Keegan: Iraq is Not a Vietnam

Don't see John Keegan very often in the OpEds. But he, as a military historian, has come out to point out clearly that Iraq has very little to compare with Vietnam. I'm going to skip the majority of the post, since those who read here know most of that. I will quote the part that agrees with the portion of the argument that I commonly use regarding the Vietnamization of the Iraq war:

It was, however, the American rather than the foreign media who decided on the verdict. The American media had begun by supporting the war. As it dragged on, however, without any end in sight and with the promised military victory constantly postponed, American newspapers and - critically - the evening television programmes began to treat war news as a bad story.

The media were extremely influential, particularly at such places as university campuses and the firesides of American families whose sons had been conscripted for service. When casualties of 150 a week began to be reported, the war began to be increasingly unpopular. President Johnson, who was temperamentally oversensitive to criticism, believed that one particular broadcast by Walter Cronkite in February 1968, just after Tet, lost him Middle America. "If I've lost Kronkite," he said to his staff, "I have lost the war."

President Bush must now expect that America's television anchormen will be looking for a similar opportunity to damage him. If they find it, the blame will be the President's alone.

The Vietnam war was not lost on the battlefield, but in the American media's treatment of news from the front line.

You also have to get a chuckle over the MSM's inability to understand the difference between strategy and tactics. I watched Tony Snow's press conference today and the battle the press took to him on what strategy and tactics mean. Frankly it got quite confusing, but I believe Snow had it correct and the multiple reporters were pretty much out to lunch. I'll have to link the press briefing transcript when it get's posted. Or you can look here for the briefing on Oct. 20th.

The reason that tactics vs. strategy is important is that the Bush administration has been making tactical changes all along. Well, the military has for the most part, and I'm sure Rumsfeld has been involved in some of the decisions at his level. The strategy on the other hand has remained the same, secure Iraq and leave with a stable democracy in place. I'm probably oversimplifying, but since the anti-war crowd gets to oversimplify with their contention that it's a complete failure, what the hey.

Then there is the CNN report on what Bush and Snow have been saying:

"One of the reasons you're seeing more casualties is the enemy is active and so are our troops, along with Iraqis," Bush said in a brief interview with The Associated Press.

He said he planned consultations within the next few days with Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, who leads the U.S.-led Multinational Forces in Iraq.

"We are constantly adjusting our tactics so we can achieve the objectives and right now, it's tough," the president said. "It's tough on the families who've lost a loved one. It's tough for our citizens who look at it on TV. It's hard on the Iraqis. They've lost a lot of life."

He declined to say, though, whether he thought a change in tactics was necessary.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news conference, said the government of Iraq is going to have to take over its country's security "sooner rather than later."

He said the biggest mistake would be to not continue turning regions of the country over to the Iraqis, even if it means that the U.S. has to go back and retake control because the Iraqis are overwhelmed. He did not elaborate.

The president has often said that U.S. goals in Iraq remain the same: to have a country that can sustain itself, govern itself and help in the war on terror.

I don't know where they want to take this. The Iraq Study Group under James Baker hasn't yet arrived, but the press has certainly been putting a lot into how Baker will call for a complete change in Strategy. I don't know exactly with what he was tasked with and whether is was tactical or strategic.

But one option being considered reportedly would call for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops and another would urge Washington to open a dialogue with Syria and Iran -- both rejected in the past by Bush.

Baker, who has a long history of trying to help the Bush family out of tight spots, has signaled that he believes a change in course is necessary.

"Everybody knows how close I am to the Bush family. But if our report is going to be worth anything, it has to be independent and it has to be our telling it like it is. And I'm here to tell you that's the way it's going to be, as far as I'm concerned," Baker told PBS' "Newshour."

That one is strategic, and frankly is a complete waste of time. Imagine turning to Syria and Iran, two of the largest supporters of terrorism in the region, for assistance in stabilizing Iraq. You think Iraq is in civil war now? Wait till that bit of help is asked for. Neither of those countries have any interest in seeing success in Iraq, and would benefit hugely by letting it fall to pieces. They then could enforce a hegemony in the respective religious sectors and ensure that Iraq becomes a terror is haven. The only difference will be that it will be under their control and could easily be utilized to fight against the western world.

Now the report isn't supposed to be released until after the elections on November 7, but I have this feeling that we'll be seeing certain parts that work against the Administration. I'm thinking we have already heard of some of the discussions in the above suggestions.

Hamilton told Reuters that no decisions have been made on what recommendations will be included in the group's final report, the writing of which is just now under way.

He emphasized the group's independence.

"We will write our own report. It will not be written in the White House or in the Congress, and it will not be submitted to somebody to amend or modify," he said.

"This will be the report of the 10 members of the Iraq Study Group. We are going to be do our best to reach a consensus but I can't make a guarantee...We will make foreign policy recommendations," he said.

An official familiar with the group's deliberations said the members are clearly headed toward recommending changes and not an endorsement of what many see as Bush's "stay the course" strategy.

"Bush's rhetoric is all stay the course and this one isn't going to be about stay the course. It's about fixing the course we're on," the official said.

But Baker warned against expecting a "magic bullet."

"It is very, very difficult," he told the World Affairs Council of Houston on Tuesday. "So anybody who thinks that somehow we're going to come up with something that is going to totally solve the problem is engaging in wishful thinking."

Bush has been reluctant to make a major change in course in Iraq, seeing the conflict as a central front in the war on terrorism and insisting that to withdraw prematurely would embolden America's enemies.

You have to love how Bush's "stay-the-course" is always put out there as meaning they aren't going to do anything different. No matter how many times the military talks about tactical changes. I'd say the same about the "cut-and-run" crowd if I could, but they offer nothing towards tactical changes and just want to "redeploy" to somewhere else. The contention of fast reaction forces has some serious level of silliness attached to it. With the size of Iraq, where could you actually have a fast reaction force? Pull out the present infrastructure and you have a force that flies in quickly fights a little and hopes that logistics can catch up. That is a certainty for disaster.

Frankly, I don't hold much hope from the Baker study group.