| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| No quagmire, no Tet, no Vietnam |
| 2004-05-08 |
| from The Daily Telegraph - EFL & Fair Use By Michael Barone 05/07/2004 Too many Americans and, so far as I can judge, Britons insist on seeing what is going on in Iraq through the prism of Vietnam. Eight days after military action began in Iraq last March, a front-page story in the New York Times used the dreaded word "quagmire". And when fighters began shooting at Americans in Fallujah and Moqtada al-Sadr led his "Mahdi army" into Najaf, American reporters and editorialists almost instantly compared the situation to the Tet offensive of January and February 1968. The abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison are routinely compared to My Lai. Never mind that these comparisons to Vietnam are wildly disproportionate. The Abu Ghraib incidents did not constitute a massacre; My Lai did. Americans were fighting in large numbers in Vietnam from early 1965 until Tet, before analysts started opining that America was in a quagmire. Eight days versus 35 months: some quagmire. And the several thousand not very well organised fighters versus the more than 100,000 Viet Cong: some Tet. Plus, as we know now, the media’s analysis of Tet was wrong: Tet was a huge defeat for the Viet Cong and largely cleared South Vietnam, for a time, of Communist fighters. But never mind. For liberal Americans of a certain age, the American involvement in Vietnam is the paradigmatic event in human history. It demonstrated - or their warped view of it demonstrated - that America could be on the wrong side of a war, that American military action was dangerous (as the peacenik slogan had it) to children and other living things and could accomplish nothing positive. And to American journalists of that age and younger generations, Vietnam and the soon-to-follow disaster for the American presidency, Watergate, were proof that disbelieving American leaders and providing the most jaundiced coverage of their actions was the road to enormous success and wealth. ...more... Barone eschews the false historical correlations, false investigative journalism, and false ideals of the liberal press. The man gets it - and adds perspective. Well done. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #4 The Tet offensive failed on the ground but with the help of the likes of Hanoi Jane and of didhonest reporters it succeeded where it mattered: in the American opinion. Keep in mind also that the U.S. government helped it along; instead of bringing as much force to bear as was necessary within a short period of time, Johnson tried the gradual approach, which stretched things out unnecessarily. Combine that with his micromanaging of targeting and his fear of deeper Chinese and Soviet involvement and the eventual result was certain to be some sort of problem situation - a "quagmire". |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-05-08 3:05:41 PM |
| #3 Even I'm not wish JFK on you. |
| Posted by: Giaps Ghost 2004-05-08 6:53:32 AM |
| #2 Not just Jane, gotta include Ted Kennedy, Walter Cronkite, and the young member of the VVAW who is now the Democratic nominee for President. Funny, John was the guy who got us into Vietnam. And his brother helped get us out, and lose the war. |
| Posted by: Anon 2004-05-08 5:32:01 AM |
| #1 There IS an historical connection. The Tet offensive failed on the ground but with the help of the likes of Hanoi Jane and of didhonest reporters it succeeded where it mattered: in the American opinion. The goal of the rebellion and of their Iranian and Saudi sponsors is not to succeed on the ground but to cause regime change in America. There would be no hope for the rebellion and its sponsors if the Democrat candidate where one of the Democrats of yore, a Roosevelt, a Truman or a Kennedy. Unfortunately it is Kerry. I am convinced it is only because of the hopes they place in Kerry there is a rebellion at all. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-05-08 3:13:04 AM |