To the Left, every war seems always another Vietnam. To Charles Krauthammer, every enemy of the United States seems always another Hitler. Brendan Nyhan, through the wonders of Nexis, reveals that Krauthammer has over the years used the same quote from the Senator William Borah--"Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."--to describe American diplomatic responses to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Every writer returns to the same themes--certainly I do--but to see American foreign policy consistently through the lens of Munich in 1938 is to mishape present realities to fit a mold created by the distant, and different, past. Nyhan writes: "isn't it possible that our choices on these issues are frequently more complex than appease/not appease? You can't understand foreign policy using a single, simplistic mental model."

Wow, you've really got the Left there. That's an impressive list of five wars, all of which the Left called "another Vietnam"! First they called the Iraq war another Vietnam. Then they called the Iraq war another Vietnam. Then the Iraq war, the Iraq war, and the Iraq war. They just hurl that accusation at every war, don't they?

I don't agree with the diss of the left, but everything that came after was pure gold :)

Brian: No crime in using Iraq to generally illustrate the Left's Vietnam syndrome, is there? Must I provide source citations showing leftists comparing every major boots-on-the-ground military intervention since Vietnam to Vietnam? C'mon. Even wars in which American troops didn't end up fighting, e.g., Nicaragua, elicit warnings of another Vietnam from the Left.

I oppose, and have always opposed, the Iraq war, but I also oppose, and have always opposed, every hackneyed claim that it's a "war for oil," or that it's another Vietnam. The links that I provide show a diverse group of leftists making the Iraq-Vietnam comparison, a comparison that doesn't hold, particularly when you consider the troop commitments of America in both wars and the death counts (in Iraq, American deaths are less than 5% what they were in Vietnam).

Since Vietnam, Brian, what boots-on-the-ground war has America fought, in which a significant number of leftists didn't compare the action to Vietnam? I don't remember any such comparisons during Panama or Grenada--that doesn't mean that they didn't happen--but I do remember them for Lebanon, Gulf War I, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Are you denying this?

Dan, if you set aside your memories of the dirty libs overreaching in the 1980's, wouldn't you say that of all the wars the US has faught since Vietnam, this Iraq war is the one with the most paralells?

And if so shouldn't we listen to history and get out?

As Ron Paul likes to say, Vietnam is one of the most pro-American countries in the world right now. Why? Because we're trading with it, not invading it.

Vietnam and Iraq share no similarities other than the fact that they are both counter-insurgency campaigns.

Unless you are willing to suggest that every counter-insurgency campaign is essentially equatable with Vietnam, you shouldn't be comparing Iraq with Vietnam.

NOTE: Even assuming you want to suggest there is still an insurgency, of sorts, in Iraq.

I am of the mind that the Iraq War ended some time ago in American victory, and what we have been attempting to interfere with since is the Iraqi Civil War.

Issues should largely be discussed on their own merits. For purposes of illustration, it can be clarifying to refer to a somewhat an@logous past event, but the basic arguments about Iraq, or any issue, must lie within that issue. Referring to Viet Nam and Hitler too often paper over a weak understanding the problem at hand. Those historic lessons are valuable but limited.

The circumstances of why we went into both wars are different, but the ways in which both were (and are) being fought is very similar. Bottom line is that without a full and all out offensive, unafraid to use our superior weaponry, this conflict will drag on as Viet Nam did and it will be un-winnable. I was talking to a kid yesterday who was heading back to Iraq for his second tour. His contention was that we are fighting four or five different little wars over there, the worst of which being the PR war. He believed that all of them, at this time, are not going particularly well and that the Iraqis are far from taking care of themselves. This one’s a loser folks. Frankly, I think we’re more in danger of terrorism from our Southern Borders than we are from terrorism in Iraq.

We are incapable of using the application of our military might to affect the Iraqi Civil War in any real way. The best we could do is pick a side, steamroll the others, and leave. Then the war would begin again as soon as we were gone, resentment for each other and for us higher than ever before. Iraqis are not a unified people, any attempt to force them to live in a single nation is doomed to failure or to perpetual civil war, as has existed in Iraq since 1919.

We have achieved all of our objectives in Iraq. Saddam has been overthrown, we have aided the Iraqis in creating a constitutional republic and transferred sovereignty to them. Whether they will keep it is something they must decide for themselves. We have begun construction of fourteen permanent US military bases in Iraq and have re-established our regional dominance in the Middle East. It no longer serves our strategic interests to occupy Iraq, and the conflict has proceeded beyond the point where our military can accomplish any real objectives.

Ben-T, I'm confused. Haven't you in the past been a staunch advocate of staying and fighting them into oblivion? Not being critical or obstinate here. Just don't understand this most recent sentiment. I must have been misreading previous posts.

Asdf, some great points there.

The millitary in general was against this war.

I was in favor of staying in Iraq until such a time as America's objectives were completed.

Now they have been. Adding additional objectives is mission creep.

NOTE:

I support leaving in our war fighting capacity in Iraq. I do not support leaving the bases that we have constructed there. You might be thinking about that?

We're more in agreement than I thought then. I don't believe in complete withdrawal (as we should maintain some presence), just the withdrawal of the majority of troops that are fighting the unwinnable guerilla war and the war for the minds of the Iraqis. At this point, either the good Iraqis who want law and order get it, or they don't.

Dan:

Your claim is absurd. First of all, you are leveling it against an entire group of people. Your statement, "To the Left, every war seems always another Vietnam", literally means that all people belonging to "The Left" believe every war will become another Vietnam war. Ironically, you made this statement while simultaneously complaining about hyperbole. Do you really believe that no one on the left has ever viewed a war after the Vietnam war as winnable and worth fighting? I doubt it.

It would have been more responsible to say that most people on the left see every war as a repeat of Vietnam. That would have been a more accurate expression of what you believe. The problem for you is that this wording would also make obvious what you actually need to prove--that the majority of liberals always see a war as a Vietnam repeat. But if you pick your language carefully, you can treat "the Left" as a single entity with one point of view and one will. Suddenly one link, or perhaps five links, can be used to demonstrate the opinion of The Entity.

There is no reason to show examples of liberals comparing wars to Vietnam. It wouldn't prove anything. What you need to find are public opinion polls on past wars, broken down by political leanings. That is what would provide accurate information on how wars are viewed by different groups. Will it be hard to find such polls? Yeah, probably. You picked a claim that is hard to prove.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/3581/patsig6rm5.jpg

That's something today's republicans need to understand.

When you speak of "The Left", why don't you just say "The French"? Or better yet "The Pacifists".
Only "The Brave" win wars and "The Fearful" deserve their women in burkas.