[GLH3IL]

Therein is the way in which Iraq will become like Vietnam.

I still don't understand our reaction, folks are acting like we are losing...and it's really a huge win.

We lost more combat troops in the battle for Iwo Jima than we have lost in Iraq. Same for the Battle of the Bulge. I don't mean to lower the significance of the sacrifice of or brave armed forces....but Iraq is a cake walk as compared to some of the rough spots in WW I, WW II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. We need, as a nation, to toughen the heck up. Grow some spine.

[dakine]

"We need, as a nation, to toughen the heck up. Grow some spine"

Heading to Iraq? when?

[newzjunkey]

People don't know history. All they hear is the BAD NEWS courtesy of the MSM. And now we have the Michael Moore and MoveOn.org puppet down in Crawford smeared all over the news without her bias or even that she's already met with W being known. The way this is like Vietnam (as best as I can figure since I was in diapers) is the Media coverage. The ways Iraq is different are these: 1. this is ALL volunteers 2. the goal is simple and clear 3. casualties are unprecedently low 4. we're trying to win a peace here, not a war.

Iraq, however, is a mammoth gamble. If Iraq fails to be a western-tolerant (or friendlier) democracy we'll have another Iran on our hands. These folks didn't toss Saddam on their own; it's unclear to many whether they'll embrace progress and freedom or select an extremist. We're playing with fire. It's unclear to me if Iraq has the values, the willpower and the initiative to survive and thrive as a free and prosperous people.

Why do the damned Left only want to free Europeans anyway? They didn't go anti-war under Clinton so why are the Iraqis unfit to be saved from a barbaric dictator and slaughter of tens of thousands, if not millions?

The Bush Administration is inept, not so much in the conflict itself, but in the PR war. And we're losing that at home. Badly.

[AntiGuv]

Well, my view is that it would be disastrous for us to withdraw from Iraq prematurely, and the successful resolution of the war doesn't appear to be anytime soon. That being said, I am hardly in a "stay the course" frame of mind either. We've been 'staying the course' for two and a half years now and we're not much better off than we were in spring of 2003..

Speaking of which, I honestly don't know if this can be fixed now. Maybe it is too late. My personal view is that none of this was inevitable; the critical errors were made in the immediate aftermath of the initial invasion, and were due to severely inadequate planning for the aftermath of the Saddam regime's downfall. But, it doesn't make much difference to say that since what's done is done now..

So, I don't pretend to really know what'll happen. I don't support withdrawing but I'm not sure what I support as the alternative. I find it amazing that after all this time basic services in the major cities are so decrepit. If I had anything to suggest off the top of my head, it would be a commitment to building the civil infrastructure as swiftly as possible.

[AntiGuv]

PS. But they do say that the rule of thumb in the modern era is that the American people will support this kind of war for two years, so you better plan to get what you need done within that time limit or not bother going to war at all. Interestingly enough, the support of the war effort did in fact begin seriously crumbling right about at the two year mark..

[pepperdog]

Over 4000 were killed on motorcycle's in this country last year for absolutely nothing.

[wingman1]

"Therein is the way in which Iraq will become like Vietnam."

Armstrong Williams reminds me of people I knew years ago who were once supportive of the American effort in Vietnam, only to change their minds later when the war became unpopular.

[Milligan]

Your correct. During WWII the Japanese were just as fanatical as the terrorist. Instead of Allah they had their Emperor to die for. Remember the Kamikaze and Bonzi attacks? The Japanese civilians in Saipan jumping off cliffs to escape capture?

If we don't win in Iraq we will become the paper tiger for the terrorist. We need to get over Vietnam and grow a spine. Images on TV do influence people...especially Cindy Sheedan types.

[TomasUSMC]

We lost more combat troops in the battle for Iwo Jima than we have lost in Iraq. Same for the Battle of the Bulge.
======
The problem with those numbers is that in WW2 we were mobilized totally for war, not like our situation today. Then we had over 8,000,000 SOLDIERS, in March 1945 not counting men currently in training as replacements, approximately 500,000, who would eventually join combat units .... that was just the army.

Today current 484,000 soldiers is 17 times less. Not only that but today we don't have a reliable constant flow of recruits without the draft. In WW2 we did. We have a war of attrition going on but we are trying to fight it with a small military. Thus we have loses that historically are low but proportionally are causing us to stretch our forces to such an extent that over 40 percent of our forces in Iraq are Reserves!

This is the problem, that with the volunteer military, we will not be able to continue this war of attrition. Lets not be lulled by the 1850 kia number either. Total evacs from Iraq including sick, wounded and dead is over 20,000

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

Now I don't support waging this
- kinder gentler compassionate teddybears-for-terrorists, bullet magnet patrolling Syrian/Iranian sanctuary allowing Vietnam redux war of attrition, but if thats the way our President Bush wants to skin the cat, thats the way it will be done and we had better have a large enough military and long enough patience for it.