1. Vietnam was a noble cause that turned into a fiasco because:

a) Lyndon Johnson tried to micromanage the war, going so far as to select bombing targets, and

b) We had incompetant field commanders who were afraid to tell Johnson the truth. Westmoreland kept telling LBJ that another few thousand more, and we'll win.

No one had the guts to say that instead of a few more thousand, we needed a few more divisions, if not a whole corps.

Now, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal has theorized that Bush's generals may be afraid to tell him that the military needs a lot more men and materials.

Looking at history, this shows why Lincoln was such a great president. He could figure out when a general wasn't being truthful and fired him.

Too bad George Bush isn't as good as judging generals as Lincoln was.

Kent at 2:06PM on Aug 22nd 2007

2. Bush is obviously desperate to use the Iraq/Vietnam analogy.
Of course there are neocons who will say we should have "stayed the course" in Vietnam - 10 years was not enough? - I guess 58,000 dead American soliders was not enough for them.
Those same neocons were also the ones who made damn sure THEIR sons did not get sent to Vietnam - got them college deferments, into the National Guard, you name it.

David S. at 2:11PM on Aug 22nd 2007

3. I don't know if Bush is a student of history but the writer of this article most certainly is not. Perhaps the Young Turks need a banner on their blog. "Need a facile, neat, simplistic, keyhole worldview? Click here?"

John Gleason at 2:20PM on Aug 22nd 2007

4. There is one huge difference between Vietnam and Iraq. Vietnam was a tremendously wrongheaded enterprise, but it was a response to a real threat of Soviet expansionism. Iraq is based on nothing but right-wing jingoism -- before we invaded, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States, not a threat to his neighbors, and indeed not even much of a threat to his own countrymen in the Kurdish north. In short: Vietnam was a mistake, Iraq is a con job.

Richter at 2:44PM on Aug 22nd 2007

5. I'm glad that someone (the young turks) has the right idea--Bush is nothing but stupid without Rove to move his mouth.

trecajerryjeff at 3:32PM on Aug 22nd 2007

6. Cenk,

Bush’s comparison to Viet Nam was limited to the effect of American withdrawal, not the military situation on the ground for American troops. By trying to make more of the President’s statements you are being dishonest.

Greg at 3:37PM on Aug 22nd 2007

7. Kent,

Vietnam was a "noble cause"? Is that meant as a joke? Vietnam was an atrocity committed by Americans for no reason at all. Napalming villages was even more pathetic than Hitler's death camps. Over 2 million Vietnamese died because America involved itself with what was a civil war. You are clearly just another of the useless militants who thinks that history is all about military campaigns. People like you are little more than fascists and un-American. The American military has not done anything "noble" since defeating Hitler.

Ted at 4:02PM on Aug 22nd 2007

8. #8 Ted

"American military has not done anything "noble"

since defeating Hitler"

Guess your history teacher in school omitted

that section about the "Berlin Airlift" or was

that intended as part of his/her indoctrination

plan for you and your fellow classmates ?

Let me say that he/she did an excellent job.

JZabchuk at 4:14PM on Aug 22nd 2007

9. . #8 Ted

"American military has not done anything "noble"

Geez, I guess the "old Teach" also forgot to

mention those sea going "baby killers" known as the

U.S. Coast Guard! There's a very un-noble bunch

sure hope you do not like going out on a boat.

JZabchuk at 4:22PM on Aug 22nd 2007

10. #8 Ted

"American military has not done anything "noble"


"Does the name "James Meredith" and the

place called "Little Rock" ring a bell ?

I am sure some retired vets from the 101st

could tell you about that.

JZabchuk at 4:30PM on Aug 22nd 2007

11. More gloss by the uber fraud. Bushit should be serving in Iraq unlike the manner in which he cut and ran from honorable military service during his "Viet Nam" bullshit history. But then, he would be a yellow slacker in Iraq just as he was previously.
Beyond this bottom-feeder's criminality, his election to the US Presidency reflects the lowest ebb of the American experience with democracy.
The sooner this low-life is in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity the better.
God knows His reasons for punishing our country with Bush and Cheney. We should pray to God for forgiveness and His help in ridding us of this dog-man.

Thomas Green at 4:31PM on Aug 22nd 2007

12. #11
You and others may be too young to emember VN and the USAF a/c used there.
FYI, Bush was a F-102 pilot in the ANG and the USAF decided that a/c was not suited for combat in VN...and in early '70 started sending them to the "Bone Yard" in Tucson, AZ.
Time to retrain to another a/c would not have been viable.
Sperry FSI started modifying these F-102 into target-drones iin 1973 !
As to the present conflict with Islamic terrorists, this should have started in 1979 when Oyr Embassy and US Citizens were captured by islamic radicals...including their present Leader !
Prez Carter and his Dems botched everything and then other incidents caused other Prez to be denied by the Dem Congress...etc!

George

Zcats6 at 6:29PM on Aug 22nd 2007

13. There's only one difference between Iraq and Vietnam:

George W. Bush had an exit strategy for Vietnam.

Chris at 10:05PM on Aug 22nd 2007

14. Vietnam was lost when the Kennedy administration signed a neutrality pact/treaty involving Laos and Cambodia and then had it enforced only on our side of the border while the Vietneamese violated it wholesale, and built the Ho Chi Mihn trail to use as their protected supply route thru these very same countries. These are rarely published facts that liberals tend to ignore but which Vietnam veterans consistently pointed to the time.
Unfortunately, today you only have to set up a web site and you can spew anything you like and call yourself a blogger, assuming all the airs and respectibility of a traditional journalist without having to pay your dues or even do any research, much less have verifiable sources concerniong your topic of the day. Most of todays bloggers were little kids during the Vietnam era and have learned what little they know on the subject by being indoctrinated in college by the original counter culture liberal elitists and college professors who themselevs avoided military service using the very ploys they regularily assert the neocons of using today. This being the case is it hardly surprising that the left wings regular negativity about Iraq is dominant in American media these days?
I believe President Bush's recent comments were intended to warn against what happened in SE Asia after we followed the Democrat Party's last suggestion and exit plan of note, the infamous "Cut and Run" solution which resulted in the chaos we now remember as the killing fields in Laos by Pol Pot and Co. Those who refuse to understand their history are doomed to repeat it. Over and over it seems to me. Let us not be so stupid folks!

Gere at 10:21AM on Aug 23rd 2007

15. It seems that Gere has as much of a sense of history concerning Vietnam as does Bush(I'm thinking his geography is not much better either). The Vietnam war had the beginnings of disaster following the end of WWII when the French refused to give up this part of thier colonial empire. During this time period Ho Chi Minh made numerous overtures to both the French and U.S towards achieving independence. During that time he he actually disolved the Indochinese Communist party as a compromise with the French. As the U.S OSS (forerunner of CIA) noted ","although he formerly favored Communist ideals, he now realized that such ideals were impracticable for his country, and that his policy now was one of republican nationalism". It would be some 10,000 days later before the American public would learn of this. Ho could not stand the idea of foreign troops occupying his country and was committed to driving them from Vietnam. Now that sounds like a historical parallel.

The most striking parallels between the two conflicts are as follows:(1)Gross misrepresentations by our leaders concerning the objectives, the rationales and the progress toward a conclusion of fighting. (2)An underestimation of the effect of having foreign troops occupying a country far from home. (3) The lack of a clearly defined military mission with obtainable and measurable goals, with adequate resources . (4) The failure of America's intelligence and foreign policy communities.(5) Finally the ability of the American public to decide the futility of these conflicts far in advance of the politicians.

The biggest difference in public opinion between Iraq and Vietnam is the draft. If some of the politicians and policy makers had their offspring in jeopardy or if the burden of fighting was spread across the demographic map then not only would there have been demonstrations similar to the late sixties but this president would be in as much jeopardy of impeachment as Nixon.

Pol Pot was the leader of Cambodia not Laos. He came to power only after the US had an illegal invasion of Cambodia. But then again Laos/Cambodia or Saudi Arabia/ Iraq, some people either have problems discerning small differences or perhaps they feel more comfortable spreading disinformation of any kind in order to justify any act.

Rick at 2:50PM on Aug 23rd 2007