Just watch the Brits get the blame for America's chaotic withdrawal
31st August 2007
Daily Mail
Just for a change, President Bush has got it right - sort of.
There is, indeed, a comparison, an alarming one, between the humiliating end of the war in Vietnam and what can (and will) happen in Iraq.
When the Americans were finally defeated in Vietnam, after claiming they were handing back the country to its shambling government in the South, there were dreadful scenes at the U.S. Embassy.
Along with the last few Americans fleeing by helicopter to the airfield were thousands of South Vietnamese who had worked with the U.S. forces, frantically but vainly besieging the building as they sought escape for themselves and their families.
They knew they would be marked men when the North Vietnamese took over.
We can't have that sort of thing happening again, says Bush, urging support for his "surge" and a renewed effort in Baghdad. But how can it be avoided?
It is the mechanics of withdrawal, not just defeat itself, which promises a nightmare, in some ways worse than Vietnam. There, at least, the main enemy forces were very far away and did not arrive in the capital for a long time.
In Iraq the enemy is on the doorstep and just waiting for the chance to close in with all the weapons at its disposal as the American forces are run down from 160,000 to nil.
President George Bush admitted in a TV interview with ABC news that current fighting in Iraq could be compared to Vietnam
And what about the Iraqis (and their families) who have worked for the Americans and, thus, are also marked men?
They, too, will be besieging the base, pleading for evacuation.
In theory, the Iraqi army would be protecting an American withdrawal. But few if any Iraqi soldiers will wish to be identified as helpers to the Americans.
And, by the way, we should not make too comfortable a conclusion about our own final withdrawal from Basra. That could also be a messy affair.
I seem to remember warning about three years ago that the only choice the U.S. and British forces really had was the size and timing of their eventual humiliation.
In the circumstances, Bush's apparently bizarre move in recalling Vietnam makes a certain sense.
He needs to postpone the inevitable - the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces - at least until his successor is sworn in, in 2009.
Then the unfortunate newcomer can be saddled with the prospect of presiding over the final disaster.
Bush hopes that from his ranch in Texas he will be able to claim that it was lack of resolve on the part of the new President which led to the final collapse of the Iraq venture.
But in case it is unavoidable earlier, the excuses are being carefully prepared.
Bush needs to postpone the inevitable - the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces - at least until his successor is sworn in
You see, the Democrats in Congress failed to support, finance or enlarge the American presence.
And/or the British let the Americans down by withdrawing wholly or mainly from Basra, thus cutting off the American supply route and opening up that area to the flow of arms from Iran.
His bloodcurdling threats against Tehran also make sense in this context.
He brands the Iranians as a major source of the problem; and the removal of the British presence in the south will thus be the reason behind an American defeat.
The Brits let us down, will be the cry. You have been warned.
Meanwhile, though you might have thought defeat in Iraq would knock some sense into the blockheads who run our affairs, we have the worsening position in Afghanistan.
We are told that there, in contrast to Iraq, we must win or at least succeed. Nobody knows what that means.
There is one particularly significant difference between the Iraq and Afghan ventures.
In Iraq much of the population spend their time fighting each other. In Afghanistan they tend to unite to fight the common enemy. And they are bound to win.
dailymail.co.uk
31st August 2007
Daily Mail
Just for a change, President Bush has got it right - sort of.
There is, indeed, a comparison, an alarming one, between the humiliating end of the war in Vietnam and what can (and will) happen in Iraq.
When the Americans were finally defeated in Vietnam, after claiming they were handing back the country to its shambling government in the South, there were dreadful scenes at the U.S. Embassy.
Along with the last few Americans fleeing by helicopter to the airfield were thousands of South Vietnamese who had worked with the U.S. forces, frantically but vainly besieging the building as they sought escape for themselves and their families.
They knew they would be marked men when the North Vietnamese took over.
We can't have that sort of thing happening again, says Bush, urging support for his "surge" and a renewed effort in Baghdad. But how can it be avoided?
It is the mechanics of withdrawal, not just defeat itself, which promises a nightmare, in some ways worse than Vietnam. There, at least, the main enemy forces were very far away and did not arrive in the capital for a long time.
In Iraq the enemy is on the doorstep and just waiting for the chance to close in with all the weapons at its disposal as the American forces are run down from 160,000 to nil.
President George Bush admitted in a TV interview with ABC news that current fighting in Iraq could be compared to Vietnam
And what about the Iraqis (and their families) who have worked for the Americans and, thus, are also marked men?
They, too, will be besieging the base, pleading for evacuation.
In theory, the Iraqi army would be protecting an American withdrawal. But few if any Iraqi soldiers will wish to be identified as helpers to the Americans.
And, by the way, we should not make too comfortable a conclusion about our own final withdrawal from Basra. That could also be a messy affair.
I seem to remember warning about three years ago that the only choice the U.S. and British forces really had was the size and timing of their eventual humiliation.
In the circumstances, Bush's apparently bizarre move in recalling Vietnam makes a certain sense.
He needs to postpone the inevitable - the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces - at least until his successor is sworn in, in 2009.
Then the unfortunate newcomer can be saddled with the prospect of presiding over the final disaster.
Bush hopes that from his ranch in Texas he will be able to claim that it was lack of resolve on the part of the new President which led to the final collapse of the Iraq venture.
But in case it is unavoidable earlier, the excuses are being carefully prepared.
Bush needs to postpone the inevitable - the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces - at least until his successor is sworn in
You see, the Democrats in Congress failed to support, finance or enlarge the American presence.
And/or the British let the Americans down by withdrawing wholly or mainly from Basra, thus cutting off the American supply route and opening up that area to the flow of arms from Iran.
His bloodcurdling threats against Tehran also make sense in this context.
He brands the Iranians as a major source of the problem; and the removal of the British presence in the south will thus be the reason behind an American defeat.
The Brits let us down, will be the cry. You have been warned.
Meanwhile, though you might have thought defeat in Iraq would knock some sense into the blockheads who run our affairs, we have the worsening position in Afghanistan.
We are told that there, in contrast to Iraq, we must win or at least succeed. Nobody knows what that means.
There is one particularly significant difference between the Iraq and Afghan ventures.
In Iraq much of the population spend their time fighting each other. In Afghanistan they tend to unite to fight the common enemy. And they are bound to win.
dailymail.co.uk
)