John Kerry's foreign policy advisor, Richard Holbrooke said on Fox News Sunday that "strategically and politically, the situation in Iraq is worse than it ever was in Vietnam. The situation is clearly getting worse ... and there is no strategy either for success or for victory or for exit."
"The current situation in Iraq is a tunnel without any light at the end of it."
************
Mr. Holbrooke. Don't you think that way over the top and divisive? Iraq is not near the level of the Vietnam war. There is not near as many dissidents. (75% of the Iraqis want us there until the job is done)
Sure, not everything is perfect in Iraq now. There are more than 1,000 people that will never walk on the earth again, but this is not even remotely close to Vietnam.
You divide the country with the your scare tactics and your lies. And half of the country is too blinded with bias to see through the lies and the scare tactics. It saddens me.
For more information, please visit my site:
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bryan
Jesus. First Kerry comes out and belittles his fellow comrades and called them war monsters, fakes throwing his medals over the whitehouse lawn, takes an Anti-Iraq position, and now has his "advisors" saying its worse then vietnam.
Well, like Kerry would know since he was there for a whole 4 months, right? What an asshat. I am 23 yrs old, so I have no clue what vietnam was like, though I have seen movies, pictures, etc... but even I am not stupid enough to compare Iraq to vietnam. geez.
2 - Art
Thanks for the comments.
It's amazing, isn't it? They are just unrelenting on attacking the President.
I forgot to mention that this is not just an advisor. This is the TOP advisor for the Kerry campaign. This guy could be in the Kerry administration if he wins. (God forbid) Do you want this guy to be meddling with our foreign policies thinking like this?
3 - Hal Pawluk
Holbrooke's statement is very rational, as the unilateralist invasion (not to mention Bush's cry of: "Crusade!") has had a domino effect in all Islamic nations.
That's over a billion people most of whom now hate the US where formerly most held favorable opinions.
Even General Abizaid agrees with this, and just a few days ago said that Anti-Americanism and terrrorism have spread and increased in countries "from Pakistan to Morocco." He didn't mention the Philippined and Indonesia, but we know the terrorists have gained ground in both places, and are far more of a threat than they were before the Bush response to 9/11.
It's far worse than Viet Nam because the effects will last hundreds of years, if not millennia.
Results matter, and Bush has been an overwhelming failure on fighting terrorists.
4 - Art Green
The threat will always exist. You cannot wipe out an ideology or tactic.
But we are safer now than before 9/11 because we now know of the threat.
As for anti-Americanism, frankly, I couldn't care less. Don't come to our colleges and don't take our foreign aid.
5 - Hal Pawluk
You're wrong that "we are safer now than before 9/11 because we now know of the threat."
Instead of bolstering American security, this president shouted "crusade" and attacked an Islamic country. His approach was designed for failure.
We knew of the threat before 9/11, but because of this president's response, there have been more terrorist attacks and more terrorists created since the unilateralist invasion of Iraq, both in Iraq and around the world (ask Rumsfeld and Abizaid). Trying to claim that we "took the fight to them" is ridiculous, as "them" were not in Iraq until we sent in Americans with bull's-eyes painted on their back.
And none of that effort has made this country safer at home, in fact it is less safer because many first responders who could be protecting the homeland are in the Guard and in Iraq.
98% of cargo entering this country is still not inspected, and our porous borders are even more porous than ever before (see latest issue of Time magainze). And what is done on the border is done incorrectly. Last year, for example, 20,000 non-Mexican aliens were detained and guess what was then done with them? They were released directly into the U. S. population. And 3-8 times as many were not even stopped.
Is that your idea of "safer?"
It's not mine.
6 - Art Green
I'm assuming you're a kerry supporter. So what has Kerry done to "improve" the situation?
The President was told that Iraq was a threat by the CIA, and almost every other intelligence agency in the world. (Mossad, British intel, etc.)
What is he to do? Ignore it? Putin told him that Saddam was about to strike the US. What is he to do? Ignore it?
The President's response? Should we have whimpered and not do anything?
Also, we did not "unilaterally" attack Iraq. We had what... 31 nations with us?
7 - Hal Pawluk
The unilateralist U. S. invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (not legitimately, but see below) and nothing to do with any kind of war against terrorists.
Iraq was attacked because the neoconservatives had wanted to do so since at least 1992. They tried with Clinton, but he turned them down, then 9/11 and a weak-minded, weak-willed president gave them their chance.
Bob Woodward, who seems to just love president Bush, tells us in his book "Bush at War" how it went:
That didn't get a lot of traction, but using Iraq as an excuse came into play again three days later:
Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, but everything to do with the neconservative planning to remove Saddam and aid Israel. This started in 1992 with a secret paper by Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby working for Dick Cheney. It was essentially the same plan as you see on the Project For The New American Century site, and what became official U. S. Policy after Bush got his head twisted by the neocons (links open in new windows).
You can get a more detailed description and links to hard data mentioned above in my previously-blogged items (links open in new windows):
It would be really useful if you read the materials before responding, particularly the sources I link to, as many of them are on neocon sites.
8 - RJ
Hmm.
- John F. Kerry's foreign policy guru states that Iraqis worse than Vietnam
- John F. Kerry supported the retreat of US forces from Vietnam
- John F. Kerry keeps talking about "bringing out troops back home" in the near future
It sure sounds to me like John F. Kerry, as President, would cut and run from Iraq at the first opportunity.
This is not the man we want in the White House if we actually want to win in Iraq, and in the larger War On Terror.
9 - RJ
"Also, we did not "unilaterally" attack Iraq. We had what... 31 nations with us?"
I've debated the issue of "unilateral" here before. When confronted, the Left is forced to admit the term is inappropriate.
But then, a couple days later, they are using it again.
So, I give up. Let them lie. Lies are really all they have left (look at the candidate they support)...
10 - Jason Koulouras
I actually agree with the assertion of the statement but not the context. Iraq has impacted US relations with the world more than Vietnam ever did.
The context I do not agree with is whether it is a net positive or negative impact. So I would not have used the word "worse", I would have said something like the war in Iraq has had a higher/more significant impact than Vietnam.
Whilst on the subject if someone questions policies brought forward by Bush, the person defending Bush should focus on defending the choice, policy and implications and not attack the other party.
Tell me what you stand for and the implications and not point back at the other party as defense.
11 - Big Time Patriot
"This is not the man we want in the White House if we actually want to win in Iraq"(referring to Kerry) This confuses me, didn't we ALREADY win the war in Iraq? In fact wasn't the Iraq war over awhile ago? So if we leave now, how can we be "losing"? What if they have elections and somebody we don't like gets elected? Do we have to keep fightin? How will we ever "win" if we don't decide what "winning" is?
As for whether the Iraq war is worse than Viet Nam, there is at least one way that it is true. After the experience of Viet Nam, WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
There is a definition for insanity that is used in AA, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So let's just invade Iran now okay? Iran's getting weapons of mass destruction aren't they? And why do you think that? Well the administration tells you so, and why the hell would you believe the administration THIS time?
You know it's funny, people like to act as if there was unanimous agreement to invade Iraq, yet there were MORE countries who opposed it than favored it (many of them with their own intelligence departments (in hindsight, more competent ones)). There were many questions about the State of the Union Address BEFORE the Iraq war started. Do you recall Hans Blix? Let's not do any "revisionist history" about how popular this war was earlier on. I think this was the first war where people could see the mistake coming beforehand enough to print up "No Iraq War" signs BEFORE it started. It's not as if George might not have realized there was some doubts about the whole thing, but then this is a "faith based" administration, not a "reality based" one. And people seem to think that they have to re-elect President Bush based on slogan appeal rather than performance in office.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee â€" I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee â€" that says, fool me once, shame on â€" shame on you. Fool me â€" you can't get fooled again." â€"George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Who was President when the worst terrorist attack in history happened? (Hint, he was NOT a Democrat), but hey, let's give Bush another 4 years, MAYBE he'll not screw up THIS time?
12 - Hal Pawluk
Give it up on the "31 nations," RJ.
The list is mostly countries like Costa Rica, which added only its name to the list but sent no troops, no money, no other support of any kind. And several, including Costa Rica, are pulling even their names out of the "fraudulent coalition."
In the invading forces, 90% of the troops, the costs and the deaths are American (many, many more Iraqis are dying, of course).
It was unilateralist, as even in those nations that did contribute, the majority of the populations were against doing so, and the politicians who went against their people's will - because of coercion, bribery and in one case perhaps sincere belief - are having problems at home.
13 - Hal Pawluk
By the way, on the reasonable assumption that you didn't read the material at the links I provided, here's what one of the neocons said on May second, the day after the infamous "Mission Accomplished" presidential photo-op:
Richard Perle, known as "the Prince of Darkness" in Washington, is the neoconservative who resigned his post as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board after questions were raised about his financial dealings with Global Crossing. He later resigned from the board itself because of questionable financial dealing with Hollinger (this investigation is still active).
It wasn't much of a victory, was it?
14 - Art Green
Isn't it more hurtful to belittle our the allies we all ready have?
15 - Hal Pawluk
Isn't it disingenous to pretend that this was not a US-driven invasion which none of the other countries wanted on their own, only grudgingly joined, and even then was supported only by politicians but was opposed by the citizens of the countries involved?
16 - Big Time Patriot
"Isn't it more hurtful to belittle our the allies we all ready have?" Speaking for Americans everywhere I would like to apologize to the 33 troops from Singapore and the 28 troops for Macedonia and all the other members of our glorious coalition for not acknowledging that they are the greatest powers on Earth. Some have sent more and the total from this site (counting some not actually in the country of Iraq) is about 26,000. So we have over 100,000 Americans, that works out to a coalition that is 80% American. Not uni-lateral perhaps, but not an international surge of support either.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
17 - Shark
Some haunting similarities:
Viet Nam =
A mistake based on lies and scare tactics.
Lasted for years.
Unwinnable.
Quagmire.
No-Exit Options.
Lots of useless dead American GIs.
Divided America.
Drained resources.
A guerilla war against unknown, unseen, often non-military (civilian) adversaries.
Boosted Military-Industrial profits.
Iraq = A mistake based on lies and scare tactics.
Will last for years (probably decades!).
Unwinnable.
Quagmire.
No-Exit Options.
Lots of useless dead American GIs.
Dividing America.
Draining resources.
A guerilla war against unknown, unseen, often non-military (civilian) adversaries.
Boosting Military-Industrial profits.
------------
I do hope Bush wins the election, tho.
In Texas, we believe that if you shit in your hat, you should have to wear it.
*Four More Years with a deadly pile of poop on his pointy little head. Can't wait!
*added benefit: will delegitimize and illustrate inherent errors and corruption of Neo-Con philosophy -- and hopefully put that baby monster to rest with a stake through its little black heart.
Go Bush!
18 - Art Green
That is what I'm saying. Calling Great Britian and Australia a coalition of the bribed is not going to make them like us more.
19 - Hal Pawluk
The majority of citizens in Auatralia and Britain were against joining the US unilateralist invasion.
But the object is not whether they like us or not; the point is that it was a stupid idea, it had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorists, and had everything to do with the neoconservative ideology.
And to get back to original post, the effects will be far worse and last far longer than the US invasion of Vietnam.
One reason is that as we speak, more than a billion Muslims have access to television programs showing another 59 Iraqis killed because of the occupying American forces.
The numbers change, but the pictures they see remain the same, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after ...
20 - Art Green
And the government decided it was in their interest to protect their country and they helped us. The government has far more information than common hacks in society.
Yeah, I know. We were there for the oil.
No, it won't. We have the country, we have the majority of the people rebuilding the country and putting in a democracy, unlike Vietnam.
Yeah.. occupiers. The term usually used by international media that is anti-American. Al-Jaazera, no bias.
21 - Hal Pawluk
The US were invaders then, after handing over pseudo-sovereignty to a few select Iraqis, became occupiers by anyone's definition. Surely you don't see the US military forces as Goodwill Ambassadors?
And nobody is "putting in a democracy" - that was a neoconservative pipe dream. Please read the info at the neocon links I provided, where they themselves describe this.
Note, though, that the neocons have since started pulling back on this and use terms like "limited" democracy as the best that can be done.
And control of the oil was, indeed, part of the neocon plan.
The other part was to help improve the security of Israel by removing Saddam - see A Clean Break, a policy paper prepared by some neocons for Israeli hardline right-wing prime minister Netanyahu back in 1996.
A few days after the report was prepared, Prime Minister Netanyahu presented it virtually verbatim to the US congress, looking for help from the US to get rid of Saddam. Congress didn't buy it, so the neocons pushed Clinton on the policy. He didn't buy it either, so the neocons got Republican Trent Lott and Republican Newt Gingrich to pass the Iraq Liberation Act.
This is serious stuff - please pay attention rather than just repeating ideological positions.
22 - Art Green
I see them as good people doing a tough job.. a job they believe in.
I know, because you have your position, I'm just a sheep in the trance of the government. I see now that the neoconservatives have a plan to take over all of the Middle East.
23 - Hal Pawluk
Did you read nothing the neocons themselves have said?
I guess it's still true that "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."
The neocons were not shy in publicizing their policies, and I'm not convinced that you would support them if you knew what those policies actually were.
I've provided links to the "water."
Now it's up to you.
24 - Art Green
I refuse to drink.
25 - Hal Pawluk
Of course - it's the Stepford-Republican way.