Posted on 11/28/2004 10:17:11 PM PST by Former Military Chick
I was commissioned just after the Vietnam war ended. The few of my contemporaries left are Colonels and Generals, with no Vietnam experience.
Where does the press get their experience from; Dan Rather?
You might not be aware that the word "Vietnam" appears four times in the article body, in comparisons to Iraq.
You might consider reading the article before commenting.
So....
Since there are palm trees and armed riverboats it's Vietnam? Is that the point?
Because besides those 2 things, I'm not really getting the comparison.
New York Times reporters shouldn't have taken the brown acid at Woodstock. It was not particularly very good.
Now they're having a flashback, stuck in a drug-induced sixties quagmire.
The Vietnam angle was probably put in by the rewrite desk or the editors as they were most likely at Woodstock. The only way this guy could have gotten some of that Woodstock special is from his mother's teat.
It may not be another "Vietnam," but these b@$tards read Uncle Ho's and Gen. Giap's books. Just reported by Charles Sabine from Baghdad on the Imus program: many US casualties in an attack on a large convoy on the Airport Highway.
I'm beginning to come to the conclusion, just as in Nam, you can't help people who don't want to help themselves. Somethings got to change.
I'm not pleased that we haven't solved the road side bomb issue. Large convoys are too tempting and routes need to be swept. If you watch the Blackwater video posted on FR, you can see what it takes to transit. I still remain confident that there will be a successful outcome.
In the meantime we're still remembering your son.
Our “esteemed” news media is trying its best to make Iraq another Viet Nam. Our military won, but the media, led by such celebrities as Walter Cronkite eroded public support with misinformation and propaganda.
It’s easy to see that Cronkite is still the media’s icon.
Looks like the NYT would be thrilled that this experience in Iraq might bring forth another super-hero like JF'nK. (In choosing to run stories like this, they don't have to run stories about our troops' great victory in Fallujah. They never give up, do they?)
OK, one more time. The American military did not lose in Vietnam. Not only did the U.S. military win every single major engagement, Nixon's bombing of N Vietnam won a peace treaty by which the N Vietnamese withdrew from the south.
Our actual ground involvement in Viet Nam was from mid 1965 (Ia Drang Valley) through mid 1968 (Tet Counteroffensive). After Tet it was very difficult to find NVA/VC troops in South Viet Nam.
Thanks, JVb, I appreciate that.
I can't get out of my head that what we are doing to our military (specifically, the Marine Corp and the US Army) is what George Allen did to the Redskins years ago - we are mortgaging the future. With the committments now in force, we need a much larger Corp and Army. Joe Galloway may be a leftie but he brings up some good points on a thread now running.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Draft is not a dirty word. If this War that we are engaged in is worth fighting, then the entire country needs to be involved. W missed the chance in the first weeks after 9-11 to have gotten the authority to draft. It would be there if we needed it, but now it would take too much political currency to make it happen.
We need to quit comparing any of this to Vietnam and start equating it to WWII as a minumum.
Where does the press get their experience from; Dan Rather?
The ranting of Walter Cronkite.
In Hue three battalions of about 2500 men beat a force of 10000 and killed about 5000 of the enemy.
I know the NVA Order of Battle lists the Regiments involved and the numbers come up to about 10,000 – but it seemed to me like a whole lot more. I’d swear that every bush and tree, every cemetery and building hid a dozen.
Fortunately they were lousy shots, although they had some great FOs.
New York Times reporters shouldn't have taken the brown acid at Woodstock.
Are any of them old enough to have been at Woodstock (1969 – 35 years ago)? Maybe damaged pregnancies from their mothers’ indulging.
You are correct that right after 9-11 the sentiment would have made instituting the draft easier. The issue for the draft is for how long. Are you going to require a 6 year active duty commitment. You definately need more than 2 because of the technology and training required. I think you would also have to commit to a GI Bill similar to what was passed after WWII to give people a chance to get their lives back in order. The draft would certainly broaden the experience throughout the population. The one thing that is helping us is that our C4I stuff is damn good so that we can concentrate our resources rather than having to spread them all over the map.
The way I envision any future draft (including the girls) is more choice friendly than in the past, keeping in mind the needs of the service. The base line for any draftee would still be two years. What would that get you? Whatever the needs of the service are. A person may have an IQ of Einstien, but if you only agree to the two years - you take what they give you. Now, once you see what your aptitude test scores are, you may decide you'd like to be trained as a Radar Repairman or go to OCS or whatever. Of course, those kinds of choices would require a longer term of service and, in effect, make you a draftee no more.
I maintain the leadership missed the window, briefly opened, shortly after 9-11 to pass legislation to this effect. It may not have been needed or used, but I believe the country would not be as divided as it is now had W, Rummy and Congress struck while the iron was hot.
Could it be VC on top of the NVA?
They were illegal combatants so its kind of hard to determine who was VC I guess.
Kind of sounds familiar.
You were there? In what capacity? Any story behind it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.