This could be the very reason why it is so hard to understand the Bush war doctrine. That which most of us would consider a loss, a negative outcome, George Bush seems to consider wins. I remember back in primary school when there was a fight, there was always at least one person who staunchly supported the looser and dissented the facts of the outcome. "Dude your friend Bob just got his head bash in with a chair, sent to the hospital in a comma, and surgery will be required to fix him." Bob's friend would inherently say things like, "it was only because of one lucky punch.", "The chair wasn't fair. If it wasn't for that...", or "I am not saying he didn't loose, but he got a few good hits in." George Bush, who never went to Vietnam (seems he had more important things to do then defend his country from the "evils"of terrorism or communism, or socialism, or whatever "ism" the old and rich used to send the poor and young into war at that time.), seems to have taken the stance of "Bob the loser’s friends".
I don't know what history book he had read. I can assure you it had lots of pictures, big block lettering, maybe something by Glenn Beck, and somebody read it to him. However, leaving behind a wake of enemies chasing you and shooting at you is not what I would call a "win". When the government you were attempting to overthrow and repress kicks you out of your buildings, and installs martial law on your capital city, that is not a win. You can pretty much assure that they will not be following your demands and punch list over the next few years. Click here for a quick refresher on the fall of Saigon for those who can't remember what they had read.
North Korea was much of the same story. We are still technically at war with them. They are, according to the Bush administration, one of the "Axis of Evil". (Please envision sarcastic snickering here. That phrase has always conjured up childish memories of "The Justice League.") Their economy and people are one of the most repressed and deprived in the world. However, they handed the US military its own ass when the US war mongers tried to impose their will on their portion of the peninsula. It so frustrated the US that they twice considered using a nuclear bomb. In the end, the United States signed only a cease fire and establishing the line exactly where it was before the US tried to invade in the first place. (It should be noted that The US was screwing with them by dropping dummy nuclear bombs and conventional bombs on North Korea before the official declaration of hostile activities. And you wonder why the North don't trust the US to have "nukes" when they don't.) At it's end 4 million people died directly as a result of the action. An "action" that resulted in no action, no change. That is not a win.
Wars that the US won were easily distinguishable. WWI for instance ended with the Treaty of Versailles was signed. WWII ended with the leader blowing his own brains out and the enemies army leader formally "surrendering unconditionally." The Asian part was moving along very well, and the end was sped along with the advent of two giant mushroom clouds and millions of civilian deaths. In truth any time the US has fought a North South war, even inside its own boarders, the south has never prevailed. Building and infrastructure once owned by the people they were trying to defeat were under the US and it's allies control. People who were once being killed by the "enemy" were not. Treaties and cease fires are signed. Allies were standing beside us. Real allies that contribute equally, not "allies" you have to pay to be your friend. Mothers were proud to send their sons off, and they were glad to go. Soldiers returned home to parades. Definite days where the enemy caved in are celebrated as national holidays. Most importantly, you do not have more enemies then before you started the war. Pulling out your soldiers does not result in the deaths of many civilians. This is how you know if you won a war.
Bush boldly compares Vietnam to Iraq. Many have always said it. The lesson that was supposed to be learned from Vietnam was that you don’t go in strictly for ideological and political reasons. Always take allies who are equally committed. Follow the "Just War" doctrine, and victory will be certain. If you do go alone, with out clear cause, goals, and validity, you might meet with a population that doesn’t share your views. Why didn’t he heed that lesson when considering Iraq. He instead said, “America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary…” Bushed seemed to be insinuating that, if Americans had stayed in Vietnam, then the outcome would have been different. I mean the other alternative in Vietnam was to stay there, loosing 10,000 soldiers a year, and wounding 50,000. And for what? The majority of the Vietnamese wanted to embrace communism. Even if that majority is only 50.5% that is democracy. In the end Vietnam found a way to become a viable modern society in spite of US intervention, not because of it!
Mr. Bush needs to look up two theories before comparing Vietnam to Iraq. First he needs to look up Newton’s Third Law. The explanation of how, “for every controllable action one can expect and equal and opposite reaction.” Analogy time. If you have sex, you could very well create a baby. No miracle there. Staying in there is just going to make it harder for the baby to come out when it is time. He also needs to grasp on “opportunity costs”. This he should research for an understanding of how for every life lost in Iraq could have been the one to save lives as a doctor, fire fighter, or research scientist here in the states. Iraqis people could have eventually reached that boiling point and rose up to take their own freedom. Then again we have recently learned that conservatives are too busy thumping their bibles to actually read it.
I don't know what history book he had read. I can assure you it had lots of pictures, big block lettering, maybe something by Glenn Beck, and somebody read it to him. However, leaving behind a wake of enemies chasing you and shooting at you is not what I would call a "win". When the government you were attempting to overthrow and repress kicks you out of your buildings, and installs martial law on your capital city, that is not a win. You can pretty much assure that they will not be following your demands and punch list over the next few years. Click here for a quick refresher on the fall of Saigon for those who can't remember what they had read.
North Korea was much of the same story. We are still technically at war with them. They are, according to the Bush administration, one of the "Axis of Evil". (Please envision sarcastic snickering here. That phrase has always conjured up childish memories of "The Justice League.") Their economy and people are one of the most repressed and deprived in the world. However, they handed the US military its own ass when the US war mongers tried to impose their will on their portion of the peninsula. It so frustrated the US that they twice considered using a nuclear bomb. In the end, the United States signed only a cease fire and establishing the line exactly where it was before the US tried to invade in the first place. (It should be noted that The US was screwing with them by dropping dummy nuclear bombs and conventional bombs on North Korea before the official declaration of hostile activities. And you wonder why the North don't trust the US to have "nukes" when they don't.) At it's end 4 million people died directly as a result of the action. An "action" that resulted in no action, no change. That is not a win.
Wars that the US won were easily distinguishable. WWI for instance ended with the Treaty of Versailles was signed. WWII ended with the leader blowing his own brains out and the enemies army leader formally "surrendering unconditionally." The Asian part was moving along very well, and the end was sped along with the advent of two giant mushroom clouds and millions of civilian deaths. In truth any time the US has fought a North South war, even inside its own boarders, the south has never prevailed. Building and infrastructure once owned by the people they were trying to defeat were under the US and it's allies control. People who were once being killed by the "enemy" were not. Treaties and cease fires are signed. Allies were standing beside us. Real allies that contribute equally, not "allies" you have to pay to be your friend. Mothers were proud to send their sons off, and they were glad to go. Soldiers returned home to parades. Definite days where the enemy caved in are celebrated as national holidays. Most importantly, you do not have more enemies then before you started the war. Pulling out your soldiers does not result in the deaths of many civilians. This is how you know if you won a war.
Bush boldly compares Vietnam to Iraq. Many have always said it. The lesson that was supposed to be learned from Vietnam was that you don’t go in strictly for ideological and political reasons. Always take allies who are equally committed. Follow the "Just War" doctrine, and victory will be certain. If you do go alone, with out clear cause, goals, and validity, you might meet with a population that doesn’t share your views. Why didn’t he heed that lesson when considering Iraq. He instead said, “America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary…” Bushed seemed to be insinuating that, if Americans had stayed in Vietnam, then the outcome would have been different. I mean the other alternative in Vietnam was to stay there, loosing 10,000 soldiers a year, and wounding 50,000. And for what? The majority of the Vietnamese wanted to embrace communism. Even if that majority is only 50.5% that is democracy. In the end Vietnam found a way to become a viable modern society in spite of US intervention, not because of it!
Mr. Bush needs to look up two theories before comparing Vietnam to Iraq. First he needs to look up Newton’s Third Law. The explanation of how, “for every controllable action one can expect and equal and opposite reaction.” Analogy time. If you have sex, you could very well create a baby. No miracle there. Staying in there is just going to make it harder for the baby to come out when it is time. He also needs to grasp on “opportunity costs”. This he should research for an understanding of how for every life lost in Iraq could have been the one to save lives as a doctor, fire fighter, or research scientist here in the states. Iraqis people could have eventually reached that boiling point and rose up to take their own freedom. Then again we have recently learned that conservatives are too busy thumping their bibles to actually read it.
"I seriously doubt if we will ever have another war. This is probably the
very last one. "- Richard
M. Nixon
Comments