Thursday, May 24, 2007

Iraq, Bush, Congress, and Dead Enders

The BushCo gets its money for war with no more than hypothetical strings. So why does he get money to just exactly as he pleases with War in Iraq? Dead-enders. What? When the Vietnam War sputtered to an end without funding a group cast blame for the loss on Democrats, that group was the dead-enders. The people who insist that we would have won in Vietnam except for the traitors in Congress. This might ignore the fact that the US, despite inflated body counts, won every stand up battle and couldn't do anything with it. American troops were not defeated in battle and neither were they defeated at home, they were defeated by an untenable position, an unwinnable conflict. Military victory consists of taking and holding dirt, this proposition is to a great extent dependent on the populous in the conflict. They must either support the taking and holding or be either too frightened or too dead to resist. They were "none of the above" in Vietnam, we were not going to "win." But the dead-enders never acknowledged that and the Democrats are afraid of them.

Moving on to the true stupidity of this stance, the dead-enders would never vote for Democrats. The Democrats were convenient whipping boys for their refusal to face facts, the fact that the Eisenhower inspired domino theory and his inserting of the US into that "Asian ground war" doomed us to 53,000 dead troops in a lost cause supporting a blood thirsty corrupt dictatorship. No it wasn't LBJ or JFK, it was Eisenhower who started the game. We are doing the same thing again, a conflict with no coherent support from the populous which also is not sufficiently afraid of us to not resist. LBJ and Nixon also believed it was just a case of troops and money to "win." There is the rub, "Win." If you like the idea of winning it would be a good idea to know precisely what is meant by the term. Forget about going in under false pretences, how about false goals, or a complete lack of goals that have anything to do with reality. How in the world can the deluded dreams of a few dead-enders drive Democratic Congressional policy?

I am just exactly sick and tired of this culture of fear that's been the BushCo legacy, Rush Limbaugh talking points driving Democrats...


Anonymous said...

The Vietnam dead-enders still are with us, arguing that we really were "winning" because we killed more of them than they killed of us. Somewhere they got the peculiar idea that the winner of a war is determined by the final "score" of bodies.

Of course by that standard the South won the Civil War and the Nazis beat the Soviets in WWII.

Steve Culley said...

Actually the Viet nam war dead was a little over 58,600. My fire team partner was one of them.
We could have won in Viet Nam if we decided that all we had to do was kill all of them. That wasn't the goal. We were "containing" communism while the Vietnamese were expelling an invader. It's the same now in Iraq. And it's harder than in Viet Nam. The Vietnamese were one people. The Iraqis are essentially non existent. They are Kurds, Sunni, Shia and some others encased in a portion of the earth that had an artificial line drawn around it and named "Iraq". They have a constitution that starts out" no part of this constitution will violate the laws of Islam" . So after we get all those people who have been killing each other to lay down their arms and forgive and forget and love each other we will have established a "democratic" Islamic state.
As it drags on our boys and girls will develope a My Lai menatlity over time. These people are nuts and unsaveable. Makes no differnce if we stay there a year, ten years or 50 years. When the over arching police power goes home they will settle old scores. That goes back as far as the Roman empire and the once conquered nations. It goes back to the Balkan states after the Soviets retreated, Yugoslavia etc.
People are tribalistc and seek their own kind. You can't simply kill enough of them to change their minds.
It's time to bring troops home, put them on our borders then follow up with the dismanteling of the empire and replace it with a republic that defends itself, borders included, because they might just follow us home through that wide open door of free trade

Chuck Butcher said...

As in 'Nam the basic military stategy is complicated by the opponent being mixed with your "allied" populous, the brute killing power of advanced weaponry and effective units is neutralized. Setting aside that the USA had no business in either fight, there is no good military solution. Breaking Saddam's military was child's play for the most powerful military in the world, then it all broke down and our cowboy in chief is too delusional to see it. Oh well, it'll kill volunteers and put our kids in debt, but shopping will go on...