[quote=“fred smith”]"…
Fourth, I also think it remains interesting that we lost the Vietnam War despite having such low death rates. Really from Tet in 1968 to 1972 when we really disengaged the numbers were falling. We had won. What we lost was the political will to remain there. …"[/quote]Mr. Smith, V -
While I do not dispute the generalities of your post, just to keep things technically correct allow me to add this bit of clarification.
The years of highest US deaths in Viet Nam during the Viet Nam War was 1968 & 1969, peaking with the highest # in 1969. They declined rapidly from this point, due as you correctly noted, to the ‘Vietnimization’ of the War.
And yes, it was during this period that we has also completely devasted the NVA. The Viet Cong cadre had all but been wiped out with their defeat of TET 1968. The scraps of NC were killed out by the NVA after their take-over in 1975.
The War was indeed lost by the politicians and not by the military. As post war testimony from North Vietnamese Generals plainly show.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]And yes, it was during this period that we has also completely devasted the NVA. The Viet Cong cadre had all but been wiped out with their defeat of TET 1968. The scraps of NC were killed out by the NVA after their take-over in 1975.
The War was indeed lost by the politicians and not by the military. As post war testimony from North Vietnamese Generals plainly show.[/quote]
Isn’t it a pity… no, a tragedy… that so many today seem still not to have learned the lesson of Viet Nam?
TM -
Soldiers learn. Politicians and Generals rarely do.
[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Shenme Niao”]
Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse.
The White House is completely disconnected from reality.
It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along.
The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.[/quote]
Could you explain how, based on the above graph, you can conclude that we are “losing” in Iraq?[/quote]
Oh, I’m sorry, the above is not my opinion. Its a direct quote from a US Senator. A Republican. Chuck Hagel. A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Oh, probably a quote from your so called “liberal media”. Actually its from US News and World Report.
Let’s savor it one more time. “The White House is completely disconnected from reality,” said Hagel. “It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq,” said Hagel, who added that increasingly, fellow Republicans are coming to share his view. “More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned,” he said. I guess some clowns here on Forumosa think they know better though.
“He made his comments [a couple days ago] as insurgent attacks in Iraq are at an all-time high and as a growing number of lawmakers have begun calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops there.” That is the connection to the graph. One other interesting thing about the graph is that it took 500,000 troops and 13 years to LOSE in Vietnam. Even Rush Bimbaugh loaded up on Dilaudid would have to admit that the US does not have the stomach for that in Iraq.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
Also, if the number of deaths/casualties inflicted on enemy combatants is a measure of how well or poorly one side is doing in a war… how would you characterize the performance of the terrorists-insurgents? Are they winning or losing? Or, do you figure this is a lose-lose situation?[/quote]
Well, the US refuses to count what is euphemistically called collateral damage, so its hard to say. Actually they must certainly have secret counts but refuse to release them. So yes, I figure its a lose-lose situation.
[quote=“Shenme Niao”]
Things aren’t getting better; they’re getting worse.
The White House is completely disconnected from reality.
It’s like they’re just making it up as they go along.
The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.[/quote]
I don’t care who said it. You posted it and I assume you agree with the notion that we are losing in Iraq.
Now, can you please answer the question?
Well, why don’t you be a genius and explain to us “clowns” how it is that the graph you posted indicates that we are “losing” in Iraq?
I’ve already reminded you that in WW2 the US suffered increased casualties each year of the war… yet, just as we were suffering from the greatest number of casualties, both the Germans and Japanese decided to surrender unconditionally to us. I think TC has shown, and Vietnamese generals have agreed, that we were winning in Vietnam at the time we were suffering our highest rate of casualties. Given this, and the obvious fact that casualties increase when the enemy is engaged, how do you conclude that increased casualties in Iraq indicate that we are losing there?
Sounds like some folks failed to learn the lesson of Viet Nam, eh?
Huh? This “clown” still doesn’t get it. You have merely repeated yourself and have not answered my question with any new explanation.
Well, that means what?
[quote=“Tigerman”]
Also, if the number of deaths/casualties inflicted on enemy combatants is a measure of how well or poorly one side is doing in a war… how would you characterize the performance of the terrorists-insurgents? Are they winning or losing? Or, do you figure this is a lose-lose situation?[/quote]
You still haven’t answered my simple question… :s
[quote=“fred smith”]Um news flash to MFGR:
Even before the Iraq war, it was 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent split. I think that has continued though Bush’s share of the vote increased to 51.5 percent. The nation is equally divided. That is news to you after five years?
Therefore, I am not shocked or amazed that fully half the American people do not approve of Bush or his policies.[/quote]
Fred, I believe you are talking about the results of the election for President. We both know that is not the same thing that Mofa has posted - poll results in 2005 of the opinion of the American public regarding the administration’s handling of foreign policy, specifically Iraq.
A valid point too, Tigerman - the American people are shifting their attitude about the war. If I remember my history correctly, a major reason the US pulled out of Vietnam was due to overwhelming lack of support from the folks at home in the States. Apparently, they didn’t believe it was a war worth fighting.
Bodo
Regarding the debate about the graph, it doesn’t prove we are losing or winning the war. It’s what is termed . . . . a red herring.
It is interesting, though, and I’m glad it was posted. The comments on the Vietnam war, and troop levels etc. also interesting. Thanks for sharing.
There seems to be an argument regarding what the bench marks of success in this war are. Can’t know if we’re succeeding if we don’t know where we’re going, right? Have not done an exhaustive search of what the criteria for success in Iraq are. Hell, I haven’t done any research at all, so feel free to add to this list or modify it:
Elections - check
Constitution - not there yet
Electricity, water, and other basic services - not there yet (Despite what Fred says. I need some documentation, Fred.)
Security - not there yet
Anyone else, please jump in . . . . .
Bodo
By the way, I agree with McCain - shut up or put up already.
I agree with you Bodo – the graph does a good enough job presenting the information, but clearly does not tell us anything one way or the other about how successful the larger effort has been.
What was the “shut up or put up” McCain quote you mentioned?
Tigerman – Better get to work with the bucket and mop to clean up the blood after the reaming you’ve just gotten from ShenmeNiao’s quoting of Chuck Hagel, Republican senator. Hook, line and sinker is another way to put it.
The funny thing is that the Republicans like Hagel are now catching the drift of American sentiment and are starting to go for their own self interest, which means feeding internally upon fellow Republicans.
Danforth, McCain, Hagel, Bereuter, and the others are like GOP white blood cells trying to take a bite on the cancer of American politics.
Huh? What are you talking about MFGR? Regardless of who says what, how does that change the fact that Tigerman is talking about the graph and what it proves or does not prove?
Bode:
I have already pointed out that my figures were for the presidential election percentages but also noted that they are very much in line with the support for the Iraq war over time. No surprise that our nation is divided 50-50. The fact that support for the Iraq War is 47 percent closely mirrors I believe the levels at the time Bush wanted to launch the war. If this is incorrect, I would be happy to have it pointed out to me. Again, I think this represents the political realities in today’s America not a sudden loss of support for the effort no matter how desperate MFGR is to paint it as such. Anyway, I will be back in the Middle East again for a week and I fully expect to see even more progress. Funny that. I mean with things being so gloomy and bad and all. haha
Huh? Would you like me to recommend a good English bushiban for you to attend? How does ShenmeNiao’s post or Hagel’s statement negate or in any way refute what I have been ASKING? I have been asking you and others to explain how increased casualty rates indicate that we are losing in Iraq. If anything, ShenmeNiao’s post agrees with me… not you.
Dang, mofangongren, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt for you… for you its a permanent mental condition… 
Game over, mofangongren… you lose… better luck next time. 
As you (or someone) have demonstrated using the Vietnam War as an example, increased casualties may not be the best way to measure whether or not the war is being lost. However, casualties do influence public opinion as Shenme Niao and MGFR have pointed out. And, whether we like it or not, if the people believe strongly enough that the war would be better ended - it will happen. Also, a lesson from Vietnam.
Bodo
[quote=“Tigerman”]
. . . Thus, if you agree that an increase in casualties incurred does not necessarily indicate a losing performance, then I would greatly appreciate your explaining why increased US casualties in Iraq indicate that we are losing there.
I think my question is both simple and fair. Can you respond in a simple and fair manner?[/quote]
"American casualties from bomb attacks in Iraq have reached new heights in the last two months as insurgents have begun to deploy devices that leave armored vehicles increasingly vulnerable, according to military records.
Last month (May, 2005) there were about 700 attacks against American forces using so-called improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s, the highest number since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the American military command in Iraq and a senior Pentagon military official. Attacks on Iraqis also reached unprecedented levels, Lt. Gen. John Vines, a senior American ground commander in Iraq, told reporters on Tuesday.
The surge in attacks, the officials say, has coincided with the appearance of significant advancements in bomb design, including the use of “shaped” charges that concentrate the blast and give it a better chance of penetrating armored vehicles, causing higher casualties.
Another change, a senior military officer said, has been the detonation of explosives by infrared lasers, an innovation aimed at bypassing electronic jammers used to block radio-wave detonators.
6 months later, 500 more dead US soldiers, and they’re just as strong as ever.
We’re just providing them with a training ground for urban terrorism.
And many reasons to bring it to other cities. Wonder how they’ll spin the general.
Maybe they’ll try to claim he plans to run for President…
Abizaid: Insurgency still strong
US commander in Gulf contradicts statements of Cheney, Rumsfeld.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
In a startling example of mixed messages, Gen. John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Persian Gulf, gave testimony to Congress Thursday that directly contradicted recent statements by the vice president and the secretary of defense. Canada’s Globe and Mail reports that Gen. Abizaid "conceded yesterday that the Iraqi insurgency is as strong as it was six months ago, countering declarations by Vice President Dick Cheney that the revolt is ‘in its last throes.’ "
"In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I'd say it's about the same as it was," he said, declining to specifically criticize Mr. Cheney's upbeat assessment of the continuing conflict.
Gen. Abizaid also said that there are more foreign fighters entering Iraq today than there were six months ago. On Wednesday, a classified CIA document that was leaked to the media showed that the war in Iraq is becoming a urban warfare training ground for many of these foreign fighters. He also recently said there would be a surge in violence in Iraq, particularly against “soft targets” such as civilians and aid workers, as insurgents try to disrupt elections slated for September…
[quote=“Tigerman”]. . . Thus, if you agree that an increase in casualties incurred does not necessarily indicate a losing performance, then I would greatly appreciate your explaining why increased US casualties in Iraq indicate that we are losing there.
I think my question is both simple and fair. Can you respond in a simple and fair manner?[/quote]
[quote=“spook”]"American casualties from bomb attacks in Iraq have reached new heights in the last two months as insurgents have begun to deploy devices that leave armored vehicles increasingly vulnerable, according to military records.
Last month (May, 2005) there were about 700 attacks against American forces using so-called improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s, the highest number since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the American military command in Iraq and a senior Pentagon military official. Attacks on Iraqis also reached unprecedented levels, Lt. Gen. John Vines, a senior American ground commander in Iraq, told reporters on Tuesday.
The surge in attacks, the officials say, has coincided with the appearance of significant advancements in bomb design, including the use of “shaped” charges that concentrate the blast and give it a better chance of penetrating armored vehicles, causing higher casualties.
Another change, a senior military officer said, has been the detonation of explosives by infrared lasers, an innovation aimed at bypassing electronic jammers used to block radio-wave detonators.[/quote]
spook,
I am not denying that attacks and the effectiveness of the same have increased. However, your response does not address my question.
Near the end of WW2 in the Pacific, the Japanese employed a desparate, and very deadly effective means of attacking the US Navy… Kamakazi pilots wreaked havoc on our ships and took many US lives.
But, would you say that the US was losing in the Pacific when the Kamakazis were inflicting horrible casualties on us?
I’m just wondering what people think the US should do in Iraq. Fine, the American people are starting to wake up and realize that it may have been a mistake to attack Iraq but it’s too late. Iraq has been attacked and they can’t just walk away now can they? Do the Americans et al just leave and let the Iraqis and others battle it out until only one group is left? A sort of winner take all. I have read a lot about how America should not have attacked Iraq, etc but no one (on the left or right) seems to have any idea how to get out(this is assuming that the left and right want out). I have read a few articles about how the US is starting to make contact with the insurgents to discuss issues. I guess this is a start but there are a lot of different groups out there so even if you talk to one group there are still other groups trying to blow you up.
Is there a relatively bloodless way out or do the choices simply boil down to the US stays and continues to fight or they leave and let the Iraqis fight it out (although this assumes that the Iraqis will continue to fight once the US has left)
I am directing these comments more to the people who feel that the Americans should not be there since I think the people on the right want them to stay for ever (I could be wrong about this). At this point I don’t see much of a way out unless these contacts with the insurgents get off the ground a bit more and the government institutions can be strengthened a lot more than they are right now.
leave. now. close down the bases, and get out (take Bremer’s decrees with them). pay reparations.
they probably won’t. but they can.
they (u.s. pro-war elites) threatened bloodbath to keep us fighting in vietnam…
there is a bi-partisan group in the house calling for the u.s. to withdraw in 2006. i think sooner would be better.
what’s worse is that the different groups are starting to fight each other about the approach to take with the americans. our very presence may well be causing a civil war as we speak.
there is no guarenteed bloodless way out. this war is stupid. the iraqis have a right to determine their own future.
your point is taken, but we should remember not everyone on the right supports (now or in 2003) this invasion. the powerful did not listen to millions of us before the war, why would they now? (i think a lot of them do want bases there for a long long time.)
it’s called pack your bags and go home. the iraqis have a right to self determination.
If the Iraqis can go to the polls to elect their government they can go to the polls to determine whether they want America’s continued presence. America shouldn’t have ever invaded, but just leaving isn’t right either. So let the Iraqis decide.
i think this is a compelling examination of the Irag quagmire…
Dr. Brzezinski Delivers Democratic Radio Address
June 24, 2005
This week, former National Security Advisor Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski gave the Democratic Radio Address.
Good morning. I’m Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Carter.
Our soldiers in Iraq are serving with great courage and honor. We owe them our heartfelt thanks for their valor, their patriotism, and the sacrifices they are making for our country.
At the same time, our nation also deserves an honest explanation for how we ended up in Iraq. And we deserve a realistic definition of success for a war that increasingly threatens to become a quagmire.
Unfortunately, we are getting neither from the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration used the brutal attacks of September 11th to justify war with Iraq, but no link to Iraq was ever found. It went to war claiming Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, but they were never found. The Administration said it was misled, but no one has been held accountable.
Our soldiers were sent into war without adequate intelligence as to what they would confront, without the equipment needed to keep them safe, and without a plan for what would happen after the fall of Baghdad.
This war has been conducted with tactical and strategic incompetence. And two years later, America finds itself more isolated than ever before, the object of unprecedented international mistrust. As a result, we are not as safe as we should be here at home.
In fact, the war has turned Iraq into the world’s most effective terrorist training camp. And Osama bin Laden - the mastermind of the September 11th attacks - is still at large more than three years later.
Vice President Cheney insists that the “insurgency is in its last throes”, but Central Command Chief General John Abizad has flatly disputed that assertion. The violence in Iraq continues at increasing rates and American casualties continue to mount.
President Bush says we are “making progress” even as the Pentagon warns us that the Army Reserve is rapidly turning into a “broken” force.
Patriotism and love of country does not demand endless sacrifice on the part of our troops in a war justified by slogans. To ensure a safe and secure America, we have a responsibility to ask how we got to this point and where we are going from here.
For the first time in our history, America is conducting a war without any effort at bipartisan consultation on our tactics, on our strategy, and on our goals.
The President can’t change the circumstances in which we went to war. He can’t make up for the mistakes that have been made. But surely he can move forward in a responsible way.
The President should provide the American people with a plan describing the key elements of a successful strategy in Iraq. He should explain clearly and credibly what must be achieved before our troops can come home. And then he should lay out what he needs in order to achieve that goal.
Our soldiers don’t need fancy slogans to do their duty. But to accomplish their mission, they need honesty and real leadership based on genuine national unity.
I am Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Thank you for listening.
This is for you naysayers out there: A variation of sorts.