Part I:
I keep hearing that the war in Vietnam only lasted 10 years. I suppose that if we measure the beginning as being when the USA began sending "active" ground troops (1964) to fight for the RVNs' coupe of the week that could be seen as true. Even if it discredits all the US troops that began filtering in beginning in 1955 or 1956 (depends on ones interpretation of the Pentagon Papers, again I suppose) - as advisors and to train the RVN military. Let's also forget that the French were there before us, and that the battle for Dien Bien Phu began as both parties in the conflict approached "peace talks". Let's also forget that it is called "the 10,000 day war" - not the 4,000 day war.
Still, by limiting its length (the war) it does serve the purpose to propagate the "staying the course" of our present quagmire. You know, the old if not for those liberals we'ld a won in 'nam - assuming of course that the 75-85% of Americans that opposed the war were all liberals.
Oh, well. Can't expect people that ignore history in their running of a government (and war) to be expected to know when a war began - or anything about it. Especially since none of them bothered to fight in it (what is it like 30 deferments from the draft for the Bushys old enough to have been drafted, and one whose daddy got him in the ANG).
===============
Part II:
Bush has denied from the outset any comparrisons between our occupation in Iraq, to our quagmire in Vietnam. Yet, finds it useful to invoke a comparrison when it suits him. On Wednesday, he did it again - hell he even associated Iraq with WWII. Disappointing he didn't refer to WWI and the CivilWar - and hey what about that Spanish thingy (Remember the Maine), which is closer than the others to Iraq in that it was for Imperialistic purposes.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070822-3.html
If you prefer to read the speech with inserts of applause go to the WSJ's version - you might note the dead silences also (especially about Korea and VN).
So, it seems our involvement in 'nam was not invain because through it we were responsable for spreading democracy throughout the region - just think what we could have done if we had stayed (aside form the additional loss of another 60,000 dead and 600,000 wounded), gah. That Bush has such a warped conceptual view of reality about history is no great surprise, but that he believed vets (he gave his speech before yet another VFW group) that actually were there would buy into his rant is either callous or just plain stupid - take your choice.
One thing we do know is that if it were up to Bush we would stay the course in Iraq for atleast another 10 years - maybe 20. Maybe make it another 10,000day war.
Bookmarks