom | Main | Pearl Harbor Day »
It's regrettable that so much ink still needs to be spilled to remind people why Iraq is not Vietnam. Still, Frederick Kagan does a fairly comprehensive job in the new Policy Review.
Comments
Barry,
You are right. Iraq is not Vietnam. Is worse than Vietnam. It was a huge error of the Bush administration. What should Bush do to preserve his legacy after such an error? I think that he should look at the example of Nixon.
Posted by: Blue Wind | December 7, 2005 10:48 AM
He should burn the tapes?
Posted by: Barry | December 7, 2005 10:51 AM
No, he should resign.
Posted by: Blue Wind | December 7, 2005 12:55 PM
Iraq is different from Vietnam -- Vietnam didn't have any oil, and Halliburton and Big Oil didn't make billions off taxpayers and hostages, er, I mean gasoline customers.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 7, 2005 12:58 PM
Also, we weren't winning in Vietnam.
Posted by: That Guy | December 7, 2005 01:30 PM
Oddly enough, Barry, French cowardice is a factor in both conflicts.
Posted by: That Guy | December 7, 2005 01:31 PM
Iraq is like Vietnam and Howard Dean is right. We can not win there. By the way, and just for the record, some republicans have said the same with Dean. Here is what republican Senator Chuck Hagel said very recently:
"Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
Posted by: Blue Wind | December 7, 2005 05:32 PM
Actually Dumb Dubya Bush said exactly the same thing as Dean, but I guess he flip-flopped.
I wonder why there aren't any "Drunk In A Bar AWOL" Veterans for Truth to attack Bush.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 8, 2005 09:56 AM