Stop blaming the American public for losing resolve.

It's President Bush's resolve you ought to be worried about.

I'm not in the least worried about Bush's resolve.

It's the critics who harp on every tiny setback who I worry about. They're the real problem. They don't "question" things. They attack, at every opportunity, sometimes in ways directly contradictory to what they were saying just a few months ago.

It's infuriating, and it's wrong. And they are not "the American public." They're obviously having an effect, though, and they simply must be countered.

Dean's right on this one, Ara. Most folks still get their news from radio or TV, with the well-informed ones reading newspapers as well.

And the vast majority of the stories from those three sources have been negative. What are people to believe?

And, in case you've forgotten, (grin) this is a democracy, so leaders are supposed to listen to the voters. Further, despite what many claim, Bush is not a despot. He can't order the country to do what he believes is right. He has to persuade them; to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

The doomsayers are loud, and easily identifiable.

I have no doubts about Bush's resolve. I do have doubts about the moral courage of many representatives and senators.

I also believe that the citizens in this country have the heart to do the right thing, as long as they are well (and honestly) informed.

Dean, a thought: the Vietnam war was lost, at least in part, due to citizens' perceptions that the politicians had lied to us about the war; what would the citizens do if they decided that they journalists had been lying about this war? Hmmm...

Hey Casey, if you want to know why the Vietnam war was lost, check out what Max Cleland has to say about it here.

I know in your dictionary this decorated Vietnam war veteran and former Democrat senator is a doomsayer. But you should really read his article.

...And Dean? Hel-lo? The buck stops on POTUS' desk.

Suggesting that the American public lacks resolve smacks of Jimmy Carter-ism. It's loser-talk of the worst kind.

Makes us look like a paper tiger.

Ara,

With all due respect to you, Cleland is full of shit. He strains very hard to make Iraq parallel Vietnam, and he completely fails to explain how the latter war became lost. If you want some good explanations, try Bernard Traynor, Harry Summers, and David R. Palmer.

Cleland is now a politician going after the opposition, and doing what some politicians do so well: spin like crazy. I'm not impressed that he's a "decorated Vietnam war veteran." All that means is that he had hands-on experience as a newbie Lieutenant. For what it's worth, Hitler was a decorated vet (Iron Cross, Second and First Class) with an honorable career in the military too.

Point being that serving as a non-com, or even a low-level officer, doesn't make you a strategy expert. It provides you with useful direct experience, yes, but Cleland's article mentions not one single factor that contributed to the failure in Vietnam. Not one.

And he very carefully mentions, as do you, his wartime experience. My point is that this is not a valid indicator to someone's potential as a war leader.

Lincoln had (in effect) no experience, Wilson didn't, nor did FDR. All performed well in a major war. A soldier (Truman) got us into Korea, while another (Ike) got us out, while a third (McArthur) damn near started WW3 pursuing the North Korean army. Not a good record.

If you look at the record, active duty experience with the Navy seems to be a minus: take JFK, LBJ, and Carter as examples. Kennedy got us into Vietnam, and Johnson totally mucked it up. Carter completely screwed the pooch with the Iran hostage crisis, then later turned into a frontman for dogs like Castro and Arafat.

Ok, so maybe I exaggerate a bit. :) About Kennedy anyway. Heh.

But a bit more seriously, the two main threads of Cleland's article fail: Iraq is NOT Vietnam, and previous military experience is NOT a useful indicator of ability to lead the US during a war.

And just to remind you of something that you (apparently) forgot to read in my previous post: while the buck may stop at the President, he is still responsible to the citizens of the United States of America, and should therefore be mindful of their wishes. Also, he must apply policy in coordination with the House and the Senate, who are (if you recall [g]) also composed of representatives of our country's citizens.

You apparently believe (or pose to believe) that the President rules by fiat, as opposed to persuation and compromise.

I repeat: if it were soley up to Bush (which it is not) he would not relent. But he does have to listen to the voters.

Oh, Casey!

You're putting Max Cleland's name in the same paragraph with Adolf Hitler?

You know, if you ask Dean, he'll remove your post. Because you sound completely ridiculous. Luckily I know you to be a reasonable person. But others....well, you know.

Casey:

I went and googled Bernard Traynor, Harry Summers, and David R. Palmer. The only one that seemed to have a connection with Vietnam was Summers. Then I looked him up at Amazon. This is an excerpt of a review of his book, "On Strategy":

Summers recounts an exchange between himself and a former NVA officer some years after the war. It went something like this

Summers: "You never defeated us in the field." NVA Officer: "That is true. It is also irrelevant."

Come on Casey! Even Kissinger gets that! Remember when he said this?

"In a guerilla war, the guerillas win by not losing and the army loses by not winning."

What is Bush doing to ensure victory? Powell wants to negotiate with the terrorists and Rumsfeld wants to fight the war on the cheap.

And you feel good about this?

Casey, to me the war in Vietnam was lost largely because the POTUS, the Pentagon civilians and the Sec Def and the political strategists ignored the military commanders in the field -- they hung them out to dry.

I'm beginning to think history is repeating itself.

Ara,

Rumsfeld is not trying to win on the cheap, he's preventing the military from becoming a behemoth which over-shadows all else....like they did in Vietnam.

Our military is sufficiently strong to defeat any potential enemy army existing in the world today - but this war will not be won by mere military prowess. Mostly, this war is political - and this is what the so-called "anti-war" people miss entirely...that we went into Iraq because of the politics of the middle east and we must stay there until we're entirely victorious in our goals because of the politics of the middle east.

To boil it down, the middle east, ruled by tyrants, seethes with resentments which are used by the tyrants, and wanna-be tyrants, for their own purposes, which almost exclusively revolve around getting over the West, and its leading nation the United States of America - our only hope of victory is to change this status quo into ANYTHING else, preferrably, of course, pluralistic nations living in peace under consensual governments...but anything is better than it was before...if 10 years from now the entire middle east is still ruled by tyrants, but these tyrants live in deadly fear of offending the United States, then we'll still have won...by going into Iraq and sticking it out, we've instilled the fear of the US in the tyrants and if we also end up building a democratic Iraq, then we've won all down the line.

This is where fortitude comes in - President Bush is showing that he understands the situation completely (as an aside, the contrast between him and his domestic opponents on this matter shows conclusively who is actually stupid, and who smart); he's going to stick it out, come what may...I'm certain that if next summer a poll shows that 90% of the people will vote Bush out of office if he keeps on, he'll still keep on...

What is wrong with the Democratic carping and the relentlessly (and falsely) negative reporting about the situation, is that it undermines the will of the American people to stick it out. I'm not quitting, neither is Dean...we'll see by next November whether those with courage outnumber those who are craven.

Well I for one, would sure like to hear some good news about the situation in Iraq. I certainly have heard enough bad news and have shed a few too many tears on the whole war.

My heart just goes out to the women and children and those that are hurt over there. I just think that the toy idea is just a wonderful idea and maybe it would make some little faces smile over there and let them know that the Good Lord has not forsaken them.

God Bless
Hannah =]

I know at least two decorated Vietnam vets, one with two purple hearts, who don't happen to be politicans, who'll tell you that Cleland is full of shit, Ara. What exactly does that prove?

Let's just be honest: this isn't about expressing "concern" about the situation. This is about telling everyone, whenever possible, that we're doomed and have made a horrible mistake because BushSucks(TM)!

By the way, this is the same Max Cleland who betrayed his oath of office to protect and defend the United States by voting against funding an ICBM missile defense system, right? Not that such a vote would make him a coward or a traitor, mind you, just a fool who deserved to lose an election, and who tried to play on his disabled vet status in order to demonize his opponent. If I remember correctly, that is.

I just love how some people turn "the naysayers are irresponsible" into "criticizing the American people." Nice move, that, my friend.

Still love ya, Ara, but you've got partisan blinders on.

(Am I guilty of same? Perhaps. I did vote for Bush, after all. But I'm not the one saying everything's fucked simply because the Bushies are in charge.)

"By the way, this is the same Max Cleland who betrayed his oath of office to protect and defend the United States by voting against funding an ICBM missile defense system, right?"

Dean, are you serious? An ICBM missile defense system?!? I've got a better idea, let's just GIVE the money to Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, and whatever Acme fake missile company so they can pay their CEOs 25 million dollars in annual bonuses. Or better yet, can we get some sharks with friggin laser beams?!? Dean, you know I love you but we've all got our blinders on in this one. BTW, I love the word missile because it can be spelled missle as well.

Tim the Soldier

...Max Cleland who betrayed his oath of office to protect and defend the United States by voting against funding an ICBM missile defense system...

You crack me up.

Why have a vote if those who vote against the measure are incriminating themselves? Isn't that a violation of the Fifth Amendment? Oh, I forgot: Congressmen have immunity.

Goodness. I just don't understand how you come up with this stuff.

Ara,

I wasn't saying that Cleland is in any way cast in the same mold as Hitler. But Hitler is one of the best examples I know of that illustrates that a career as a brave, capable, and decorated soldier is completely useless as a predictor of war leadership.

That's it. All tied up with a bow on top. Ok? No insult intended. Just try to look past the "H word." :)

Other, less suitable, examples might include McClellan and Westmoreland, but they are, more properly, examples of good "book" soldiers who weren't all that good as battle leaders. Not quite the same thing.

Grant was an excellent general, but a terrible President. I doubt he would have done well if a war had broken out during his administration.

Ike was a good coalition general, and a decent Cincinnatus-style President, but the ability to combine both offices is rare.

On the references, mea culpa. My bad. I should have said Shelby Stanton, not Harry Summers (although Summers is well regarded) since that's who I had in mind. I just checked, and Bernard's last name is spelled Trainor. Also, it's Dave R. Palmer. Sorry.

What can I say? I was really short on time, and going on memory in a hurry. My apologies.

Another good reference is TR Fehrenbach. You may also want to check out some of the anthologies Jerry Pournelle edited under the There Will Be War series. Mostly fiction, mostly SF/future history, but still a very healthy slug of fact, history, and political science in every book. He included several very good articles/commentaries on Vietnam, including at least one written by a former high-level VC leader.

I'm not sure I would say the US was never defeated in the field. I am sure this passage misses the point completely. At the very least it conflates the huge difference between guerrilla encounters and conventional encounters.

You can quote cute slogans all you want, but that doesn't encapsulate the problems of that war. Some of them include: the 1-year tour of individual replacement, the refusal to mobilize the reserves, the attempt to keep the war in the background (relatively speaking) to avoid any budgetary damage to the Great Society programs, the painfully slow incremental use of force, as well as some extraordinarily artificial constraints on rules of engagement.

The claim that the war was lost because the politicians ignored the soldiers is pretty much like the claim that the was was "won in the field, but lost in the media." Both are emotionally comforting, but terribly distorted.

Johnson and MacNamara did, in fact, give Westmoreland almost anything he wanted for several years. The problem was that the administration did not have an ultimate overall strategic objective. They had, at best, a negative objective of "keep the north out."

The north didn't win by not losing; they won by convincing the people of the United States that South Vietnam wasn't worth fight for.

Not only that, they did, indeed lose. Frequently. Remember Tet '68? 'World's greatest victory of spin over reality...

You are obviously not aware that the war was, in effect, won by 1970, and that the main cause of failure after that was the United States Senate and Congress.

To compare Vietnam to Iraq is betray a tremendous ignorance of military history, if not of general history. The two situations are nearly opposite, instead of parallel: this time we're the Viet Cong! Haven't you figured that out yet? :) Our special forces used asymmetrical techniques for months before the shooting started to set up a quick win, that was capped with armored conventional forces. Hell, some of the SF guys like AK-47s...

In fact, you can say that the Gulf War and the Iraq War are applications of the lessons learned from Vietnam:
-narrow, specific overall objective; LBJ wanted the north to stop. please. it took him four years to fail. Bush wanted regime change. it took him four weeks to win.
-immediate application of overwhelming force. 'nuff said.
-no micromanagement from the frocks; give the job to the brass hats and get the heck out of the way.
-be honest about the future. LBJ's light at the end of a tunnel was an approaching train. Bush has constantly stated that this will be a long, hard pull; both for Iraq, and for the war in general.

I could go on, but it's getting late. :)

My original point was that Cleland's article was biased; painfully and badly so. No one with an honest sense of history could read that an not wince. To claim that he's an expert about the entire course of the war because he was shot at is fatuous. (Certainly, the next time I'm engaged in a SouthEast-Asian guerrilla war, he'll be one of the first people I'll ask for advice as an eleven-bush {g}) History is replete with figures who were good soldiers, but poor strategists.

What is Bush doing to secure victory? He is telling the American people that we are winning, despite what the doomsayers claim. He (and many others) are telling everyone in the world about the horror that used to be Iraq, and the reality of today. (Note that reality is never as pleasant as a dream world; it has bumps, and warts, and things go wrong for no reason) He is asking the American people to spend their blood, toil, tears, and sweat to make sure that Iraq can reach towards the dream that Americans have taken for granted for two centuries.

Bush is adamant in his pursuit of terrorists. Apparently you are disappointed that he hasn't nuked every Arab country that has given us a nasty look for the past 20 years. :)

But this isn't easy, nor is it obvious. Your complaints remind me of the quibblers who insisted that the US wasted time and lives by not invading Europe in 1943, or the critics who carped about the Darlan deal. Make deals with appeasers!!?

The fact that the US just wasn't ready to face the Wehrmacht wholesale in 1943. And, sometimes, it's smarter to make a deal with a littler fish to go after the bigger fish. Especially if you can stop a war that way.

I have to say, Ara, that your preferences for policy seem to incline to the big, loud, and obvious. If you don't see the US breaking heads in public, you assume that Bush is wimping out. Did it ever occur to you that most of this war is taking place in the shadows, just like the Cold War? Austin Bay (another excellent reference) made the exact prediction that this would be a war in the shadows just after 9/11...

To go back even further: you are like the critics who declaimed "On to Richmond!" It has to be quick. It has to be obvious. It has to be now. Take no prisoners! Unconditional Surrender! And if we have no immediate success, we must declare immediate failure...

I wouldn't worry about Powell too much. I still hae the sneaking suspicion that he's deliberately playing "good cop;" although I admit that's an opinion. Besides, he's leaving after '04 anway.

I really doubt you can say Rumsfeld wants to fight "on the cheap." For every critic that tries to paint him as the new McNamara, I can point you to two who compare him to the poor souls who had to modernize reactionary officers: such as dealing with admirals who didn't want aircraft carriers, or cavalrymen who didn't want tanks.

"Goodness. I just don't understand how you come up with this stuff." Maybe there's a moral in there, somwhere, eh? Heh heh heh.

Looks like Ara has been properly abashed... :)