"Vietnamization" of Iraq

Monday, November 28, 2005
Jed Babbin makes some good points:
The whole Democrat menagerie has embarked on a campaign to Vietnamize Iraq: to make it a demonstrable defeat and by so doing regain the White House regardless of the consequences. If they succeed, Iraq will become a far greater failure than Vietnam was because the stakes are much higher abroad and at home. The next presidential election will, like the last one, be a referendum on Iraq. And if Iraq is a failure, the Democrats will be a success.
RTWT.

8 comments:

Peter UK said...

This tactic has been obvious for a long time,but there are significant differences which will spell disaster for the Democrats in on way or another.
Al Qaeda which is fighting in Iraq will not accept a peaceful withdrawal,the coalition must be seen to be driven from the region.
Unlike Vietnam al Qaeda has attacked mainland USA and many countries round the world,it is unlikely to stop.
After a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, al Qaeda will have its new Afghanistan.A country riven by factions,some supported by Iran which has no strategic interest in a stable democratic state on its borders.
Iran will doubtless leverage troop withdrawals to its own advantage.It will give them a propaganda coup of huge proportions and cement Irans position as a regional superpower,in all probability a nuclear superpower.

With a divided and weakened Iraq,Iran will make a push to control Iraq's oilfields.
U.S.prestige and influence will be much reduced in an area where violence is the first resort.
Iran,might just, be confident enough to "wipe Israel off the map" if Isreal's main supporter withdraws from the region.After all,it was partially through Irans efforts that the"insurgency" has been maintained.

So unlike withdrawing from Vietnam,where the locals "fought it out amongst themselves",the US would be abandoning a vitally strategic region to at least two deadly foes who wish nothing more than the destruction of the US.

The Vietnam generation are bitter at the way they were traduced by the Democrats,it is many of their children and grandchildren fighting in Iraq.

These young people are educated,tough and volunteers,this is not a "Sad Sack" army of conscripts which can be thrown on the scrap heap when they return.
They are internet savvy,they will have images they brought back,they know the truth,they know they are beibg betrayed they will be angry.

One has only to think of Lieutenant Colonel Kurilla as compared to Lieutenant Kerry,to understand what is going to happen.

Rick Ballard said...

Peter,

There is no "Plan B" for the Democrats. The asylum management course will continue under the contol of the inmates until everyone until everyone grasps its efficacy.

I find that it is helpful to remember that, currently, 38% of those who are currently registered as Republicans were formerly registered as Democrats. If you place that percentage against total turnout for the '04 election it means that 17 million Americans have tiptoed quietly out the door as Dems lumber ever leftward toward oblivion.

Peter UK said...

Rick,
What worries me,is there doesn't seem to be any realisation that this strategy is not cost free,precipitate troop withdrawals will get people killed.
Will the Democrats get tied to the story boards and find themselves living them out whether they will or no?
As you say there is no plan B,all they have is "Apocalypse on Now"
The full scenario cannot be relived without the helicopters lifting off the Embassy roof.

Rick Ballard said...

Peter,

The story board for the '06 election may involve the embassy photo - but it will be a Republican ad that will begin with an Iraqi holding up a purple finger and a text that says:

Don't let [insert loser's name] turn [purple finger] into [embassy photo]

Vote Republican - Stay the Course!

Americans aren't noted for loving losers - nor are they noted for voting for them.

terrye said...

The thing is the Viet Cong did not follow the troops home, AlQaida will.

And I am not sure the Democrats won't get a little of the blame for that.

Note the recent poll, the majority of Americans do not think the Democrats are speaking truth to power...they think the Democrats are trying to take advatnage of the situation for partisan advantage and hurting morale in the process.


Remember Schiavo? Republicans were so busy thinking they were right, they really did not realize how put out the rest of the country was.

{I include myself in that}

vnjagvet said...

The Vietnam analogy has been around since the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign.

To many critics of several political stripes, that campaign was a Vietnam like "quagmire" before, during and after it was an overall success.

Remember Ramadan, the fierce Afghan winters, the terrible Afghan terrain, the historic Afghan victories over invading European armies from Britain to the USSR? Afghanistan, untamed and untameable, would make Vietnam look like a picnic.

Then came Iraq.

The critics sounded the Vietnam tocsin in Iraq as well. Before each benchmark took place, it was going to be a "quagmire" like Vietnam, but worse.

Before the three week blitzkrieg succeeded in defeating the Iraqi armed forces, indeed before the very eyes of Baghdad Bob, house to house, street to street fighting, poison gas, powerful armor thrusts and other never to happen horribles, the twin spectres of Ho Chi Minh and General Ho Chi Minh hovered over the imbedded press accounts of progress.

Then it was Sadaam and Sons on the loose and wreaking havoc and terror in the Iraqi countryside -- until they were killed or captured.

Then Fallujah -- until it was taken out as a privilged sanctuary.

Then the inept US interim government -- until it was replaced by an Iraqi chosen interim government by election with participation by a greater percentage of the populace than participates in US elections.

Then an impossible constitutional
convention is approved.

Then -- then -- then --.

I hesitate to resort to the well-worn Lloyd Benson gambit by saying I spent time learning about our war in Vietnam up close and personal and after Vietnam, I experienced how we lost the war in Vietnam. I have written and read about Vietnam for nearly forty years. I knew Vietnam and Iraq, you're no Vietnam.

And Zarqawi is no Ho Chi Minh, and there does not seem to be any General Giap running the campaign against us.

Sorry, the Vietnam analogy is lame.

Peter UK said...

An excerpt from Mark steyn

"There's one image of the Second World War that sums it up: in London, the morning after a night of Luftwaffe bombing, Churchill would walk through the ruins; in Berlin, Hitler never visited bombed-out areas and, just in case the driver should take a wrong turn, he drove through the streets with his car windows curtained.

If you can't bear to pull open the curtains, chances are you're going to lose. When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality."

rich said...

If the new President of Iran truely thinks he is the Mahdi, the Dems are going to be facing something much more serious than Vietnamization.