http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...n_go_co/us_iraq

 

GOP Senator Says Iraq Looking Like Vietnam By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer

40 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

 

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq. Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

 

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

 

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

 

President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

 

Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.

 

In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

 

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

 

Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

 

"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."

 

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

 

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

 

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

 

"What I think the White House does not yet understand ? and some of my colleagues ? the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."

 

The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq ? well over 100,000 ? for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

 

"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday.

 

Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."

 

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

 

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

 

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

 

"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."

 

 

It's good to hear a member of the GOP saying this, there are plenty more of us with that mindset.

The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is very off-base.

 

And hasnt he said this countless times already?

In the sense of accomplishing our goals of stabalizing the nation and the region, it seems accurate. Two and a half years later, insurgents are still distrupting stablility. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism is as strong as it has ever been(just as the threat of communism was). Incidently, the Pentagon is preparing for the contingency to keep the troops there for four more years at levels above 100k.

In the sense of accomplishing our goals of stabalizing the nation and the region, it seems accurate. Two and a half years later, insurgents are still distrupting stablility. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism is as strong as it has ever been(just as the threat of communism was). Incidently, the Pentagon is preparing for the contingency to keep the troops there for four more years at levels above 100k.

910705[/snapback]

 

Imagine that, planning for the worst case scenario, what a concept. I'm sure anyone digging deep enough would also find plans for 3 more months, 6 more months, 18 more months, 2 years, 2.5 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years...and on out to maybe even stay in Iraq until Syria and Iran are properly smushed, broken, busted and rebuilt/reformed.

 

There would be something very wrong if they didn't have contingency plans for 4 years from now.

Once this war reaches 12 years, 58,000 KIA, a million Iraqi civillian dead, then you could compare this war to the disaster that was Vietnam.

The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is very off-base.

 

And hasnt he said this countless times already?

910687[/snapback]

 

Yeah, but it's almost always Democrats....

 

And I agree, the comparison is off base NOW, which is why we need to get outta there ASAP....

Intro Spoken

Give me an "F! ..."F"! give me a "U"! ..."U"!

Give me a "C"! ..."C" Give me a "K"! ..."K"!

WHATS THAT SPELL? ..."f***!"

WHATS THAT SPELL? ..."f***!"

WHATS THAT SPELL? ..."f***!"

WHATS THAT SPELL? ..."f***!"

WHATS THAT SPELL? ..."f***!"

 

Well come on all of you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again,

he got himself in a terrible jam, way down yonder in Vietnam,

put down your books and pick up a gun, we're gunna have a whole lotta fun.

 

CHORUS

and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?

don't ask me i don't give a dam, the next stop is Vietnam,

and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.

 

now come on wall street don't be slow, why man this's war a-go-go,

there's plenty good money to be made, supplyin' the army with the tools of the trade,

just hope and pray that when they drop the bomb, they drop it on the Vietcong.

 

CHORUS

and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?

don't ask me i don't give a dam, the next stop is Vietnam,

and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.

 

now come on generals lets move fast, your big chance is here at last.

nite you go out and get those reds cuz the only good commie is one thats dead,

you know that peace can only be won, when you blow em all to kingdom come.

CHORUS

and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?

don't ask me i don't give a dam, the next stop is Vietnam,

and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.

 

(spoken)- listen people i dont know you expect to ever stop the war if you cant sing any better than that... theres about 300,000 of you fuc|ers out there.. i want you to start singing..

 

CHORUS

and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?

don't ask me i don't give a dam, the next stop is Vietnam,

and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.

 

now come on mothers throughout the land, pack your boys off to vietnam,

come on fathers don't hesitate, send your sons off before its too late,

be the first one on your block, to have your boy come home in a box

 

CHORUS

and its 1,2,3 what are we fightin for?

don't ask me i don't give a dam, the next stop is Vietnam,

and its 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates. Well there aint no time to wonder why...WHOPEE we're all gunna die.

 

Alrite !!!!!!!

The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is very off-base.

 

And hasnt he said this countless times already?

910687[/snapback]

 

Yeah, but it's almost always Democrats....

 

And I agree, the comparison is off base NOW, which is why we need to get outta there ASAP....

910881[/snapback]

 

The insurgents have to really, REALLY, pick up the attacks for the situation to reflect a nightmare Vietnam scenario. I'm talking about something along the lines of a Kurdish and Shia rebellion and Iran opening up a front against Coalition forces.

 

That said there are plenty of reasons to be aganst this war without invoking a Vietnam comparison.

It's unbelievable how so many posters here lack reading comprehension skills. Yes, it's true that the number of soldiers KIA pale in comparison to Vietnam, however, this aspect of what Hagel mentioned does mirror Vietnam.

 

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

 

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

 

"What I think the White House does not yet understand ? and some of my colleagues ? the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."

 

So for those of you slow on the uptake, the comparison to Vietnam had nothing to do with how many soldiers died in battle. Rather, the comparison has to do with the lack of exit strategy by this administration. Without an exit strategy, our troops basically serve the purpose of further inciting insurgents who believe they are ridding us as occupiers of Arab land.

Vietnam had no where near this number of casulties in the first few years of the US involvement. If you want to be really technical about it. It all happened during mainly the Nixon years if I recall correctly, during the Tet Offensive. And the LBJ Years.

Vietnam had no where near this number of casulties in the first few years of the US involvement. If you want to be really technical about it. It all happened during mainly the Nixon years if I recall correctly, during the Tet Offensive. And the LBJ Years.

911739[/snapback]

 

That is a bad comparison. Sure, there were only ~500 deaths during the first few years we were there, however at the time there weren't even 14,000 total U.S. troops in Vietnam as compared to 130,000+ U.S. troops since the beginning of OIF.

Vietnam had no where near this number of casulties in the first few years of the US involvement. If you want to be really technical about it. It all happened during mainly the Nixon years if I recall correctly, during the Tet Offensive. And the LBJ Years.

911739[/snapback]

 

That is a bad comparison. Sure, there were only ~500 deaths during the first few years we were there, however at the time there weren't even 14,000 total U.S. troops in Vietnam as compared to 130,000+ U.S. troops since the beginning of OIF.

911771[/snapback]

Yeah, but we were comparing the first few years of the war. :thumbup

 

 

I was doing it by casulties, not by actual involvement.

For the number to mean anything you have to count casualties as a percentage of troops involved.

 

If 1000 troops die in two seperate conflicts, but to the first you sent 2,000 troops, to the second you sent 200,000 troops...which of the two conflicts would you like to be deployed to?

For the number to mean anything you have to count casualties as a percentage of troops involved.

 

If 1000 troops die in two seperate conflicts, but to the first you sent 2,000 troops, to the second you sent 200,000 troops...which of the two conflicts would you like to be deployed to?

911809[/snapback]

The second one of course. The point is that we were comparing it as times go by for their respective points in involvement.

Ok, so wherever you are getting your numbers from, you might want to first look at how many troops were involved in the first years of Vietnam, then calculate what percentage of those died. Do same for Iraq. Compare. Just the number of deaths does not mean anything.

I can't find the troop levels for the first 5 years but there were 1,864 KIA from 1961-1965.

 

 

http://www.vietnamwall.org/pdf/casualty.pdf

Troop levels in Vietnam by year:

 

1962: 11,300

1963: 16,300

1964: 23,300

1965: 184,300

1966: 385,300

1967: 485,600

1968: 536,100

1969: 475,200

1970: 334,600

1971: 156,800

1972: 24,200

 

http://www.radicalruss.net/iraqwar/iraq-vietnam.htm

Troop levels in Vietnam by year:

 

1962: 11,300

1963: 16,300

1964: 23,300

1965: 184,300

1966: 385,300

1967: 485,600

1968: 536,100

1969: 475,200

1970: 334,600

1971: 156,800

1972: 24,200

 

http://www.radicalruss.net/iraqwar/iraq-vietnam.htm

911834[/snapback]

Troop level in 1965 easily outnumbers largest Iraq deployment.

I just don't see the similiarity between Iraq and Vietnam: :plain

:lol

I don't believe that this Iraq war bears any comparisons to Vietnam, except for the fact that in both wars, there were no clear objectives, and both were unnecessary.