When I referred to the current Iraq situation as “the new Vietnam,” that seemed to spur a discussion as to how it couldn’t possibly be, because the casualty numbers don’t match up. This is, of course, ridiculous. Vietnam didn’t have 50,000 dead in the first few months. These things take time. But the point is, comparing it to Vietnam has nothing to do with the total number dead. It has to do with the fact that the military is sent into a situation for an indefinite period of time with only the vaguest of ideas of what they’re supposed to be doing there or how they’re supposed to go about it.
From the get-go, the Administration has been hazy on what was to happen after Saddam was deposed. The idea of the natives shooting at us for an extended period of time was never addressed. When one military advisor stated that several hundred thousands troops would be required indefinitely to maintain order, the upper echelon shouted the notion down. Except that’s exactly where we are.
And when I said Saddam is fine, thanks, I thought the meaning was clear: He’s alive. And he’s planning. And he’s waiting. And bin Laden still isn’t caught (remember “dead or alive?” Remember that promise?) And soldiers are being picked off. And there’s no end in sight.
We should never have gone in without, at the very least, a clear idea of a long term plan. We didn’t. And now we’re stuck.
And all the responses that are essentially name calling aren’t doing diddly to change that.
PAD





Recent Comments