To: cnyndwllr who wrote (21764 ) 10/8/2004 4:15:41 PM From: Gator II Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23153 There is no intent to enter into a debate here Ed but I thought you might want to chew on another "simplistic" response just for the heck of it. First, even you might agree that one of the biggest mistakes the US made in Vietnam (disregarding the argument that we had no business being there...the fact is we were and we are in Iraq so to me, those points are and were academic after troops were committed) was the very late attempt to genuinely Vietnamatize the war by finally properly equipping the Vietnamese and attempting to train them to fight our way. There was a precedent for taking that approach because it worked in Korea but no, it didn't work in Vietnam but part of the reason it didn't was because we waited until the American Congress had tired of the war and we were looking for an exit strategy. The Vietnamese, both North and South, and we knew we were leaving the field of battle. Associated with the push to accomplish that lofty but belated goal (again, it came after it was evident that it was time for the US to get out of Dodge)was the ill-fated 'winning the hearts and minds' program(s) but that's another story. The South Vietnamese being a practical people and not nearly as idealistically driven as the North Vietnamese, had seen for years that the US was perfectly willing to do the bulk of the heavy lifting and dying so, understandably, they just sat back, watched, and those who could seized opportunities to make a buck. Who can blame them? After all, we had our massive firepower, a large and for the most part willing military, and Buck Rogers air mobile technology. They had retread sandals, generally ineffective leadership, and reluctant warriors. Hopefully, one of the lessons we learned in Vietnam was to not allow those whom we are attempting to train, protect, motivate, and inspire to get by on the cheap. Every effort has been made in Iraq since day one to minimize our troop presence. The critics of the war (and some supporters like John McCain) have been screaming from early on that we needed more boots on the ground. They haven't been sent and Rumsfeld make it clear that they wouldn't be unless the commanders in Iraq asked for them. I strongly suspect that those whom were so inclined knew better than to ask. After all, Tommy Franks made a point of achieving a rapid, near blitzkrieg victory with less troops than the critics said were needed so why are they needed now when there are thousands of Iraqi's that have a stake in their country's future wondering the country killing Americans. Sure mistakes were made after the initial military objectives were achieved like disbanding the Iraqi army, but all along we have made it clear that the Iraqis must actively participate in rebuilding their own country, provide their own security, and engage the enemy when and where needed. Yes, the Iraqis want us out and we don't want to stay a day longer than is required but I do think we want a long term presence there and yes, it would be for the purpose of assuring continued peace and a stable oil supply...no surprise there...finally, the Iraqis seem to be figuring it out that we are not going to make the same mistake we made in Vietnam and do the overwhelming amount of the fighting and dying. Bush is attempting to hold the line on troop strength and now Super Hawk Kerry (if you can believe his latest transformation) is screaming for more troops on the ground--regardless of where they come from...ideally from France, I guess. Personally, at this stage of the war, I believe it would be a disaster to see a change in commanders-in-chief and I am confident our military wouldn't want it to happen either. G-2