PDA

View Full Version : How to Turn Iraq Into Another Vietnam



thedrifter
08-24-05, 05:47 AM
How to Turn Iraq Into Another Vietnam
Written by J. B. Williams
Wednesday, August 24, 2005

The anti-war blame-America-first folks behind the movement to create another Vietnam in Iraq are well versed in how to accomplish their goal. They still have the blueprints from when they created the first Vietnam. But younger Americans impatient with the progress in Iraq have no real memory of how Vietnam happened. So I thought someone should provide a roadmap for success, or failure as the case may be.



Know the lingo…



Creating another Vietnam in Iraq works just like it did in Vietnam; it’s a war of words. It’s important to know which words to use (and not to use) when discussing Iraq. As an example, the Vietnam experience placed the word “quagmire” on the tip of many U.S. tongues for the first time. The word became synonymous with the Vietnam experience as a result of a very focused anti-war campaign designed to define the war with just this one word.



So when referring to Iraq, always use the word “quagmire” somewhere in the discussion because this word still conjures up images of Vietnam, fear, discontent and disloyalty in the hearts and minds of many Americans.



Find a way to directly support our enemies …



The American people will never get behind terrorists, so the terrorists must be seen as “patriots.” These terrorists who keep blowing up innocent civilians without any regard for women, children or their own fellow countrymen, must be referred to as “insurgents.” The word “insurgent” implies that they are “patriots” of a sort, engaged in the defense of their homeland, “resisting” a brutal occupying force raining tyranny and torture (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo) down upon innocent civilians. Thus, “insurgent” is a term every American can relate to and support.



Don’t be distracted by the fact that 9 of 10 “insurgent” attacks in Iraq target innocent Iraqis rather than U.S. or coalition forces. Keep focused on the goal of creating another Vietnam. Don’t get hung up in the details. The American people love to root for any underdog.


Refer to American forces as “Nazis” operating “Gulags”…



Our military personnel must be viewed as the evildoers. Search for remote instances in which we can claim American soldiers acted worse than the terrorists. Claim that the terrorists have the same rights as any American under the Constitution, or the Geneva Convention, or International Law. Exploit all potential opportunities to label the American military and administration as evil. This will bring world pressure upon the military and the administration to fight in a politically correct manner, tying the hands of our military, extending the war, causing additional casualties and then, discontent among American voters. It will also serve to justify the actions of the “insurgents.”


Use your anti-America friends in the press…



The press has a very vital role in the plan. First they must focus all news coverage only on the death and destruction inherent in every war. Ideally, the press should count every U.S. casualty daily, keeping a running total in the headlines and when possible, play footage of American soldiers dying or being wounded. Only interview wounded soldiers, but remember to stay clear of those who want to return to battle and complete a mission they believe to be worthwhile. You must keep the cost rather than the purpose of war in the forefront of American minds.



It is equally vital that the press never show any signs of success in the war, as this will only undermine your efforts by giving the American people some sense that there is actually a purpose to the war and that victory might even be possible.



The press must carefully screen on-air guests. As an example, they should only cover politicians willing to speak out against the war effort, especially those familiar with the term “quagmire.” When speaking with parents of fallen soldiers, set the camera angles and microphones only on the mom or dad who believes their son or daughter died in vain. Do not, under any circumstances, air the vast majority of the parents who have a great sense of pride in the sacrifices of their loved ones. This too would undermine your goals of creating another Vietnam.


Exploit all grieving loved ones who don’t support the war…



When you come across that rare gem of an opportunity to exploit the sorrow and anguish of a grieving parent who lost a loved one in a war they didn’t support, you must seize the opportunity with all the gusto and passion you can muster. These opportunities don’t come often and the American people can’t resist the words of a tearful mother in pain. Get behind these people and make sure their stories dominate the airwaves and headlines. The American people need to have their noses rubbed in the blood of these children they call soldiers.


Refer to our troops as kids or children…



We have an all-volunteer military in America. So in order to convince the American people that our fighting men and women don’t know what they are doing or what they are fighting and dying for, we must first establish that our so-called troops are really nothing more than starry eyed innocent children who had no idea what they were signing up for when they joined the military. Americans by and large will do anything to protect innocent children, so always refer to our troops as defenseless mindless kids who are ignorant of the evil demons they serve in Washington.


Act deeply concerned about the innocent Iraqi people…



Talk about the plight of the Iraqi people who did nothing to us to provoke this war. Talk about how America has an “imperialistic” view towards these poor victims of American brutality. Do not talk about how millions of innocent Iraqis died or were tortured at the hands of the brutal dictator, now out of power and in custody awaiting trial. Do not talk about mass graves, or grade school children locked away in prisons because their parents resisted the Hussein regime. Don’t talk about beheadings, dismemberments or public executions. These facts are not helpful to your agenda. Stay focused on the goal.


Learn to spin all positive reports that leak out…



When confronted with positive facts about schools, hospitals and government offices running at record efficiency in Iraq, use the term “nation-building” in response. American taxpayers don’t like paying for “nation-building.” If they think we are actually doing anything honorable over there that really benefits a people tyrannized for decades, it will become increasingly more difficult to undermine their resolve for completing the mission. Remember, “nation-building.”


Call for early withdrawal of our troops daily…



On the basis that only we love and support our troops enough to bring them home from a “quagmire” they cannot win, call for early withdrawal of our troops daily. Do not use terms like “surrender” or “retreat.” While they are appropriate, these terms have a negative connotation in the minds of most Americans.


Talk about how much you support our troops…



Always state your support for our troops no matter what. Americans don’t like people who won’t support their troops in harm’s way. Meanwhile, calling for early withdrawal will cause the “insurgents” to fight harder, blow up more stuff and attack more innocent Iraqis and Americans. This means we will have an increasing flow of good war footage to support our claim that things are getting worse instead of better, a “quagmire.”



Don’t allow anyone to tell you that your support for the “insurgents” can in any way be interpreted as a lack of support for our troops. Act disgusted and shocked at any such assertion. Remember, only those of us willing to bring those boys and girls home in defeat really support the troops. Act outraged at any suggestion that undermining the mission equals undermining the troops.


Talk about how we went it alone against the world…



Downplay the contribution of some 60 countries that went with the United States and focus on how decent and smart France was in single handedly blocking full U.N. support for the mission. Talk about how the administration lied to the world in order to get us into this “quagmire.” Use all available angles like NO WMD, they did it for oil, for personal profit, for vengeance, or for the Jews. All of these accusations resonate with the American people and they don’t even need to be true. Remember, we have the power to create our own truth, with a little help from the press, perception can become reality.


Talk about peace…



Talk about peace and how America has become the terrorist nation that threatens peace around the globe. This is a tough sell here at home and in most parts of the world, since many have been similarly liberated by the United States at some point in history. But if we repeat it often enough, some will eventually buy it.


Let Hollywood be the face of opposition…



We know that these folks are nothing more than modern day court jesters, who know nothing at all about national security, winning a war, foreign policy, balancing their checkbook or even average American life. But the American people see them as heroes, so they will listen to them when they speak. They are professional actors, so they know what to say and how to say it better than we do. Be sure to support Hanoi “Jihad” Jane on her latest anti-American tour. We need to create the impression that this is a serious movement.


It’s the collective drumbeat that works…



Once surrounded by a constant drumbeat of failure, discontent and demoralizing propaganda from Hollywood, the press, grieving mothers and international opinion, the American people will grow weary of supporting a war. They will question everything they once believed and, eventually, call for our children to come home.


Remember, our soldiers are dying for you…



Our troops are dying for your right to burn their flag, your right to systematically undermine their mission, your right to call them “Nazis” and spit on them when they return home, because this is America and you have a right and an obligation to turn Iraq into another Vietnam. You alone are the voice of dissent and therefore, the true American “patriot.”



continued..

thedrifter
08-24-05, 05:47 AM
Once we have successfully eroded American support for the war and emboldened support for the “insurgency,” Iraq will actually become a real “quagmire.” Once we have accomplished this, the American people will find it impossible to stay the course and our soldiers can come home in defeat, just like Vietnam.


Isn’t that every American’s goal?



For more information on how to turn Iraq into another Vietnam, visit the Democratic Party web site or party headquarters at MoveOn.org. In the meantime, remember to use either the term “quagmire” or “another Vietnam” every chance you get. They say the average person must hear something seven times before it is committed to memory.



Those of you who, like me, really do support our troops and their mission, better speak up. This small minority of loud mouth armchair generals and closet diplomats are costing American lives with their anti-war anti-American drivel. We need to fight here at home for those men and women fighting for us abroad. Stop tolerating this garbage and speak up at every opportunity. Never pass up an opportunity to shove a liberal’s anti-American hate speech back down their own throat.



Enough is enough! You are either with us or against us. Choose!

About the Writer: J. B. Williams notes that he is a business man, husband, father, and a writer. His website is at http://www.jb-williams.com. J. B. receives e-mail at JBW@JB-Williams.com.

Ellie
http://p089.ezboard.com/bthefontmanscommunity

thedrifter
08-24-05, 06:36 AM
Iraq and Vietnam: Nine Big Differences- And One Crucial Similarity
By: Michael Medved
Monday, Aug 22, 2005

At the end of August the American Left wallowed joyously in 1960's nostalgia, taking comfort and joy in the alleged parallel between the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Grey-haired folksinger Joan Baez, startling millions with the revelation that she is still alive, found her way to Crawford, Texas, where she delivered an impromptu protest concert (including the insufferable "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?") for several hundred supporters. At the same time, Senator (and Vietnam vet) Chuck Hagel curried favor with the mainstream media (cementing his claim to the coveted epithet "maverick") with his appearance on ABC TV's "This Week," in which he shamelessly pushed the Vietnam-Iraq analogy.

With all the misguided attempts to compare our current struggle in Iraq with America's most disastrous prior war, it's crucial for informed citizens to understand the profound contrasts and distinctions between Vietnam and Iraq - and to simultaneously come to terms with the one great and essential similarity.

Herewith, a quick list of the nine essential differences between the two wars - along with the single crucial resemblance.

DIFFERENCES
1.THE ENEMY-In Vietnam, we faced more than a rag-tag guerilla band: we confronted one of the world's most formidable military machines in the nation of North Vietnam, with more than a million men under arms. What's more, these troops and their officers had been hardened by some thirty years of fighting-first against the Japanese, then against the French, and finally against the South Vietnamese and the Americans. Ho Che Minh, dictator of North Vietnam, provided a potent symbol with a clearly articulated Communist agenda. In Iraq, on the other hand, we fight no nation, no organized army, no visible or unifying leader, but a collection of shadowy terrorist bands. These gangs occupy no territory, have announced no coherent program for the future, and command no economic or territorial base to replenish their cadres. They can certainly do damage to Americans and to the troops of democratic Iraq, but they can in no sense suggest a credible alternative-hence their very limited popular support.

2.THE ENEMY'S ALLIES-During the Vietnam struggle, the North Vietnamese and their guerilla allies in the south, the Viet Cong, received virtually unlimited support from two of the three most powerful nations on earth: the Soviet Union and Communist China. The two Communist superpowers disagreed on many issues, but they united in support of their Vietnamese colleagues - providing anti-aircraft surface-to-air (SAM) missile batteries, MIG jet fighters, artillery, ordnance, military vehicles, small arms, cash, food, encouragement and diplomatic support. The Iraqi insurgents, on the other hand, receive support from no government on earth. It's true that radical segments of Arab public opinion may wish for the insurgents to bloody the U.S., but none of the Islamic governments have in any way backed the insurgency; even Syria, which definitely could do more to stop the flow of men and weapons across its border, delivers ritualistic and official condemnation of the bloody, murderous terrorists (many of them non-Iraqis) who slaughter women and children, along with American fighting men.

3.OUR ARMY--Easily the most controversial aspect of the Vietnam war - and the main spur to the anti-war movement - involved the draft of literally millions of young Americans during the '60's and '70's. While a small majority of those who actually fought "in country" in Indochina turned out to be volunteers, the involuntary nature of the draft gave rise to the "Hell No, We Won't Go Slogan," to burned draft cards, flights to Canada, and numberless fantasies of martyrdom. In our current struggle, our highly-professional and expertly trained military includes no draftees whatever. Everyone fighting in Iraq - including National Guardsmen and reservists- at one time or another enlisted voluntarily in the military. Cindy Sheehan notwithstanding, all those who sign up for the U.S. military are clever enough to understand the very real possibility that at one point you might be required to use your expensive training in actual combat.

4.CASUALTY RATES - The human cost of the war in Iraq is genuinely horrifying, with more than 1,800 of our finest young people making the ultimate sacrifice. This carnage can hardly compare, however, to Vietnam - in which 58,000 Americans gave their lives for their country. The Iraq War has been going on for two and a half years - with a killed-in-action rate of approximately 800 per year. In Vietnam, the years of principal American I involvement (1965-72) saw deaths that averaged nearly 8,000 per year - in other words, a casualty rate some 10 TIMES as high. In fact, the differential is even greater in terms of the impact on the nation: in 1970, the census showed the U.S. population at 203 million; today, it stands above 290 million. In terms of a percentage of our total population, the death rate in Vietnam exceeded the death rate in Iraq by a ratio of 14 to 1. Even if the U.S. continued to struggle in Iraq for four more years with the current rate of killing (a worst case scenario our policy makers will move heaven and earth to avoid), the deaths will total some 5,000-less than a single year of Vietnam, and less than 10% of the total losses in that war. To keep casualty figures in perspective, it's important to remember that the combined human cost of Afghanistan and Iraq, after nearly three years of overall struggle, still involves fewer deaths than on a single dark day of recent history: September 11, 2001.

5.THE MEDIA - On the surface, the mainstream media (TV networks, newsmagazines, prestige newspapers) seem to offer the same perspective on two very different wars: emphasizing bad news, and downplaying every sing of progress. The difference in media coverage remains profound, however, since the emergence of new media (talk radio, Fox News, the Internet and the blogosphere) have changed the media landscape completely. When Walter Cronkite of CBS announced his disillusionment with the war in a special broadcast in 1968, no prominent media voices rose to contradict him: the public had to choose between believing "Uncle Walter" (the Most Trusted Man in America, according to polls) or Lyndon Johnson. Today, we enjoy far more diverse sources of information, and persuasive (sometimes raucous) voices on the right arise immediately to contradict all the TV network distortions and to provide perspective and balance.

6.POLITICS - Despite recent polls suggesting an Iraq-related decline in the President's popularity, the balance of power in Washington bears no resemblance to the situation in the Vietnam era. In the '60's and '70?s, the Democrats remained the dominant party in the nation, enjoying uninterrupted control of both houses of Congress during both decades, despite two terms of the Nixon presidency. By 1970, that dominant party, the Democrats, had turned radically, overwhelmingly against the war, with "peace candidate" George McGovern nominated for president in 1972. Today, by contrast, the Republicans maintain control of both houses of Congress (and the majority of state governorships) and Republicans remain almost unanimously behind Bush. In the most recent Gallup poll, the President's "approval rating" among self-described Republicans reached a reassuring 88%. It's Democrats - not Republicans - who show their divisions, with the "Move On"-Michael Moore-Howard Dean wing of the party favoring immediate withdrawal, while the Joe Lieberman-Joe Biden-Hillary Clinton mainstream seems to understand the importance of finishing our work in Iraq. During Vietnam, a long series of majority Congressional votes (including the infamous McGovern-Hatfield Senate resolution cutting off our military) served to undermine the U.S. war effort. In Iraq, no comparable "surrender" resolution has drawn even 20% of either house of Congress.

continued

thedrifter
08-24-05, 06:36 AM
7.SCANDAL - In the last analysis, it wasn't public opinion turning against the war that doomed our Vietnam policy: it was, rather, the self-destruction of the Nixon administration in the most devastating scandal in U.S. political history. After a triumphant re-election in 1972, both Vice President Agnew and President Nixon resigned their offices leaving a fatally weak chief executive (Gerald Ford) who had never even run for national office. In the Watergate-stained election of 1974, the Democrats added crushing weight to their already lop-sided majorities (gaining 49 seats in the House, 5 in the Senate) and preventing President Ford from re-supplying our South Vietnamese allies when the North broke its agreements under the Paris Accords and launched a massive invasion. Without the Watergate scandal, driving Nixon from office and temporarily emasculating the Republican Party, our government almost surely would have maintained the commitments made to resist Northern aggression. However seriously one takes the currently hysterical Democratic efforts to magnify the controversy surrounding the public identification of CIA desk-jockey Valerie Plame, no sane observer believes that the scandal will follow the Watergate example and lead to the resignation or impeachment of President Bush.

8.THE PAST -For millions of Vietnamese, the war against the United States represented the culmination of several centuries of struggle against colonialism and foreign domination, and followed by a mere twenty years their successful efforts to throw off the yoke of bumbling French imperialism. Iraq has experienced no comparable history of colonialism: for nearly 400 years (1533-1916) it functioned as part of the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire. The period of British "protectorate" lasted a mere sixteen years (from World War I occupation in 1916 to independence under Prime Minister Nuri-el Said in 1932), with only a brief English re-occupation (1941-45) during the height of World War II. Under thirty years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Iraq drew some support from the west but functioned for the most part as a military and economic client of the Soviet Union. Unlike Vietnam, where Communists could claim that they represented a nationalist reaction to French (and then American) colonialism, the population of Iraq maintains clear memories of the rabidly anti-American Hussein regime which brought about the nation's economic and cultural ruin.

9.THE STAKE - The best argument of the peace movement during the Vietnam war involved its insistence that even American defeat would bring little pain to most Americans. The anti-war forces argued (with considerable persuasiveness) that the Vietnamese only wanted to control Vietnam: they would never send their minions to invade California or Florida. America might lose prestige, might sacrifice credibility, to give up ground to the Soviets in the titanic and fateful Cold War struggle, but no one expected that our citizens here at home would sleep less soundly in their beds if the U.S. cleared out of Vietnam, on the other side of the world from our homeland. Today, however, we don't have to tax our imaginations to visualize Middle Eastern enemies invading our shores and massacring American civilians: we already experienced that nightmare on September 11, with Islamic fanatics killing more of us in that one day than the Iraqi insurgents have managed to kill in two and a half years. America's stake in defeating a ruthless enemy in Iraq isn't abstract or nebulous: it's real, immediate, urgent and palpable. Anti-war extremists may downplay the every day dangers of Islamic terrorism, but most Americans understand that it still represents a significant menace to both our lives and our way of life.

And this recognition brings me to the one great SIMILARITY in the two wars. In both conflicts, the American people understand the horrific dangers of unilateral, precipitous, unconditional withdrawal. By 1972, most voters had developed deep doubts about the struggle in Vietnam and yet when George McGovern gave them the chance to vote for immediate withdrawal (under the campaign slogan, "Come Home, America!"), a received an unprecedented shellacking. McGovern, the "Peace Candidate," lost 49 of 50 states, carrying only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, carrying a feeble 38% of the popular vote and trailing Richard Nixon by an astonishing 23%. The general public might not like the Vietnam war, with its truly appalling casualty figures, but they liked the option of ignominious surrender even less.

Today, a very similar mood prevails throughout most of the United States. Our citizens worry about the war, and long for our troops to come home, but only a very small percentage (about 20%, according to most polls) want us to run up the white flag, abandon our Iraqi allies, and strangle an infant democracy in its cradle. It took nearly ten bitter years (from the major U.S. escalation in the summer of '65 to the final North Vietnamese victory of April, 1975) of devastating sacrifice and nearly ceaseless protest before our exhausted nation felt ready to abandon the cause to which we had committed ourselves in Vietnam. With that time table in mind, even with the vastly lower casualty rates from Iraq, it would take us till 2013 before we betrayed our current efforts to establish democratic values in the heart of the Middle East. Long before that grim eventuality, we will see a constitutional republic (imperfect, like virtually all nation states) operating in place of the kleptocratic, genocidal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and contributing significantly to the safety and security of all Americans.

-- Michael Medved

Ellie