Originally Posted by Botnst
Nah, I just over-reacted to the tired-assed attempt at a Vietnam analogy. It only works at the level of organized army vs insurgents. Beyond that level of complexity it fails.
But Bot, isn't that a significant point? The Vietnam analogy is attempted mainly because of the similarities of cultural misunderstandings, the "insurgents" being indistinguishable visually from civilians, and the American forces being readily identified, watched by international agencies, even hounded by them, while the "insurgents" conduct a peculiar method of waging war that reduces our advantages to the point they are non-existent, and makes them more powerful and effective than they would ever be able to be in any other kind of confrontation. Another similarity is the lack of a clear purpose of the troops. The Vietnam conflict was sustained for so long to prevent the "Domino Effect" from sweeping communism throughout SE Asia. That turned out to be a fabrication. We left and nothing like that happened. We were hurried into invading Iraq based on fabricated WMD stories. You can argue all you want about whether WMD was your favorite reason to go into Iraq all you want, but your reasons don't amount to much. The President sent the troops to invade, and he did it with authorization from Congress based on the imminent threat of WMD. So, while the frenzy of war hype leading up to the invasion is different because of how much more anxious the nation was in the aftermath of 9-11 than we were leading up to sending troops into Vietnam, both events lacked sound proof for the theories and practicality of what was being done.
The big differences, like geography, climate, shape of the insurgent's eyes and their skin tone, the century, and scope of American engagement, as well as the actual local religions and cultures, are not the gist of the Vietnam analogy being proposed. The analogy is intended to highlight the similarities, and horror of how poorly we learned the lessons of Vietnam. Jim