Iraq: Quicksand & Blood

[Donutboy 0]

Iraq: Quicksand & Blood

George W. Bush and his top advisers learned little from the Vietnam debacle of the ‘60s, since most avoided service in the war. But many top Bush aides played key roles in the repression of leftist peasant uprisings in Central America in the ‘80s, a set of lessons the Bush administration is now trying to apply to the violent resistance in Iraq.

The key counterinsurgency lesson from Central America was that the U.S. government can defeat guerrilla movements if it is willing to back a local power structure, no matter how repulsive, and if Washington is ready to tolerate gross human rights abuses. In Central America in the ‘80s, those tactics included genocide against hundreds of Mayan villages in Guatemala’s highlands and the torture, rape and murder of thousands of young political activists throughout the region. (More on this below)

The body dumps that have been unearthed across Central America are thus little different from the mass graves blamed on Saddam Hussein in Iraq, except in Central America they represented the dark side of U.S. foreign policy and received far less U.S. press scrutiny. Another lesson learned from the ‘80s was the importance of shielding the American people from the ugly realities of a U.S.-backed “dirty war” by using P.R. techniques, which became known inside the Reagan administration as “perception management.”

The temptation to recycle these counterinsurgency strategies from Central America to Iraq is explained by the number of Reagan-era officials now back in prominent roles in George W. Bush’s administration.

They include Elliot Abrams, who served as assistant secretary of state for Latin America in the ‘80s and is a National Security Council adviser to Bush on the Middle East; John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to Honduras in the ‘80s and now Bush’s U.N. Ambassador; Paul Bremer a counter-terrorism specialist in the ‘80s and Iraq’s civilian administrator today; Bush’s Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was the senior military adviser to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in the ‘80s; and Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a Republican foreign-policy stalwart in Congress two decades ago.

Very long but very informative

[War Eagle 96 10]

In These Times is a national, biweekly magazine of news and opinion published in Chicago. For 27 years, In These Times has provided groundbreaking coverage of the labor movement, environment, feminism, grassroots politics, minority communities and the media. In These Times features award-winning investigative reporting about corporate malfeasance and government wrongdoing, insightful analysis of national and international affairs, and sharp cultural criticism about events and ideas that matter.

Anti-American, commie-rag

What a bunch of crap.

Post from a real source, goose.

[Tigermike 3,692]

George W. Bush and his top advisers learned little from the Vietnam debacle of the ‘60s, since most avoided service in the war.

First of all Iraq IS NOT Vietnam. Did you know that the murder rate (including US soldiers) in Iraq is not as high as the murder rate in New York City? Not as high as the murder rate in Los Angeles? There is NO comparison to Vietnam, so don't try this BS!

You lefties have been spewing this crap since before the war started. It has not happened. It is not happening. You predicted it to happen and you were wrong. Why won't you guys admit you were wrong?

Even the Sunni in Iraq are wanting the outside fighters to leave. Even the Sunni know their best bet for a decent life if for the US to succeed. The most fighting is NOT Iraqi's fighting but Al-Quada, Hizballa, Hamas and others coming to fight.

[Ranger12 53]

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam really gives this rag alot of credibility. :roll: Again, something being said without hard facts. I believe the daily death toll for 'Nam suprasses Iraq quite a few times over. If you are going to post an article, please try not to use an unrealible and obscure source that sounds like it was printed out of some 18 year old feminist, tree-hugger's garage.

[Tiger Al 0]

Mike and ranger12, you two are so silly. Both of your posts are evidence that neither one of you even read the article but were more than ready to disregard it because it wasn't from a "credible" source like National Review, Fox, NewsMax or Drudge or any of the other "credible" conservative sources. I try very hard not to call anyone names but, I've gotta tell you, on this one, the word "idiot" comes to mind. As soon as you saw the word "Vietnam" in the snippet you immediately circled the wagons and began your sophmoric attacks against what you assumed was an Iraq/Vietnam comparison when the only mention of Vietnam was that one in the first sentence. Had you even bothered to read it you would've both realized that was not the case.

War Eagle 96, I'm guessing that you didn't read the article, either, but instead went straight to the "About In These Times" page, copied the blurb and pasted it in your post then wrote a couple of moronic sentences and moved on. Here's the blurb about the writer of the article, "As a correspondent for the Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s, Robert Parry broke many of the stories now known as the Iran-Contra Affair." It would appear that the author has the credentials necessary and knowledge of the topic about which he wrote. At least attempt to discuss the article instead of launching ad hominem attacks.

Donutboy, high fives to you for two reasons. First, that was a good article. I think this statement says a lot about the problems in post-war Iraq: "In Iraq, however, U.S. policymakers chose to disband—rather than redirect—Saddam Hussein’s army and intelligence services, leaving the burden of counterinsurgency heavily on U.S. occupying troops who are unfamiliar with Iraq’s language, history and terrain." I think when the Bushies were planning this regime change they just assumed that everyone would fall in line and cooperate with our Army and it would then be a simple task instead of the, as Rumsfeld said, "long, hard slog." Second, without even trying you managed to play these three bozo's like a tune and exposed some fundamental character flaws that they will hopefully work on bettering in the coming year, namely, intellectual dishonesty.

[Ranger12 53]

Gee, TA, you used to be so credible. Now you call names over the internet and side with Donutboys ridiculous posts. I am really surprised at you. Sophomoric? That is too funny TA. So this stupid garage rag is supposed to be as credible as FoxNews? Give me a freaking break! If it would have even came from CNN I would have given it some credibility. You expecting people to read garbage like that from a high school newspaper and treat it like it is George Will writing the article is what I consider truly "idiotic", TA. Funny how you accuse us of spinning a story to something else. Guess you libs are good at that one. Funny how nobody but you and Donutboy seems to give this nonsense any credibility. TA, you seem to be joining the realm of the desperate democrats more and more because your posts of lately have been to the extreme.

Let me add another thing to this thread. If you want to talk about blood on a former administrations hands, well you better look at Bill Clinton also. While serving in the military under him, I was involved in a few FUBAR combat operations myself that resulted in the loss of quite a few men, quite a few being close friends. I am lucky to still be here myself, but I guess God was not ready to have this snake-eater in heaven with Him yet.

[Tiger Al 0]

Gee, TA, you used to be so credible. Now you call names over the internet and side with Donutboys ridiculous posts. I am really surprised at you. Sophomoric? That is too funny TA. So this stupid garage rag is supposed to be as credible as FoxNews? Give me a freaking break! If it would have even came from CNN I would have given it some credibility. You expecting people to read garbage like that from a high school newspaper and treat it like it is George Will writing the article is what I consider truly "idiotic", TA. Funny how you accuse us of spinning a story to something else. Guess you libs are good at that one. Funny how nobody but you and Donutboy seems to give this nonsense any credibility. TA, you seem to be joining the realm of the desperate democrats more and more because your posts of lately have been to the extreme.

And you've still said nothing of substance.

[Ranger12 53]

What, you have? Please fill me in on your great knowledge all knowing liberal one. All you did was just call a few posters names and tell us how wrong we are. Yeah, your post was just full of insight.

[Tigermike 3,692]

, I've gotta tell you, on this one, the word "idiot" comes to mind.

George W. Bush and his top advisers learned little from the Vietnam debacle of the ‘60s, since most avoided service in the war.

See your "article" was wrong on two fronts, (1) Iraq is NOT Vietnam and (2) the military learned a great deal in Vietnam. Obviously so did President George Bush and his top advisors. What lesson was that you ask? Let the military do their job!

The key counterinsurgency lesson from Central America was that the U.S. government can defeat guerrilla movements if it is willing to back a local power structure, no matter how repulsive, and if Washington is ready to tolerate gross human rights abuses

Just which local power structure would you have the US back in Iraq? In my opinion the war went pretty good. I guess you and the great General Bad Back for the Military but OK for skiing Howard Dean could have done better.

Yes the word idiot does come to mind. Mostly when I see anything you and Donut post.

Have a nice day.

[Ranger12 53]

You tell 'em Tigermike!!! I liked how he accused us of not reading the article, but the wannabe writer of the article did in fact compare what was going on Iraq to Vietnam by saying the Bush adminisration did not learn from it.

Anyway, Happy New Years guys! I am going to leave work now and go watch the AU game and rest for the remainder of the day. War Eagle!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

See your "article" was wrong on two fronts, (1) Iraq is NOT Vietnam

The article wasn't arguing the point that Iraq WAS another Vietnam, although in many ways it really is. It is actually comparing the counterinsurgency we are experiencing in Iraq with the one that took place in Guatemala.

(2) the military learned a great deal in Vietnam. Obviously so did President George Bush and his top advisors. What lesson was that you ask? Let the military do their job!

At the risk of sounding even more un-American than you already assume I am, didn't we lose the war in Vietnam???

Just which local power structure would you have the US back in Iraq? In my opinion the war went pretty good.

I'll answer this question again: "In Iraq, however, U.S. policymakers chose to disband—rather than redirect—Saddam Hussein’s army and intelligence services, leaving the burden of counterinsurgency heavily on U.S. occupying troops who are unfamiliar with Iraq’s language, history and terrain." The war was declared over in May. The article is drawing parallels with the insurgency being experienced in Iraq today and those in Guatemala in the 80's.

So this stupid garage rag is supposed to be as credible as FoxNews? Give me a freaking break! If it would have even came from CNN I would have given it some credibility. You expecting people to read garbage like that from a high school newspaper and treat it like it is George Will writing the article is what I consider truly "idiotic", TA.

You equate "credibility" with "ideology." When you see something with a liberal perspective you immediately label it "not credible" because you disagree with the liberal perspective.

You disputed the credibility of an article I cited about proposed cuts in imminent danger pay and seperation pay for the military because it came from the Atlanta Journal Constitution (which you said wasn't "credible" enough) when, in fact, it was an article that originally ran in the Army Times. You then still tried to discredit it because you didn't remember reading it in the print edition of Army Times, calling into question the validity of the online version. You, and several others, do this all the time. If you don't agree with the message an article is saying the first post is always going to be lambasting the "credibility" of the source. You seemed to be grudgingly willing to give CNN some level of credibility, but I'm sure that's only because it's a very large news organization. But, had this article come from CNN, you wouldn't have given it any credibility because it isn't a flag-waving, sunshine-pumping, Bush-loving piece.

But, to answer your question, yes, the magazine "In These Times" is every bit as credible as Fox for what it does, which is to provide analysis and on the ground reporting of stories not usually run in mainstream media, typically about government or corporate abuse. It isn't a news outlet like Fox or a newspaper like Washington Post.

[Tigermike 3,692]

The article wasn't arguing the point that Iraq WAS another Vietnam, although in many ways it really is. It is actually comparing the counterinsurgency we are experiencing in Iraq with the one that took place in Guatemala.

No Al they did not actually say it was another Vietnam, they only compared it to Vietnam. Like Clinton you seem to be a semantic spin doctor. Later on they talked about Guatemala but their intent was to put the specter of Vietnam in the minds of people and you know it.

At the risk of sounding even more un-American than you already assume I am, didn't we lose the war in Vietnam???

First of all Al, I don't consider you un-American just because you dissagree or because you are a liberal. Just mis guided.

Loosing the war is not the intent of this article. Their intent is to put the doubt of a long protracted war in the minds of the public. Vietnam slogged on for years. This war did not. The war on Terrorism will continue for years, but that is not what this is about, is it?

I'll answer this question again: "In Iraq, however, U.S. policymakers chose to disband—rather than redirect—Saddam Hussein’s army and intelligence services, leaving the burden of counterinsurgency heavily on U.S. occupying troops who are unfamiliar with Iraq’s language, history and terrain." The war was declared over in May. The article is drawing parallels with the insurgency being experienced in Iraq today and those in Guatemala in the 80's.

Again answer the question. Which of Sodams army and intelligence people would you trust? Which ones would you want backing up U.S. soldiers?

[Tiger Al 0]

No Al they did not actually say it was another Vietnam, they only compared it to Vietnam. Like Clinton you seem to be a semantic spin doctor. Later on they talked about Guatemala but their intent was to put the specter of Vietnam in the minds of people and you know it.

Mike, the length of the Vietnam war vs. Iraq is not an issue when making the comparisons. The article is talking of guerilla warfare which we are still most certainly involved in now and which the US was certainly NOT prepared for in Vietnam.

Which of Sodams army and intelligence people would you trust? Which ones would you want backing up U.S. soldiers?

I think that at this point the relevant question would be which ones of the former Iraqi army and intel people can we get to trust us? The Bush administration has decided that starting from scratch is the way to go. That means that civilians have to be trained how to perform in a paramilitary operations in a very short time. That's like sending the next 100,000 graduates from basic training to perform these duties. Bad idea.

Loosing the war is not the intent of this article.

No, I didn't say it was, but when you said, "the military learned a great deal in Vietnam. Obviously so did President George Bush and his top advisors. What lesson was that you ask? Let the military do their job!", that led me to believe that you thought we were a smashing success in Vietnam militarily. The fact that we were unprepared for guerilla warfare in Vietnam, which is what we've got in Iraq, was the writers' intent and mine as well.

[Tigermike 3,692]

George W. Bush and his top advisers learned little from the Vietnam debacle of the ‘60s, since most avoided service in the war.

Al THAT is the only intent of the article, to put the thought in the minds of people that NOTHING was learned in Vietnam. If you watched Desert Storm and you watched Afghanistan and you watched this war, there is little doubt that much was learned about guerilla warfare. There is also little doubt that the military is prepared for and knows how to win an urban guerilla war.

[Tiger Al 0]

Al THAT is the only intent of the article, to put the thought in the minds of people that NOTHING was learned in Vietnam.

Maybe you should just read the article instead of jousting at windmills blindfolded. Probably a more accurate assessment of why that sentence is in the article is that the author might not have much confidence in the warrior abilities of the Bushies because none of them were in Vietnam any more than Robert McNamara was. If he's trying to make a case for how Iraq is like Vietnam then he did a poor job of it since this is the one and only reference to it in the whole 3000 +/- words of the entire article.

[Tigermike 3,692]

Maybe you should just read the article instead of jousting at windmills blindfolded.

Rather self descriptive of yourself don't you think? Maybe you should just read the article since you are the one attempting to change what the peckerwood is actually saying.

Probably a more accurate assessment of why that sentence is in the article is that the author might not have much confidence in the warrior abilities of the Bushies because none of them were in Vietnam any more than Robert McNamara was.

Is this where you tell us about Dr. Dean's brother who was a POW?

If he's trying to make a case for how Iraq is like Vietnam then he did a poor job of it since this is the one and only reference to it in the whole 3000 +/- words of the entire article.

It does not matter how many words are in the article the first sentence said what he wanted the rest was only an attempt to justify.

Probably a more accurate assessment of why that sentence is in the article is that the author might not have much confidence in the warrior abilities of the Bushies because none of them were in Vietnam

And Dr. Dean was skiing in Colorado or New Mexico or somewhere.

[Ranger12 53]

Just because there is only one reference to Vietnam means that he was not really trying to compare Iraq to Vietnam? Give me a break! If I state that you are ugly and smell funny in only one sentence, but I do not reference it again in the rest of my article, that does not change the fact that I made the statement and the meaning behind it.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Here's some food for thought - in another five or so years, people won't be able to use Vietnam as an issue or a measuring point, as the up and coming politicos were TOO YOUNG for Vietnam. Whether or not they were in Vietnam will no longer matter. And since all military engagements since then have been with volunteer armies, then I guess military service will go away as a measuring stick? My money will be on "Did you support or did you protest?"