Message to America's Students From Ralph Nader

[insein]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
But more important is the second question. The US went into Vietnam (Iraq) badly miscalculating how difficult it would be, attempted to impose a government in S. Vietnam (Iraq) that was not perceived as legitimate by the Vietnamese, could not distinguish between friend and foe in S. Vietnam (Iraq), and had no "exit strategy" that would allow us to disengage the Vietnamese (N. Korea, Iraq).

In short, the war was lost by the assholes running the war, not the Americans who resisted it.

Vietnam and IRaq are 2 completely different times, wars, politics, you name it. Its a completely different situation. Vietnam was the definition of a quagmire. We went in then got stuck and couldnt get out. The main reason for hatred of Vietnam was the fact that we went in and we had a draft. If the wasnt any draft and the US just used a volunteer army, then the protestors wouldnt have been as adament as they were in opposition to the War.

There is no draft for IRaq. ITs a volunteer Army. We have a plan. We executed the plan. We have met some unforseen obstacles and are adjusting but all in all, the war has been a major success as far as time and casualty tolls. Also the impact that it will create in having a Free IRaq. A free iraq distabilizes the Despots and Dictators that harbor terrorists in the Middle East. A free Vietnam just would have flaunted the US power to the Soviets. Nothing strategic would have been gained from Vietnam had we won.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by insein
Vietnam and IRaq are 2 completely different times, wars, politics, you name it.

Thank you for your response. Certainly there are differences between Iraq and Vietnam. I also agree that the example you cited, the all volunteer force, is significant and that the volunteer force impacts US public perception of the war.

But that does not mean there are not similarities and lessons that can be learned from the past.

Stage One: The US did not enter Vietnam with the intention of fighting the NVA. We send advisors. The term was Vietnamization of the war. We went in to advise, train and equip the South so they could fight the NVA. We wanted to be able to turn things over to a Vietnamese government that would be stable and an ally to the West in the Cold War. So we trained and equipped South Vietnamese just as the CPA has been trying to train and equip an Iraqi force to be responsibly for security in Iraq. Unfortunately, in Vietnam, many of the people we were training turned in VC at night. Reports from Iraq in the past few days suggest that the same is happening there. The Iraqi police either standing by and doing nothing or participating in attacks against coalition forces and civilians.

Stage Two: As the war in Vietnam progressed and it became clear that the forces we were supporting could not get the job done, the US military was brought into Vietnam in increasing numbers. I believe now, the US commander is asking for two additional divisions. You used the term quagmire. I think it is a safe bet that US forces are going to be in Iraq for a long time. 100,000 troops are being rotated in and Rummy has ordered troops in country that we expected to be rotated out to remain pending review.

As the war got uglier, it became clear that we had to win the support of the Vietnamese people in order to stabilize the country so we could get out. Thus the campaign for the “hearts and minds” was engaged. Too little too late. One wonders why the generation of US military leaders that came of age during Vietnam have managed so far to make so many of the same miscalculations.

 

[sponge]

I doubt anyone will hear nader speak since he wont garner enough support to be seen at the Debates with the Big 2. Someone might be watching C-Span when the 3rd party debates are on and hear nader

You say this like it's a good thing. I'm not necessarily a Nader supporter, but in my America I value the ability to choose. Having the access to debate with the larger parties shouldn't be about who has the most money. Wouldn't you be happier having the opportunity to choose representatives that represent issues meaningful to you? And if you already have that opportunity with 1 of the big 2, why should others be denied the opportunity to vote for ideas they support?

The idea of only a "Big 2" is not right.