On Casualties...

[Haggis]

I found this "Letter to the Editor" today on the ADM (PA) Intranet site.  It is very relevant to the discusssion at hand, and is presented here, with the usual disclaimer:

We must remain in combat
(The Ottawa Citizen, 2007.08.22, page: A11 , Andrew Parkes)

Re: It's like losing a brother, Aug. 20

It is a sad irony that Pte. Simon Longtin was killed 65 years to the day of the Dieppe raid, one of Canada's bloodiest battles. However, before the inevitable calls for the withdrawal of Canadian troops by opportunistic politicians, perhaps we can use this tragedy as a moment for reflection. Canada has lost 67 troops in six years of war in Afghanistan. The one day of the Dieppe raid cost 900 Canadian lives, in addition to 2,500 wounded. What if Canada had pulled out of the Second World War because the public was unwilling to endure these losses? Imagine no Canadian troops landing in Normandy on D−Day. No protecting convoys from U−boats trying to stop the flow of vital
supplies across the Atlantic. No Canadians in Italy driving back the forces of fascism. No Canadians liberating the Netherlands −− actions that are still remembered by the inhabitants to this day.

What if Canada had stayed, but only in a non−combat role, rebuilding damage in London. Would Britain and its Allies have defeated Nazi Germany without Canadian help in combat? The answer is a definitive "no!"

War is ugly. But it must be realized that the humanitarian side of rebuilding and reconstruction cannot come without the use of force to defeat a determined and dogmatic enemy much like it was against fascism and much like it is against the Taliban today.
Canadians are proud of our country's role in liberating Europe. It was hard, bloody and took years, but the ends justified the means. And 65 years from now when we look back on Afghanistan, let us ensure that we are not having to ask ourselves, "Why didn't we stay?"

Andrew Parkes,
Ottawa

 

[canadianblue]

I think to try and imagine Vietnam as being winnable is somewhat unrealistic. The Vietnamese had been fighting for well over three decades to become a nation. Most military historians will also say that the war was unwinnable, and Robert McNamara has also recently stated that their were large problems in Vietnam which inevitably would lead to defeat. As well the government of South Vietnam wasn't really your ideal liberal democracy to begin with. The domino effect has been shown to be fallacious at best, simply due to the shaky relationship between the USSR and China. While both did help supply Vietnam, Vietnam still was uneasy with the relationship, and in fact China and Vietnam had engaged in short conflict after the war.

As for not winning a single major battle, that's largely correct, however one has to be reminded that it was for the most part a guerilla war. The fact is if you have a small nation such as Vietnam going up against a superpower such as the United States, I'd assume they wouldn't want to meet on the field in the traditional sense. As well how much longer would the US have been in Vietnam if they had stayed, would it be into the 1980's or the 1990's, and would the US be content losing even more lives simply so Vietnam wouldn't become communist. We're now seeing the same thing in Iraq, if a group of people are going up against a military superpower they are probably going to engage in guerilla warfare.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/vietnam/vietnam_lessons.cfm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6960089.stm
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/04/27/revisionists/index.html

If any of you have noticed as well Bush stated that if the US had stayed in Vietnam it would have prevented the killing fields. However it can also be said that the US bombing missions in Cambodia may have served to bolster support for the Khmer Rouge. When groups of people are being bombed in many cases it doesn't crush their spirit, it actually strengthens their resolve.  Another point to make is that in the end it was actually the Vietnamese who the US was fighting against which removed the Khmer Rouge. In the end its all speculation since we can't go back in time and change history.

With regards to strengthening democracy and freedom abroad. I think that war isn't necessarily the way to do it, you can't simply bomb a country and expect them to become a democracy. If a country is going to take that militaristic of a stance then they should be going after all dictators as well.

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_02-13-2005/featured_0

In the end by all accounts Vietnam was a major policy blunder, and we can start some revisionist quest of history; however it won't change the consensus that Vietnam is an example of why a nation shouldn't become entangled in another nations affairs unless directly threatened.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

America could have maintained +30,000 troops in vietnam backed up by heavy naval and air support for a long time.
I am not saying they would have won, I just think that the pullout they did was not their best option at that point in time.

The deaths today remind me more of the Canadian Bomber Command deaths in ww2. Losing people in a steady manner rather than many at once.

 

[TCBF]

'What if Canada had pulled out of the Second World War because the public was unwilling to endure these losses? "

- As far as 'The Left' is concerned, WW2 was the last "Good War", and then only after 22 Jun 1941, when it became a just war to help Russia.  After WW2, we have found ouselves at odds with a series of seemingly backwards yet politically "progressive" nations, and thus on 'the wrong side of history'.

"In the end by all accounts Vietnam was a major policy blunder, and we can start some revisionist quest of history"

- Good policy, but you can't win a war by going home in the middle of it.  Cutting off all military aide to the friend you just left doesn't build confidence in your other friends, either.

"Vietnam is an example of why a nation shouldn't become entangled in another nations affairs unless directly threatened."

- Not at all.  But, so generous of you to make that offer: Iran and the DPRK have directly threatened the USA.  Your advice is?

 

[canadianblue]

I'd say use diplomacy, something which the United States under the Bush administration hasn't done, and ended up resulting in the deaths of over 3,500 of their soldiers. All of this to invade a nation which had no WMD's, no link to Osama Bin Laden, and three rival factions which had animosity between them.

Good policy, but you can't win a war by going home in the middle of it.  Cutting off all military aide to the friend you just left doesn't build confidence in your other friends, either.

Depends on who you consider your "friends". As much as winning is great, in the end its not really worth it if we want another million civilians killed, have the death toll get closer to 100,000, and further anger the rest of the region. The Vietnam War didn't help stop communism, if anything it simply made it easier for the Khmer Rouge to take over in Cambodia, and for Vietnam to become a united country.

As said before it takes more than firepower to actually win a war.

 

[geo]

I'd say use diplomacy, something which the United States under the Bush administration hasn't done, and ended up resulting in the deaths of over 3,500 of their soldiers. All of this to invade a nation which had no WMD's, no link to Osama Bin Laden, and three rival factions which had animosity between them.

Problem here is that there is no one with which to carry out said diplomacy.
There isn't a government in exile.  Iraq is completely fractured right now.

Who are we going to talk to - the Iranian gov't? the Syrian gov't? who?
At this stage, there is no one central Iraqi opposition council "at home" or "abroad"....
Short of going bye, bye like was done in Viet Nam, this war will continue for a long long time.

 

[canadianblue]

I was referring in how to deal with Iran and North Korea. As for Iraq the US had a government they could have talked to, and it shouldn't have been a surprise to them that an insurgency would eventually happen considering the hostility between the two groups. While Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, their were better ways of dealing with him, and their are plenty of despots just like right around the world which hasn't drawn the ire of the west.

Short of going bye, bye like was done in Viet Nam, this war will continue for a long long time.

The involvement in Vietnam lasted over a decade, I doubt that the American people will be content to see flag drapped coffins come in constantly for the next decade or two. Eventually their will be a pullout, I'd assume sooner rather than later considering how disenchanted American's are with the war and this administration in general.

 

[geo]

The past is.... past.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda.... didn't.  Sadam isn't there anymore and there isn't much we can do about it anymore.  Even if he was still alive today, doubt very much he could get a grip on the situation & put humpty dumpty back together again.

American politicians are already starting to talk about starting to withdraw troops by this XMass.

We'll have to see how they define "victory" and get that last soldier out of Dodge.

(but that's just me standing on the sideline)

 

[canadianblue]

Where exactly did I say I wanted Saddam back in power, I think it was more or less of a reflection of the mistakes which have been made.

Oddly enough even Republican's are starting to call for a pullout, however that's because more and more American's are shifting to the democrats.

 

[geo]

Siggy,
that's why I started with "woulda, coulda, shoulda, didn't"

also...
"As for Iraq the US had a government they could have talked to"
sorta sounds to me like you were talking about Saddam and his Baath party.

 

[canadianblue]

Prior to the war that is who they would have had to talk to.