Not Vietnam, but Gaudalcanal

[mars01]

Justifying why we went into Iraq does not make the comparison more correct.  

We liberated the territories in WWII from an occupying country.  In Iraq we overthrew the current government thus taking over their country.  All the more this does not make Iraq more like Guadalcanal.  

Also not one of the liberated countries in WWII would have stood against us as we pursued Japan.  Do you really think that the Iraqi people would let us use their country to go after Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia?  I hardly think so.

Also there were many places that we just skipped over in the pacific during WWII because they were not strategic areas needed to press the war on Japan.  Liberation was an after thought to their strategic importance.  

But in Iraq, after the weapons of mass destruction excuse fell through the administration turned it into, A Liberation of a of Country from a Crazed Dictator.  The world is full of crazed dictators it is not the USA's role to liberate them.  

I also question Iraq's link and role in terrorism, which many people have taken as gospel without a whole lot of proof.  Why did Bush push so hard on the WMDs if the invasion was really necessary in the War against Terror?  

Why didn't bush just say we are going to invade Iraq because it is instrumental in the War against terror?  

My guess is because going into Iraq was not instrumental in the war against terror.  I would think we would have been better served by putting more people on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and capturing Osama instead of poorly manning the border and letting Osoma escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

I think after the whole fiasco about WMDs that people would require more proof and less hearsay in these matters.

Let's face it, if Bush required better proof and relied less on hearsay before going into war we would not have invaded Iraq in the first place.  But I digress.

"It is to act as a beacon of hope to other oppressed people in the Middle East, and to show that Islam need not fear freedom, or live in the shadow of the West. "

Pushing the communists out of Vietnam and establishing a democracy was supposed to do much the same thing against Communism.  Your quote above makes Iraq more Vietnam like than Guadalcanal.  We did not take Guadalcanal to bring democracy we took Guadalcanal to launch planes from it.

You make it sound like this is the first time we tried to put a Democracy in the Middle East and that you expect this to work.  I think Iran and the Shaw is a perfect example of how hard this is to do and how quickly these countries can turn against us.

For god sake, we practically put friggin Saddam in power and look how fast he turned on us.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by mars01
Why didn't bush just say we are going to invade Iraq because it is instrumental in the War against terror?  

 

Because the liberals would have ranted and raved what they did in 1991...'Blood for Oil!!!'....meanwhile, $50 a barrel for oil today on the NYSE, hey! I thought gas was going to get cheaper!?!  Oh, thats right, Corporate execs are profiting more...wait...I hear something!>>>>

http://blackhelicopters.com

[capt. apathy]

one big hole in the analogy.

the comparison to the 2 wars starting with a sneak attack, is accurate I guess but kinda goes awry after that.

a more accurate comparison would be if after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor we attacked attacked China.  after all we just sit idly by after being attacked.  we must make China answer for Japans attack on our fleet.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Rude
Well said....the problem with most on this board is that they somehow deem the objectives in Iraq as in some way, easy or quick.

Perseverence and resolve along with an iron fist in a velvet glove will win out in Iraq and other middle eastern countries.....the reality of freedom amongst the common man, woman and child will forever change that part of the world....it just won't happen within a single political season and that fact, drives the dribble by many on this board.

Your right and the problem with this board is the same problem with todays society in general.
Everyone expects immediate gratification. Its gotta be Right now. As if someone is supposed to wave some sort of magic wand and make everything just so
 And nobody is willing to show patience or perseverence.

We've been in Iraq what? a little less then a year?
We were in germany and Japan how long?.

Its amazing the loss of resolve since 911
Amazing  the short attenton span we have.

9/11 is not unlike that of 12/7/41 And that marked the beginning of our war then just as 911 has marked the beginning of this war now.
The War is not over. Afghanastan and Iraq are but two  battles in a war that is going to continue. That HAS to continue.

[capt. apathy]

would you care to make an attempt to explain exactly how the Iraq war and the 9/11 attacks are related?

[montag]

Iraq is not like vietnam its more like beruit. I agree with the last sentence though.

No matter what prewar, wats done i done.

>For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win.

My 2.5 schillings.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
would you care to make an attempt to explain exactly how the Iraq war and the 9/11 attacks are related?

Not really, since you don't care to listen.

Besides, no one ever said the reason to go into Iraq was that Iraq was directly or indirectly responsible for the attacks of 11 September 2001.

Aww, what the HELL, just so you can ignore or deny anoy or all of this, here goes.

The reasons for going into Iraq were many and varied. The ENTIRE WORLD freely acknowledges that Saddam Hussien has long been seeking to aquire nuclear capablity, along with other weapons. The UN even agreed that Saddam Hussien was repeatedly and continually in violation of any number of UN resolutions, not the least of which were those which were conditions of the CEASE FIRE of 1991 (there was no real peace treaty, the war never officially ended). And Saddam Hussien was well known for his support of terrorism. He was vocal and public about it. Even to the point of publicly paying terrorists and their families. Do a search on "Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror", and see any number of multiple links between Saddam Hussien and terrorists and acts of terrorism around the world.

Oh, and to tie this all in with the attacks of 11 September 2001, Bush said shortly after those attacks, " ANY country that supports or harbors terrorists will be subject to regime change". Saddam Hussien's Iraq pretty much fits the description of a country that harbors or supports terrorists.

But of course you will ignore or deny any or all of those reasons. I would expect nothing less.

[capt. apathy]

OK last things first "Bush says so" is not a valid reason for war.

yes we freely acknowledge that he was seeking chemical and nuclear weapons, in the 80's we were selling him raw materials, weapons and intelligence, so we had a good idea what he was interested in.

the idea that we went because he defied the UN is somewhat amusing since the UN has called this war illegal.  you can't support someones laws by breaking them.

the support of terrorism may be true (the direct support of terrorists is something I hadn't heard, I had heard that he gave support money to the families of suicide bombers,) though I've heard of no instances where he supported any attacks against the US.

his issues with other countries or UN requirements are an issue for the UN or country involved, it's not ours.  we are not the worlds police force, it is neither our right or responsibility to decide who should be in power in other countries or what they do as long as it doesn't concern us.  If he commits attacks against the US or supports those who do, then it is definitely our business and in urgent need of response (as in Afghanistan), but this is just taking away manpower and resources that could be used in the war on terror.

when launching a war on terror I think it is reasonable as a citizen of this country (who's best interest, whether he choses to admit it or not, Bush is paid to look out for), to expect those we elect to take care of direct threats to our own country, next take care of social and economic issues in our own country, pay off the debt, and then if you have any money left over they can go play around at trying to tell the rest of the world how to live.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

In case you missed it, we declared war on terrorism. Something that has become necessary for the very survival of the free world. Given the continuing escalation of terrorist acts, it is no longer an option to wait for them to attack. Especially given that they are seeking ever more powerful weapons to use.

No, you are wrong. The UN did NOT call this war illegal. Koffee did, and he does not quite have the power to make such a declaration on his own, now does he? No he does not.

Any serious reading on the subject of terrorism will show direct links between Saddam Hussien and terrorists. And between Saddam Hussien and terrorists who have committed acts of terrorism against the U.S. its foreign interests, and its citizens.

Uh, in case you missed it, we had to lead the coalition to remove him from Kuwait. Further, it fell upon the U.S. to keep him in his cage. Got any idea what we spent over the 12 years between the original war and the eventual invasion? Do you realize and understand that the U.S., at the request of the UN and any number of countries, maintained a huge military presence to keep Saddam in his borders? Easy for the UN to tell us how to spend our money and how to deploy our troops, for any length and in any strength they choose. They sure as HELL ain't paying the bill.

Oh, and by the way, the UN and the Saudis asked us to stay and keep Saddam in control, but UBL attacked the U.S. because we had troops on Saudi soil. So you can thank the UN for their part in 11 September 2001. Funny how all that works if you pay attention, ain't it? See, the UN, the Saudis, Quatar, and Kuwait all asked the U.S. to maitain a massive military presence in the region to keep Saddam in his cage. But when the U.S. was attacked because of that presence, the UN felt that we should stay but not finish the job and get it over with. Quatar, and Kuwait welcome us with open arms, and the Saudis didn't REALLY want us to leave, but it was okay for us to leave after we took Saddam out of the picture.

[Bluedog]

While we are at comparisons, compare the number of civilians in Iraq today, with the civilians on Guadalcanal during the years 1941~1945.

Compare the physical size of the landmass of Iraq, and that of Guadalcanal.

Compare how many people even knew about a place called Guadalcanal in 1942, let alone had the means to get there if they wished, with the same criteria today regarding Iraq.

Compare how many people (local civilians) actually cared wether it was Japanese or American planes using the island for a base, with how many people call Iraq home, and care about who is in power there.


The point being, Guadalcanal was a relatively uninhabited, itty bitty little isand in the middle of a big ocean that no one cared a hoot about except those with a need to project airpower, and those very few (comparatively speaking) civilians who lived there.

Iraq is a modern nation, with millions of people, and a huge economy.

When the US and the Japanese were fighting over Guadalcanal, the two forces were relatively similar in manpower, spending power and weapons technology, the people fighting the Americans in Iraq now arent even in  the same city, let alone ballpark. (figuratively speaking that is, no doubt they are infact in the same city/ies)

What about respective terrain types of Iraq and Guadalcanal?

Comparing the two military campaigns is ludicrous.
About the only common factor is US military involvement.

If you really are looking for a historic precedent, I reckon the USSR/Afghanistan would be a lot closer to the mark, strategically and tactically, though perhaps dissimilar in the reasons.

[MrCoffee]

If only Iraq had aircraft carrieres that could sunk.

[MrCoffee]

and if the US invaded switzerland during wwii that would be like Iraq. Even if that happened, victory is essential, in any battle. All Nixon did was plan an acceptable retreat. Nixon was brilliant.

[-dead-]

Guadalcanal was an operation with a clear military objective. Iraq had no military objective, rather a political one: regime change to one that is pro-US. The problem there is that while a military objective can be won militarily, a political objective can't. Unless you go for the whole imperialist colonial thing.

So the comparison is really daft. Vietnam is a lot closer than Guadalcanal, but again it isn't correct.

Possibly the best fit would be the British Invasion of Iraq in 1917. There's a lot of similarities: the stated mission of the invaders being liberation from an oppressive regime; the expectation of being welcomed with open arms; the decent into political chaos; air strikes on civilians; attacks on troops; the besieging of Najaf and Fallujah; the Guantanmo/Abu Ghraib style of imprisonment & abuse; the moderate Shiite leader staying neutral; the radical leader with a private army. It goes on.

There's differences too, of course, but it's a better fit.

I suspect Lt Col Powl Smith just wants (or is under orders) to draw a comparison to something the US won rather than something they lost. Such is the way of propaganda. As for the greater TWOT=WWII analogy - well, oh dear.

[Edbert]

Sadaam has clear and irrefutable ties to Hamas and other groups, Abu Nidal lived there and was on Saddam's payrol for a very long time. He was funding and equiping terrorit training camps for years. Our current foe, Al Zawahiri (sp?), went to iraq when he fled Afghanistan, ever wonder why? Some will say it was so he can continue to fight against US imperialism, but if that were true why leave Afghanistan? The only answer is that there are more civilians to hide among and increase the likely hood of 'collateral damage'. What a guy eh? That thinking sorta epitomises a terrorist if you ask me.

Regarding the subject of Iraq=Guadalcanal...only time will tell. I think dead is right regarding the won vs lost statement too. If we win it then guadalcanal is pretty close, if we lose it then Vietnam does fit well. The author's point was that the difference between winning and losing is in the hands of the electorate. Had the candidate for POTUS from the challenging party in the elections during WWII said stuff like "this crappy little island is not worth the sacrifices of 6,000 US children" (pet peeve of mine is calling the soldiers/sailors/airmen 'kids'), or saying that we should withdraw, then Guadalcanal would more accurately describe what we have today.

[mars01]

A Question for the Bush guys.  

If we don't go after the other countries in the area, who are worse than Saddam, whom also harbor terrorist  and unlike Saddam actually have the capability to deliver WMDs, was Iraq justified and really part of the war on terror.

If we don't go after the other countries in the area, does it make you ask the question, why arent we going after Syria and Iran?