First see my and Bob's comments to "The Human Cost of Freedom" below.

The liberals are trying to kickstart their Vietnam peace protests all over again. Cindy Sheehan has emboldened the old liberal-hippie-peacenicks and they are staging a comeback using "Iraq is becoming Vietnam" as a springboard. The ONLY similarity Iraq has with Vietnam is the liberal mind set of cut-and-run, war is horrible, can't we all just get along? (The answer to the question was answered on 9-11.)

I had predicted that it would not be much longer before we hear of our brave heros being called "baby killers" and all the other hurtfull names the liberal-hippie-peacenicks hurled at the returning Vietnam vets. It apparently has started - thank you, Cindy for breathing life into the cowardly cut-and-run crowd of the late '60s and early '70s.

I agree with Bob, that our manta should be HIPPIES LIED. MILLIONS DIED. And, add my mantra - Vietnam, defeat snatched from the jaws of victory! If we don't react to this blatant disgracefull display with all the discuss and outrage we can muster, we will hear the "baby killer" slogans again. I pray that doesn't happen - it hurt deeply when it was hurled at me and I just don't wnat our brave heroes hearing it today. They deserve better!

Excellent points, John!

John -

I'm really sorry to hear about what you went through when you returned from defending our containment of communism. But, I had one question. What do you mean by "The ONLY similarity Iraq has with Vietnam is the liberal mind set of cut-and-run, war is horrible, can't we all just get along? (The answer to the question was answered on 9-11.)"

What question was answered on 9-11? Maybe I got confused by the phrase "answer to the question was answered." Thanks for your help.

While I'm not John, I think I can answer at least some of the reasons why Iraq isn't close to being Vietnam.

In Vietnam, we never defeated the entire conventional forces of the NVA or took over the country we were fighting militarily. We did both in three weeks in Iraq.

We never came close to capturing or decapitiating the North Vietnamese government or military leadership. All of Iraq's Batthist government, including Saddam Hussein, has been killed, captured, or fled the country.

Vietnam was supported by a superpower (USSR) and a major regional power (China) with everything from tanks to missiles to planes. Iraq's insurgents are lightly supported by regional powers with small arms and man-portable munitions.

South Vietnam's government was never popular with the people it represented, and even at its best, represented far less than 1/2 the population; Iraq's government was highly supported in a popular election with high voter turnout, and is close to completing a constitution.

The NVA/VC was popularly supported (or at least was not opposed by) the Vietnamese people. Only a small fraction of people support the insurgency in Iraq, and the vast majority are actively opposed.

In Vietnam, the enemy had large numbers of conventional military forces. In Iraq they have none.

In Vietnam, the enemy had a large number of unconventional forces. In Iraq, they number only 10-20,000 (est).

Vietnamese forces were led by arguably the greatest (and most underappreciated) general of the 20th century Century in General Giap. Giap defeated France, the United States and China. The insurgent's in Iraq are led by a terrorist that hasn't won a single engagement above platoon level.

The technologies available today, for targeting intelligence, defense, etc. far exceed anything dreamt of while we were in Vietnam. The enemy in Iraq are still using weapon designs dating from that time period.

I could go on for hours: there really are no similarities between Iraq and Vietnam except for the anti-war opposition among liberals.

Confederate Yankee -

Thanks for the post. I do agree that trying to draw similarities between Iraq and Vietnam is difficult, despite Senator Hegel's assertions. However, surely you'd see the similarities in insurgencies.

I don't think we can discount their abilities. Remember, these are either mujahideen fighters or those trained in basic tactics by the mujahideen. You don't think we're fighting a pseudo-para-military force? Don't they have some basic skills in desert & urban combat, and explosives? Hardly sounds like idiots running around with guns. Also, do you know what the population of Vietnam was in, say, 1972-73? I'd be curious to see what the estimates were for the insurgency overseas then. Seems that we need to know that before making any comparisons.

Hopefully John will respond to my query. I'd like to know what question was answered by 9-11.

However, surely you'd see the similarities in insurgencies.

No, not really.

Vietnamese insurgents operated mostly in rural areas, in Iraq, insurgents operate mostly in urban areas.

Vietnamese insurgents were fighting for a new kind of government. Iraqi insurgents are fighting against a new kind of government.

Vietnamese insurgents were virtually wiped out by the American military by the end of the war, posing almost no threat to anyone. In Iraq-- well, maybe they do have something in common after all. Nice catch, Emily.

You don't think we're fighting a pseudo-para-military force?

"Pseudo" meaning false and "para" meaning beyond or behind, I'd say that a false military force well behind us in tactics, weaponry, and intelligence is exactly what we're fighting. They have not won an single open conflict in well over a year. IEDs are their only consistant mode of attack, and their effectiveness has consistantly gone down as the war has continued. Their leadership is systematically being dismantled, their supply lines cut, and they are being driven back into the border regions when Iraqis themsleves aren't gunning them down. Quite frankly, being an insurgent in Iraq is very bad for your life expectancy, as the United States has only ever lost one insurgency in 200+ years, and that was not a military loss, but a political loss in Vietnam. A loss, I hasten to add, that our President will not let spineless liberals repeat.

So many questions, so little time… but I’ll do my best.

Emily, regarding “What question was answered on 9-11? Maybe I got confused by the phrase "answer to the question was answered." Preceding my answer statement I said , "The ONLY similarity Iraq has with Vietnam is the liberal mind set of cut-and-run, war is horrible, can't we all just get along” My answer was to the last part of that sentence “can’t we all just get along?” as a question posed by the anti-war liberals. My response to that question is an indication the answer came on 9-11. In other words, the Islamist terrorists attacked us, and therefore show no signs of wanting to get along. Is that any clearer?

Regarding my comment about the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq only being the liberal mind-set; Bob did a very thorough job pointing out must of the obvious differences, but I had a slightly different thought in mind.

In Vietnam we fought against a uniformed regular force from North Vietnam that we referred to as NVA (North Vietnam Army). We also fought against the Viet Cong who were communist sympathizers that were indistinguishable as an opposing force. They fought a gorilla style war, employing booby traps and terrorizing the indigenous to either support them (and the NVA) or at least not support our efforts. I don’t fault that kind of warfare, because we employed similar tactics at times during our revolutionary war. What I do fault the Viet Cong and NVA for is their employment of POW executions and torture. Although we at times did not adhere strictly to the Geneva Accords, the Viet Cong and NVA never attempted to abide by the accords, except for world publicity like when they delivered Red Cross packages and letters to POWs during Hanoi Jane’s visits. Too, our primary mission in Vietnam was to oppose the spread of communism. North Vietnam, the NVA and the Viet Cong were of no national security threat to us.

In Iraq we have deposed Saddam’s government and defeated the uniformed force that opposed us. Now terrorists (NOT INSURGENTS) from Jordan, Syria and most probably Saudi Arabia, and well supported by Iran, are waging terrorist attacks against our coalition forces and the indigenous population. They are not materially or ideologically supported by the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people want them out of their country and are helping our forces by identifying their hideouts and activities (when known). We invaded Iraq because of Saddam’s connection with and support of Al Qaeda . Saddam’s Iraq was considered a threat to our national security. Eliminating that threat was necessary, whether there were WMD immediately present or not.

So boiled down, I consider Vietnam a military move to stop the spread of communism, but not as a result of a national security threat. The war against terrorists (Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever else we have to go) are matters of national security – the security of our citizens to life free and enjoy the liberties established by our constitution vs. kowtowing to a regional Islamic caliphate.

Now, hopefully you and anyone else reading this will understand the urgency of supporting our troops and our national strategy to defeat Islamic terrorists on foreign soil vs. on our own soil.

May God continue to bless America.

As far as I know the first instance of Spontaneous "Baby Killer" epithets was in
Bainbridge, WA Seattle area during the 4th of July march this summer.

"The bucolic island's deep reputation for civility got a gut check this week during the annual Grand Old Fourth of July celebration.

That's when Jason Gilson, a 23-year-old military veteran who served in Iraq, marched in the local event. He wore his medals with pride and carried a sign that said "Veterans for Bush."

Walking the parade route with his mom, younger siblings and politically conservative friends, Jason heard words from the crowd that felt like a thousand daggers to the heart.

"Baby killer!"

"Murderer!"

"Boooo!"
"According to Tamar, the female announcer sarcastically asked Jason:
"And what exactly are you a veteran of?"

The perceived mocking, the mother adds, set off some people in the crowd, loosing a flood of negative comments, "like a wave... a mob-style degrading."

As for the Vietnam Iraq comparison?

I believe it is QUITE applicable.

When this Nation endures a Catastrophic Event it undergoes a Paradigm shift, which if taken at the cusp can lead political figures to power.

Pearl Harbour was such an event and the Leaders coming out of that conflict rode it to Political Power for a generation.

Vietnam in itself was such an event and the Peace Warriors rode IT to Political Power for a Generation.

9/11 is the Catastrophic Event of our present generation and like those before them the present Old Guard, does not see it as such and are trying, as has been tried before to do what has "worked" for them for the last generation.

So YES Iraq IS the Vietnam of the 21st Century.
I believe the Electorate is undergoing a Change of State, and things should get very interesting in the near future.

I have more on this concept here.
The Paradigm Precipice
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1062967

Iraq
the 21st Century Vietnam?
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1052133

Yes Iraq is the 21st Century Vietnam, but not in the sense that the Newest Old Guard realizes. It is a new Paradigm shift in America's Psyche.

Like their Fathers before them they have not seen the
Winds of Change, they continue to wave the Bloody Shirt of Vietnam, not realizing that is now THEY who are the Old Guard hanging on to the Tiller of the Reactionary Past.

And Like those they replaced they will be replaced.

History does repeat itself.

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1056622