Lessons of history: 1.3 (F)

[unixronin]

dafydd found this editorial, by Doug Saunders of the Globe and Mail, in which he discusses interviewing Robert McNamara, who says that the United States (specifically, the Bush administration) learned nothing from Vietnam and is making the same set of critical mistakes all over again.

You know, I really don't want us to end up setting the entire Middle East ablaze.

Oh, yeah, find dafydd's original post here.

On a more cheerful note, micheinnz found this article about a Danish biotech company that has developed a genetically-modified cress plant that changes color when growing in proximity to buried explosives.  Think "clearing land mines", folks.

Comments

[caged-admin.livejournal.com]

McNamara was part of the administration during the Vietnam war. He shouldn't have any excuse for not being able to come with a big list of ways in which this war is different. Here are several:

• Our opponents have no military force to field against us. A truck bomb here and a SAM there do not add up to a Tet Offensive.


• Although attacks against our forces haven't stopped, or anything, many of the attacks are killing Iraqi police, armed forces, and civilians. The insurgents are losing support, even in areas where they enjoy it most strongly.


• We've already captured a huge number of the opposition's top leaders. Imagine if we had stormed Hanoi partway through the war and carried off nine tenths of their brass.


• The insurgents don't (to the best of my knowledge) have anything like the highly competent generals of the NVA.


• Yes, the insurgents have outside support. But they don't have anything like the Ho Chi Minh Trail.


• Under McNamara, if memory serves, our military wasn't allowed to touch Hanoi, or even most of North Vietnam. We stormed Baghdad within weeks of the start of hostilities.


• I'll be brutal: this time around, we don't have McNamara.

What McNamara is saying is, "Hey, take it from me, I'm an expert on mismanaging a war." Sorry, I prefer to listen to the people who are (so far) producing results.
It's clear to me that while he's admirably willing to critique his own past performance, he hasn't learned a great deal from it. One obvious indicator: "While he did not want to talk on the record about specific military decisions made Mr. Rumsfeld, he said the United States is fighting a war that he believes is totally unnecessary and has managed to destroy important relationships with potential allies."

We've got a huge number of friends who've already committed troops, and other friends who can't afford troops, but gave something else instead. Who are these "potential" allies we've lost? Or is he referring to the "allies" who are so strongly committed to supporting us that they remind us thirty times a day?

Re:

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

He shouldn't have any excuse for not being able to come with a big list of ways in which this war is different.

My reading of the article was that McNamara didn't bother coming up with a list of the ways in which Iraq and Vietnam are different, because he considered it foolish to suggest that they are the same. As far as my comprehension of that article goes, he is not arguing specific military issues; he's talking about the mindset with which we went into both wars.

Frankly: Did you actually read the whole article? I have to ask because it seems to me that you're attacking the article on the basis of things that weren't in it. If you can fault things that are in the article, go ahead, but don't set up straw men in order to knock them down.

A truck bomb here and a SAM there do not add up to a Tet Offensive.
...
We've already captured a huge number of the opposition's top leaders. Imagine if we had stormed Hanoi partway through the war and carried off nine tenths of their brass.

Now you're talking as though Iraq is Vietnam. If we'd removed the leaders in Hanoi, what was left of Vietnam would have been a nation of farmers and the mostly-aligned NVA and Viet Cong, instead of a dozen squabbling factions most of which hate and distrust each other only slightly less than they hate and distrust us. And nowhere in that article is anything on the scale of Tet mentioned, nor is Tet relevant. No, there's no Tet offensive in Iraq; just a truck bomb here, and there, and there, and there, and there, and there....
You can dismiss that if you want, but look how long the UK has been trying unsuccessfully to defeat essentially the same tactics in Ulster. In Ulster, there's only two religious sects at each other's throats, and the IRA never used SAMs.

The insurgents are losing support, even in areas where they enjoy it most strongly.

That would explain why the number and frequency of attacks seem to be rising, and why it seems that with every passing week, more and more Iraqi groups seem to be mad at us for being in Iraq for more and more different reasons? Sorry, but I think you're kidding yourself here.

Sorry, I prefer to listen to the people who are (so far) producing results.

Oh, they're producing results, all right. Whether they're the right ones is debatable, as is (in my opinion) the wisdom of continuing to listen to people who've been lying to us since before it even began.

I think McNamara had a valid point: the US went into Iraq working on the assumption that as soon as Saddam Hussein was removed from power, everything would just fall out and be peachy, and Bush could award lucrative reconstruction contracts to US corporations to his heart's content while Iraqis lined up to fall at our feet and shower us with thanks. Hell, some of the reconstruction contracts had been unofficially awarded before the shooting even began.

As far as I can see, this isn't happening. We're doing a masterful impression of being stuck in Iraq without an exit plan, and I don't think Bush's pride will let us turn around and walk away until we've forced a government we want on Iraq, regardless of whether it's what the Iraqis want. (Even assuming all the different political, religious and ethnic groups in Iraq could agree on what they want, which so far appears unlikely.) And with every passing week that we dink around, our presence is resented more. But if we just pull out right now, the insurgents have a free rein, and will most likely seize power within weeks to months on the terms the Arabs have always understood. Having proved they're quite willing to kill civilians, they'll probably be able to keep it, too. Not to mention that we'd Lose Face.

So we can't stay, and as things stand, we can't leave. Just doesn't seem like a success story to me.

[caged-admin.livejournal.com]

Frankly: Did you actually read the whole article? I have to ask because it seems to me that you're attacking the article on the basis of things that weren't in it. If you can fault things that are in the article, go ahead, but don't set up straw men in order to knock them down.

You're right. I was pressed for time, skimmed it, and didn't read carefully enough. Sometime later tonight or tomorrow, I'm going to re-read it and rewrite with better objections. Consider my first response tossed out.