Iraq=Guadalcanal

[_BiB_]

Guadalcanal, not Viet Nam

 

Interesting parallels.

[MichFan]

Interesting article. I don't think we can predict which war Iraq will appear more similar to until we see how U.S. policy unfolds. As long as U.S. leadership remains steadfast and considers Iraq a beachhead in the war against terror, the Guadalcanal analogy is most appropriate. If we begin to get weak-kneed, the Vietnam analogy will be most appropriate. The shame is that those who claim this war is a second Vietnam are the ones whose policies would actually turn it into a second Vietnam if they are put in power.

[tennesseeboy]

Guadalcanal, not Viet Nam

 

Interesting parallels.

46547[/snapback]

or DienBienPhu?

[_BiB_]

or DienBienPhu?

46704[/snapback]

 

Not even close.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

or DienBienPhu?

46704[/snapback]

What is your point.... 14,000 French troops dropped behind enemy lines were surrounded by 50,000+ Viet Mihn troops fighting for soveriegnty....

[RCow]

I political piece wrapped in historical fragments.

 

No doubt people often mistakenly say we are reliving Vietnam, what they are trying to say is we are in a Quagmire. Vietnam equals Quagmire, but Quagmire doesn't necessarily mean another Vietnam.

 

But Guadacanal is not a very good analogy either. If that's the case we have to equate the whole "War on Terror" with World War II. As many on both sides of the aisle have noted: it ain't same the deal. There isn't a readily identifiable nation, no clear map to victory (i.e., destory the other nation) and there is tremendous disagreement as to how to achieve victory. (yes, there were some strategic and tactical disagreements but they are minor in comparison). This is not anything close to Total War.

 

First, who are these "Historical apologists . . . that the Japanese were "forced" to attack us because we were strangling their trade in Asia. Sound familiar?" This is simple garbage. Almost no one really believes the US was at fault in 1941 and as many "believe" "American foreign policy in the Middle East is responsible for the anger and rage that has stirred up Al Qaeda."

 

Next,

"there is a crucial similarity between the Japanese imperialism (search) of 50 years ago and Islamic fundamentalism of today: both are totalitarian, anti-Western ideologies that cannot be appeased."

Hardly a "crucial similarity." Japan was "anti-Western" but NOT in the same way as radical Muslim fundamentalism. Then how do you explain Nazi Germany and Facist Italy? Facism was the political ideology of the day NOT an entire cultural phenomenon woven into the fabric of their society. Ah, what about our "ally" in the Soviet Union?

 

 

"This was the first and foremost lesson of World War II that applies today: Wars of national survival are not quick, not cheap, and not bloodless."

WOW. That's deep. "National survival," huh? How many Americans believe this is a war of "national survival?" Sure doesn't feel that way.

 

 

"Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission, and the populations that support them have to be convinced they can't win. This is a bloody and difficult business."

Again, very profound. How exactly is the Iraq policy akin to terroism and how are we going to "convince 'them' they can't win? "Who" are we bludgeoning in Iraq? Which populations support "them?"

 

 

In the Pacific theater, we eventually learned our enemies' tactics—jungle and amphibious warfare (search), carrier task forces, air power—and far surpassed them. But that victory took four years and cost many hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Which of Al Quada's tactics are we going to learn and use again them? Car bombs? Hijackings? Suicide attacks? How about strip civil rights and chip away at the Constitution? Oops, sorry, my bad -- were doing that in the US.

 

 

Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal—one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.

The difference is easy. It's like after Pearl Harbor we strike them at Midway then turned around and attacked Spain. After all they were facist, totalitarian regime whose demise would "benefit" the world and the Spanish people. Of course, we get a little "stuck" with all the facist guerilla attacks and have a tough time taking on our much more dangerous enemies.

[DC Tom]

Guadalcanal, not Viet Nam

 

Interesting parallels.

46547[/snapback]

 

Wow.

 

That comparison was so disingenious it's stupid. Sad to think that a Lt. Col. can have such a pitiful grasp of military history.

[_BiB_]

Wow.

 

That comparison was so disingenious it's stupid.  Sad to think that a Lt. Col. can have such a pitiful grasp of military history.

47135[/snapback]

 

I think he was trying to make some talking points...

 

But, it's on FOX. Hook, line and sinker, just like CNN or CBS.

[tennesseeboy]

What is your point.... 14,000 French troops dropped behind enemy lines were surrounded by 50,000+ Viet Mihn troops fighting for soveriegnty....

46732[/snapback]

 

A political entity that grossly underestimated the will and fighting capacity of the enemy and paid for it dearly.

[_BiB_]

A political entity that grossly underestimated the will and fighting capacity of the enemy and paid for it dearly.

47242[/snapback]

 

And stupid enough to locate an indefensible fort in a valley surrounded by high commanding terrain with no viable means of resupply or reinforcement. That's how French heros are made.

[tennesseeboy]

And stupid enough to locate an indefensible fort in a valley surrounded by high commanding terrain with no viable means of resupply or reinforcement. That's how French heros are made.

47259[/snapback]

 

my point exactly. Except we don't happen to be french.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

Wow.

 

That comparison was so disingenious it's stupid.  Sad to think that a Lt. Col. can have such a pitiful grasp of military history.

47135[/snapback]

 

It's not any better or less perfect an analogy than the Viet Nam one. So, what reason does history now tell us that Japan attacked us back in 1941?

[_BiB_]

It's not any better or less perfect an analogy than the Viet Nam one.  So, what reason does history now tell us that Japan attacked us back in 1941?

47289[/snapback]

 

It goes back to the Japanese concept of the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" of the thirties. In short, they planned for the Pacific to be a Japanese lake. Main reason was raw materials for their industrial base, mostly out of Indonesia (oil). You either agreed or you were gotten out of the way. Ask China.

 

There ARE mid-east parallel implications, once you take the "Islam" out of the equation.

 

The difference with Dien Bien Phu (besides idiotic tactics) is that the French had colonialized Indochina for a long time with no benefit to Indochina. There was much more of a united effort. Iraq, in spite of all the rhetoric, is mostly populated by ambivalents and the true upheaval is being done by a relative few with support from outside entities. Giap did not destroy his own infrastructure to make a point.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

It goes back to the Japanese concept of the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" of the thirties. In short, they planned for the Pacific to be a Japanese lake. Main reason was raw materials for their industrial base, mostly out of Indonesia (oil). You either agreed or you were gotten out of the way. Ask China.

 

There ARE mid-east parallel implications, once you take the "Islam" out of the equation.

 

The difference with Dien Bien Phu (besides idiotic tactics) is that the French had colonialized Indochina for a long time with no benefit to Indochina. There was much more of a united effort. Iraq, in spite of all the rhetoric, is mostly populated by ambivalents and the true upheaval is being done by a relative few with support from outside entities. Giap did not destroy his own infrastructure to make a point.

47307[/snapback]

 

Don't off yourself anytime soon BiB. I definitely appreciate your point of view. I thought I remembered learning Japan waged war on us because the diplomacy of the time dictated we not sell or allow Japan to have any oil. So, that is a boycott in trade of sorts. Hard to run an empire even in the 30's if you can't move ships or run machinery. So they knew they would have to take it (from Indonesia). The American fleet was the only thing that might be stand in the way. And because it was conveniently parked in one place, they went for it.

 

Islam and the Middle east is a whole bunch of different animals.

What trade have we denighed them, that they wern't easily able to get elsewhere, with all the wealth that they have secured oil? Oil for food! HA

[_BiB_]

Don't off yourself anytime soon BiB.  I definitely appreciate your point of view.  I thought I remembered learning Japan waged war on us because the diplomacy of the time dictated we not sell or allow Japan to have any oil.  So, that is a boycott in trade of sorts.  Hard to run an empire even in the 30's if you can't move ships or run machinery.  So they knew they would have to take it (from Indonesia).  The American fleet was the only thing that might be stand in the way.  And because it was conveniently parked in one place, they went for it. 

 

Islam and the Middle east is a whole bunch of different animals.

What trade have we denighed them, that they wern't easily able to get elsewhere, with all the wealth that they have secured oil?  Oil for food!  HA

47454[/snapback]

 

It's a different time. Things will never be that simple again. Through the 30's, many an American businessman made many a buck helping to build the Japanese war machine. Everyone's hero FDR was well aware, but since we didn't have 200,000 cable news shows in real time-it kind of slid by the mainstream since he was busy pulling us out of the depression. Any chance the two are related? stevestojan, unfortuntely, came to a head. It's way more complicated than that. Remember Hitler? I've heard the name mentioned here. My personal opinion is that they miscalculated the breaking points. A relatively small group of folks made a lot of money in the six years leading up to Pearl Harbor. Why do you think we got so snookered? Isoruko Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack understood. The Japanese militarists, many of who had extensive business interests figured out there play, which was bold-dangerous-but could have resulted in great dividends. They did not take the lesson of Neville Chamberlain the correct way, nor did they account for a lot of water between us and them. Yamamoto said he would run wild for two years, and the sleeping giant would spank them. He understood our will at the time, we don't understand our own, now.

[DC Tom]

It goes back to the Japanese concept of the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" of the thirties. In short, they planned for the Pacific to be a Japanese lake. Main reason was raw materials for their industrial base, mostly out of Indonesia (oil). You either agreed or you were gotten out of the way. Ask China.

 

There ARE mid-east parallel implications, once you take the "Islam" out of the equation.

 

The difference with Dien Bien Phu (besides idiotic tactics) is that the French had colonialized Indochina for a long time with no benefit to Indochina. There was much more of a united effort. Iraq, in spite of all the rhetoric, is mostly populated by ambivalents and the true upheaval is being done by a relative few with support from outside entities. Giap did not destroy his own infrastructure to make a point.

47307[/snapback]

 

Actually, the root cause of the Pacific Campaign goes much farther back than the '30s...for a reasonable (enlightening, at the very least) explanation of how British Imperial policy caused Pearl Harbor, take a look at John Costello's "The Pacific War 1941-1945". A mediocre book in most respects, but its analysis of the history of Anglo-American-Japanese naval policy in China and the Pacific is interesting, to say the least, and demonstrates that (as usual, and contrary to Mickey's apparent world-view) world events are a LOT more complex than they're usually portrayed.

[_BiB_]

Actually, the root cause of the Pacific Campaign goes much farther back than the '30s...for a reasonable (enlightening, at the very least) explanation of how British Imperial policy caused Pearl Harbor, take a look at John Costello's "The Pacific War 1941-1945".  A mediocre book in most respects, but its analysis of the history of Anglo-American-Japanese naval policy in China and the Pacific is interesting, to say the least, and demonstrates that (as usual, and contrary to Mickey's apparent world-view) world events are a LOT more complex than they're usually portrayed.

47602[/snapback]

!@#$.

[Alaska Darin]

Actually, the root cause of the Pacific Campaign goes much farther back than the '30s...for a reasonable (enlightening, at the very least) explanation of how British Imperial policy caused Pearl Harbor, take a look at John Costello's "The Pacific War 1941-1945".  A mediocre book in most respects, but its analysis of the history of Anglo-American-Japanese naval policy in China and the Pacific is interesting, to say the least, and demonstrates that (as usual, and contrary to Mickey's apparent world-view) world events are a LOT more complex than they're usually portrayed.

47602[/snapback]

Kinda like a Clancy novel?

[DC Tom]

Kinda like a Clancy novel? 

47642[/snapback]

 

Yeah, that's exactly right. Life is like a Tom Clancy novel. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[_BiB_]

I forgot to say fugg you in terms the filters would understand.. as$hole.

 

Not a barn burner with Skins-Cowboys, eh?