Webb: Some Vietnam parallels 'superficial'

[underpants]

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149192838595

WASHINGTON -- Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who led combat Marines in Vietnam, doesn't see eye-to-eye with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry on drawing parallels between Vietnam and Iraq.

--Okay before we go any further you need to realize that this is a Times-Dispatch piece meaning very far right or at least misleading. The DU posting rules don't allow me to post how the writer slowly gets to the point which is not what the rest of the article suggests. --


Yesterday, Webb cautioned lawmakers to be careful about drawing parallels between the Iraq situation and Vietnam. Webb did not criticize Kerry, saying only that he wanted to respond to a remark of his.

"I think there are parallels and there were many people at this table who opposed the Vietnam War, but some of those parallels are superficial," he said at the Foreign Relations Committee meeting.

Webb, in response, offered data from a Harris Survey poll in 1972. The poll showed 74 percent of Americans agreeing, versus 11 percent, that it was important for South Vietnam not to fall into communist hands, he said.

"This is not a parallel situation," Webb said, referring to Iraq. "The public is not supporting this. No one is supporting it in large, and we have to find different solutions."

[demnan]

1. Only history can really tell

On the history of the Vietnam war, there definiately was a faction in Vietnam who wanted help from the French and then the Americans. On that I can agree. I don't think anyone in Iraq wanted us to invade, but I could be wrong. I can see some areas that distinguish the two. We were kind of sucked into Vietnam via the Cold War, Bush got us into Iraq on purpose.

[Javaman]

17. I think history will take a very hard look at all of this and it won't be pretty...

If you get right down to it, the cause of the current wars in the world are a result of WWI and the terms laid out for the armistice.

The middle east was slice and diced by the brits. WWII was about control of oil. Japan invaded Hawaii because FDR cut of our oil shipments to them. Hitler invaded Russia to get the oil reserves in the Caucasus's, the same goes for his invasion of Africa. The cold war began and all the left overs from both WWI and WWII caused the various wars till it's "end". I keep end in quotations because technically, it really didn't end in a way. Yes, the Soviets collapsed but it was more to do with poor management than anything we did.

The soviet war in afghanistan that they started was the cause of the current war in afghanistan. Our installing of the shah in iran is what caused the revolution and is now the cause of our current problems.(all of which point to oil)

Iraq once our friend, became our enemy when the rest of the world didn't listen to saddams complaints regarding kuwaits slant drilling into their oil fields. Because saddam didn't want to play george bush I's game, he got the smack down.

moron* invaded saddam for control of the oil fields.

The Kurds want their own nation but flying back to the end of WWI we see that the brits cut them completely out of the equation.

blah blah blah...

History will look upon this period of time in the world as the point where U.S. dominance of the world faltered and failed. All because of events dictated 100 years ago that laid down the path by which the world was willing to follow. The oil path.

Once all the BS is cleared away, as with anything in history, the path to world power is based upon the need and want of resources. Empires are expensive and require lots of stuff to keep them going. Just ask England. However, Englands power was based upon a navy, ours is based upon a finite resource. And there is less and less to go around everyday.

[underpants]

21. John Perkins

http://www.economichitman.com/

Oh by the way Noriega is getting out on Sept.9th time served. Well wasn't THAT worth the effort then.

Perkins goes into detail about Panama Torrijos and all

[blm]

2. Though Webb has come a long way in his political evolution, Vietnam is not one

of the issues he is, so far, willing to change his mind. He was for it and sticks by it. Eventually, I hope he takes the time to read all the documents and memos from those running the war who knew it was lost for years but chose to dceive the American public and the many serving in that war.

His block on the Vietnam war is not unusual. He spent many years heaping scorn on those publically opposing that war, and he isn't going to give up on it easily because he is finding himself opposed to THIS war.

[Kolesar]

7. You must have done a lot of reading to flesh out that detail

I did not follow the Webb vs. Allen race closely, so I cannot characterize Senator Webb. I had just thought of him as a former Republican Secretary of the Navy who ended up in the Democratic Party for any of a number of reasons as the parties realigned. Sort of like Paul Craig Roberts from Reagan's government (Commerce?).

[blm]

12. Heh - many Democrats here at DU would be shocked at some of Jimmy Carter's

positions on Vietnam back then and for many years after.

Before he became president, Carter actually held a rally to support Lt. Calley - the overseer of the My Lai massacre.

People change. They learn, they grow. Now that Webb is IN a deciding government body, he'll see that the political aspect of the wars ARE more similar than he realizes now. He's sitting in a far different chair.

[Kolesar]

13. I was a sucker for militarism when I was a teenager

Didn't use that term though!

[blm]

15. I was pretty much a cheerleader personality, myself. It took IranContra crimes to open

my eyes, because it was such blatant disregard for the constitution.

But, as a teen I was a more conservative Democrat and supported Kucinich over the more progressive Metzenbaum as a schoolkid. I still support Kucinich when I can, though he moved left at a much slower pace than I did, but I always liked that he was against the corruption by big business and big politics.

[Kolesar]

28. It was the message of "protecting America's interests" that turned me

When I was an officer candidate, they taught us that the purpose of the military was to "protect America's interests". I had held a belief that we had an important role as counter to totalitarian Communism.

My feeling was that I did not want to become a lieutenant to defend the oil fields. I had persuasion from my family and friends too. (for which I am eternally grateful).

[tabasco]

19. Do you have a link or source for that LT Calley thing?

It's pretty important to support such a charge.

Please, none of this "I remember" stuff. That's how rw'ers operate.

[blm]

24. It's a wellknown event from when he was Gov. of Georgia. Here's a recent article

that recalls how lawmakers reacted at the time of Calley's conviction. It's written by Willam Buckley, a staunch conservative, but his recount is accurate as many older Georgians are familiar with the event can tell you.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/my_lai_again.html

And here it is referenced in the NYT obituary of the man who blew the whistle on My Lai.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/national/07thompson.html?ex=1294290000&en=8704597229a070d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

This is a different era Jimmy Carter. He made a mistake of judgment. Few would hold this against him - he has grown past this event - so there is no need to feel that it needs defending.

[tabasco]

26. Thanks for the links! Going to read them now. Calley got off easy IMO.

I wonder if he still has the jewelry store in Columbus, GA?

[Rose Siding]

3. The snip looks more like "uber" agreement rather than disagreement

Webb's explaining (to his mind) how it's worse now because of even less public support.

[DixieBlue]

8. That's what I got from it as well ...

That Iraq is a much worse situation.

[underpants]

9. I agree Webb is actually making a more stark assessment than Kerry is

again this is T-D writing. Now do you understand why it is so hard to get people to turn around here-they read this stuff like it is 10% true. You should see some of the T-D's "From Wire Reports" creations.

[donkeyotay]

23. Yes, if he made a "pro-war" statement it was that he wouldn't defund

the troops like happened with Vietnam because it left a very bitter taste with the military.

I noticed Webb made a Freudian slip, and while trying to say "resolution" he said "revolution." I got a feeling yesterday that that is exactly what we're seeing. Webb kicked it off with his response to the SOTU, Hagel joined the Democrats in denouncing bush's policies, and then Kerry made an announcement that he wouldn't be running, but I thought he said quite a bit more than most people apparently got out of it. In one day, I saw 3 vet leaders make strong public statements that things were going to change, within the law of course, but in a revolutionary way. No more business as usual. Bush has not only broken the military, he's radicalized it.

[Warpy]

4. There are only two choices and no solutions.

We can get out or we can wait and be thrown out.

The former will cause a lot of Iraqis to feel abandoned and they will blame the continuation of the civil war on us, unfairly. However, that civil war is likely to be a short and nasty one. Whether or not the country splits or stays whole is up to them. I can guarantee we won't like their government and they will despise us. However, that is the shortest route to eventual peace when we can manage to get them rebuilding supplies through some third party nation.

The latter will prolong the civil war as the military is providing some assistance in defusing IEDs that are found before they explode and setting up roadblocks to hinder movement of warriors of the various factions. The cumulative death toll will be higher the longer we stay and will include an increasing number of Americans as the Iraqis get their act together and unite against a common enemy. We won't like the government that finally shakes out of that one, either.

There is no longer any way to win this thing. There was an opportunity in the beginning, but that opportunity has long passed, sacrificed on the altars of greed and ignorance.

The only way to salvage any of our reputation is to convict the neocons here and then present them to the Hague. This whole enterprise is a war crime.

[underpants]

10. Excellent post

The two choices are sadly the only ones we have.

[rodeodance]

5. IT is the Perception that counts---so, let it ride.

[Nickster]

6. Some of the parallels may be superficial, but focusing on the little things that don't parallel Viet

nam and missing the much more obvious and glaring parallels that are identical situations to each other only helps us to drag out the terribly misguided situation in Iraq.

Bottom line, civilians should not be in charge of every aspect of military planning, because this is what you get when it happens,same as Vietnam. The Generals who know better should have stood up and spoken and if they weren't listened to should have offered their resignations rather than be an instrument of the destruction of their own military. Same situation between Vietnam and Iraq, Generals have abdicated their military planning to the civilians at DoD and sat idle while their military flounders without any particular goals or mission.We are on the strategic defensive just as we were in Vietnam. We are overly focused on counter-insurgency, just like Vietnam and missing the more important military goals that are being misssed. Secured borders anyone? Hitting them in their center of gravity? We still don't even know exactly who we're fighting over there. We think that we can wait them out. It just ain't gonna happen. This is Vietnam in so many ways it ain't even funny any more. It's like any knowledge of the military lessons learned have been wiped away from the military commands.

I'm pretty certain that Sen Webb understands all of this. Maybe he's afraid of drawing the parallels for us or doesn't want to be the only guy explaining this situation. Who knows <shrug>

[underpants]

11. I'm only about 100 pages into "Fiasco" but that is clearly the case

they did stand around and let Wolf and Rummy do this but then there is the "stay with my men" "Take care of my men" aspect that is real-it is instilled into good Army leaders.


That being said-let us not miss that Webb could very well be positioning himself politically. His name is already being spread around for the ticket in '08 also he could be establishing himself as the leader of the "new Dems of '08" class both in the House and Senate. Webb could do this and not falling in line with other Dems would be a likely step if he were doing this. Also this keeps him at armslength from Kerry which keeps lots of Va. voters happy.

[Nickster]

16. Right, but I'd argue that staying around and allowing your men to be misused is not taking care of

your men. I'm talking about the higher ups in this aspect, the ground troops are a different situation, but when you're talking about guys in the position of Casey, etc, those are the guys that need to say enough is enough.

I'm not so quick to embrace Sen Webb as a Dem Leader just yet. I'm not convinced he's the leader that we need. Maybe I'm wrong, time will tell. We need someone who isn't worried about his own political ass at this time. We can't keep the country in this suicide pact with Iraq.

[MrPrax]

18. Yeah...right

"Sir, do we get to win this time? "

--John Rambo

:eyes:

[Nickster]

20. Do you have some point to make? n/t

[BigBadJohnny]

14. Iraq/Viet-Nam comparison

My point is that the violence in viet-Nam became over time so unpopular that demonstrators took to the streets, and, as those who were alive in 1968 may recall, these confrontations in some cases turned bloody.

To read the Xomba article,

http://www.xomba.com/an_open_letter_to_viet_vet_rayallyn_what_does_the_future_hold

[Mass]

22. Sad to see that even a great man like Webb cannot change his mind on Nam.

In addition, his example does not stand. If people were asked today if people thought that it was important that Iraq do not fall into terrorist hands, the answer would probably be the same.

But in 72, the public was already not supporting VietNam either.

[happyslug]

25. But the poll cited by Webb shows 50% of the population "Supporting the war in Vietnam".

Now the support was for the fact 50% of Americans thought it was important to the US NOT to have Vietnam fall to the Communists (Not quite the same thing as Support for US troops in Vietnam).

Webb is basically making a point that even as late as 1972 (and continues till the fall of South Vietnam in 1975) that most Americans thought it was IMPORTANT not to leave South Vietnam fall to the Communists. At the same time most Americans did NOT want US Troops to fight in Vietnam. This two concepts sound similar but are different.

In the Case of Iraq, over 70% of the US population do NOT want US troops in Iraq AND also really care less if Iraq fell to Al Queda. Webb even notice this difference, even as late as 1972 you could get the Majority of Americans (Including people who opposed US troops in Vietnam) that SUPPORTING the South Vietnamese Government was Important (The real change that occurred in drastically 1968 was the level of support for US troops in Vietnam).

Thus Webb's position is that you have LESS SUPPORT FOR THIS IRAQ WAR TODAY then you had for Vietnam as late as 1972 (and I could make the statement you had less support for the Iraq War today, then you had support for South Vietnam AS IT FELL TO THE NORTH VIETNAMESE). Think about it, the US left South Vietnam fall while support for South Vietnam exceeded the percentage of Americans who support this war in Iraq. That is the most important difference between Iraq and Vietnam, Iraq started with LESS Support than the War in Vietnam had in 1968 and support for the War in Iraq has dropped to numbers BELOW which the US left South Vietnam fall.

And given all of that we are still in this war.

[Amused Musings]

27. Oddly (or maybe not so much- you decide)

Ho Chi Minh was a great admirer of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. I forget which. I think he was surprised and disapointed when the US began fighting him.