'The truth is that next to nothing can be done to salvage Iraq. It no longer lies within the capacity of the United States to determine the outcome of events there. Iraqis will decide their own fate. We are spectators, witnesses, bystanders caught in a conflagration that we ourselves, in an act of monumental folly, touched off....
...Our political attention, then, needs to turn to whether the president's would-be successors can do what Bush cannot: acknowledge our failure in Iraq and look beyond it.
Candidates who still find merit in an open-ended global war on terror should explain how we prevail in such an enterprise. Given the lessons of Iraq, what exactly does it mean to wage such a global war? Where can we expect to fight next, and against whom? What will victory look like?
Candidates who, in light of Iraq, have become skeptical of open-ended global war as a response to violent Islamic radicalism should be pressed to describe their alternative. How do they define the threat? How do they propose to deal with it? Will they isolate it? Contain it? Subvert it? Relying on what means and at what costs?
"What's your plan for Iraq?" was the right question back in 2002 and 2003 — although it went largely unasked and almost completely unanswered then. But as we approach the 2008 presidential election, though the tragedy of Iraq continues to unfold, that question is moot.
The one that matters is this: As President Bush departs and leaves the United States bereft of a coherent strategy, what should fill that void?'www.latimes.com
Something like that question has been asked before. I don't get it.
Why would troops leaving Iraq for good be any more vulnerable than troops entering, leaving or patrolling the country right now? If anything, they ought to be safer, as the militias and others want them to go.
hippolips when the last US troops left from South Viet Nam, we were not fighting with North Vietnam - A cease-fire agreement had been signed. There was no slaughter, wholesale or otherwise, of US troops exiting the country.
Posts: 1980 | Location: Boise, Idaho, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
According to Kenneth C. Davis book;"Don't Know Much About History" :
1973,January.A cease-fire agreement is signed and formally announced on January 27.
March 29.The last American troops leave Vietnam.
1974 January.South Vietnam's President Thieu announced that war has begun again.Communists proceed to build up troops and supplies in the South.
1975.In an offensive that lasts six months,combined Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces overrun South Vietnam and Cambodia.
April 29.The last Americans are evacuated from Siagon,on the same day that the last two American soldiers are killed in Vietnam.
If Americans were being airlifted from Saigon rooftops by helicopters and American troops were still being killed...we had to have American troops for 2 years fighting and dying after they were supposedly all withdrawn.
Hi hippolips - It's difficult to tell if your butchering of my screen name is intentional or not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you address me again, please copy and paste my user name from the post you are responding to. That way you'll be sure to get it right.
Still don't see any record of 'slaughter' concerning US troops leaving Viet Nam.
According to this site the last US soldier killed in combat in Viet Nam was Lt. Col. William B. Nolde, on Jan 27th 1973.
April 29.The last Americans are evacuated from Siagon,on the same day that the last two American soldiers are killed in Vietnam.
If Americans were being airlifted from Saigon rooftops by helicopters and American troops were still being killed...we had to have American troops for 2 years fighting and dying after they were supposedly all withdrawn.
Hippo, what you posted does not necessarily prove that the US had combat troops in Vietnam until 1975. The last "Americans ...being airlifted" were from the fall of Saigon and the US embassy being overrun. It is entirely possible that the US had no forces fighting for quite some time before the embassy was overrun, from what you say.
Year of Death or Declaration of Death Number of Records 1956-1960 9 1961 16 1962 52 1963 118 1964 206 1965 1,863 1966 6,143 1967 11,153 1968 16,592 1969 11,616 1970 6,081 1971 2,357 1972 641 1973 168 1974 178 1975 161 1976 77 1977 96 1978 447 1979 148 1980 26 1981-1990 34 1991-1998 11
I hope no one would consider either Ford or Carter as the President who lost the war, even though there were deaths during Ford's term and deaths were recorded during Carter's (and Reagan's, H.W. Bush's, and Clinton's)
Posts: 17300 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by hippolips: * Jan 27,1973. A cease-fire agreement is signed and formally announced... * March 29.The last American troops leave Vietnam. * 1974 South Vietnam's President Thieu announced that war has begun again. Communists proceed to build up troops and supplies in the South. *1975.In an offensive that lasts six months,combined Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces overrun South Vietnam and Cambodia. *April 29.The last Americans are evacuated from Siagon,on the same day that the last two American soldiers are killed in Vietnam. * ... we had to have American troops for 2 years fighting and dying after they were supposedly all withdrawn....
What is your point, exactly? Did the Viet Cong come over to the U.S. to kill the 'withdrawn' American troops who had left Vietnam, or what?
It's not the U.S.'s job to 'fix' the world. The best thing it can do is stop making the mess worse.
There will be a bloodbath in the middle east no matter what. But the sooner the U.S. pulls out and stops trying to 'fix' things, the better. The U.S. track record is not great so far. They can't fix what they don't understand. And it's patently clear that from the get-go the U.S. had not a clue as to what was happening there. It was just one other little 'adventure', justified by spin-doctors based on 'evidence' they lied about, in order to invade a place they did not understand or care about, to achieve their own covert goals.
It is for the indigenous people to sort things out. Not that that is what the U.S. wants, mind you.
Ironically, for the yanks to leave will likely be the best way to encourage the emergence of democracy. Puppet governments are by definition never democratic. And a nation whose people feel threatened, as the people in the middle east do, will often turn to dictatorship using the rationale that it is the most efficient form of government in a crisis.
When the middle east nations land troops on North American soil, and when North Americans see Iraqis and Iranians in their streets, and their houses are being blown up, then we'll talk.
Until then, Yanqui, go home.
Posts: 6425 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
at that point the war no longer becomes Bush's War..
This war will go down in history as Bush's war. If the Dems win, it'll just be Bush's war/mess that the Dems have to try and straighten out.
At this point, I think it's kind of hard to speculate how they'll handle it, but however it's handled it won't be an easy task, plus there'll be more bloodshed either way.
Posts: 6680 | Location: Land of Lincoln, USA | Registered: 07-04-02
...when we finally do withdraw from Iraq,it will only be with a huge loss of American lives...
Why, exactly? Do you imagine they'll send the airforce home and pack up all their rifles first? (Well, they might if someone like Bremer is in charge.)
Why would troops leaving Iraq for good be any more vulnerable than troops entering, leaving or patrolling the country right now?
He said,DRIVE the occupiers out...not escort them out.
hippolips
Well, if you "drive" me when I'm leaving voluntarily, mightn't my defensive measures slow down my departure?? And, if I were the guy at whose behest the Shias/Sunnis were to effect our departure, couldn't they take the credit even without making any overt effort along those lines?
I think what hippo is trying to say, is that, as the number of our troops decrease during the withdrawal, so will our capability to defend those still waiting to leave. Most Iraqis may (or may not) want us out, but there are probably many [insurgents] that will aim to use the decreasing defenses to take one final, mass cheap shot. And if there is any kind of cease fire agreement, who’s to say those cowardly bastards would honor it.
According to Kenneth C. Davis book;"Don't Know Much About History" :
March 29, 1975 The last American troops leave Vietnam.
April 29, 1975 The last Americans are evacuated from Siagon,on the same day that the last two American soldiers are killed in Vietnam.
That's bull. There were American Refugees stuck in Vietnam until well into the 1980's. Some of them were ransomed, some were eventually killed, and some were rescued. Hell, for all we know, there might still be some there! Rather unlikely, but theoretically possible.
