It had to happen sooner or later. I'm sure any Republican Senator or Representative facing an election this coming first Tuesday of November would have preferred it four weeks later.
George Bush used the V-word in reference to his folly in Iraq. He didn't actually use the word himself, but he acknowledged the situation in Iraq was indeed analogous to the V-word.
Now die-hard conservatives are going to complain about leading questions from a Clinton Democrat (ABC correspondent George Stephanopoulos, who got the President to admit the similarity, was a former Clinton administration flack) attempting to discredit the policies of the administration in the lead up to the elections. George Bush has been around politics all his life. He should know how to avoid an easy yes and no question.
All he was asked was if he believed the current circumstances in Iraq were analogous to those surrounding the Tet offensive in 1968. He could have easily said, "No, I don't believe the circumstances are at all similar." Truth be told, he would have been quite correct militarily if that had been his reply. There is really nothing in common with the situation in Iraq and the circumstances of the Tet offensive in terms of what's happening in the field.
What Stephanopoulos was fishing for, and hooked George on, was a comparison between the feelings of the American public now toward the operation in Iraq and the burgeoning feeling of widespread outrage about the war in Vietnam that Tet engendered. It was George's willingness to go along with that assessment that could prove problematic.
Thinking about it some more, I realize any official administration statement linking the two operations, even saying weather conditions were similar, would not look great in print. Vietnam was never a war – it was a police action. The war has been won in Iraq so we're not allowed to call them wars. It's such a nasty word anyway, implying death and destruction like it does. Maybe we should just do away with it altogether.
Bush likens Iraq to Vietnam as a headline, no matter the fine print, and would have any Republican hoping to be re-elected this November running from the President like their butt was on fire.
Article comments
1 - Arch Conservative
If there is ultimately no Democracy and/or a functioning military that is capable of defending Iraquis from terrorist influence and harm is that really a failure of the American military or is it actually a failure of the Iraqi people?
It seems to me that everyone wants to blame the US military for the current situation in Iraq while giving the Iraqi people a pass. It's their nation and it's about time they stepped up to the plate to drive out or nulllify the radical fundamentalists and get on withh the business of restoring their nation for their citizens.
2 - Interested Realist
SO, if the Iraqi people are so incompetent or incapable, why are we there in the first place? And why should we stay another day?
3 - Larry159
Look at the American Revolution. Nationalist patriots overthrowing a cruel occupying regime from one perspective, "terrorists" from another.
If a bunch of fellows with guns showed up and started raping and killing U.S. citizens do you think people in the U.S. would start shooting back?
4 - troll
how 'bout that Amara...right out there in oilville...
5 - Thoi Van Buei
If many of us Canadians can be so full of hate and ridicule for another Tribe why can't Iraqis do the same ? What a wonderful example we and others set for the world .
Only thing temporarily missing is an escalation in violence (the few of us who study Canadian history other than the typical self-glorifying propoganda will know violence and war an not absent in Canada)
For now we can sit back and relax in our wonderful isolation (Canada is ALL occupied and stolen land)and let others kill for us while we Preach "told you so" and "they had it coming" .
Larry159 : " Insurgents " are the ones raping and killing their own " people " . The few crimes commited by " The Coalition " (not just 'Mericans) do not even come close to what the domestic and Foriegn " Freedom Fighters " are doing to Iraqis . Wake up .
6 - Mistress La Spliffe
What I find so shocking about Bush admitting to any parallels with the Tet offensive is that it seems to mark the Republican party finally and utterly losing the ability to frame the debate over Iraq. One year ago, only dismissable fringe elements in the States were using the "v" word in relation to Iraq. Trouble for 2008, indeed.
7 - Bliffle
"If there is ultimately no Democracy and/or a functioning military that is capable of defending Iraquis from terrorist influence and harm is that really a failure of the American military or is it actually a failure of the Iraqi people?"
It's a failure of the Iraqui people, and we knew that 5 years ago! In fact, we've always known it, and that's why it was foolish to invade.
8 - Turn Down The Rhetoric
The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is about as good as the comparison of Bush to Hitler! There is a huge disregard for the facts when making arguments against the war and Bush. If you take the time to research the facts you will see a far different story than is being told by the media and anti-war camp!
9 - Mistress La Spliffe
Yeah? So when can we expect Bush to start comparing himself to Hitler, TDTR?
10 - tm
one of the most cogent essays on this whole sordid affair yet. really nicely put.
11 - Bliffle
"The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is about as good as the comparison of Bush to Hitler! "
Gee, you really teed it up, but I'm too busy to slug it outa the park.
12 - Carter
You might as well compare Iraq to Tet. After all, Tet was a victory for the US/South Vietnam that the hysterical US media spun into a failure because their news offices in Saigon actually came under fire! (Oh my gosh! They actually shoot bullets in a war!?!?!?!?!) And once the chattering classes got their hands on that, the die was cast.
Years later the North Vietnamese general Tran Do admitted as much: "In all honesty, we failed to achieve our objective, which was to start a general uprising in the South. As for making a propaganda impact on the USA, it had not been our principal intention - but it worked out as a very fortunate result for us."
13 - richard morris
I like your essay, it is very thoughtful. This "turning point" you describe is very interesting:
For the first while things were going along just swimmingly. The invasion went according to plan, the non-existent Iraqi army collapsed like the house of cards they were, and casualties were minimal. They even had a triumphal march into Baghdad. It's only been since the "war" has ended that things have begun to unravel.
This begs a question, if the non-existent Iraqi army collapsed, or was disarmed by US military action, how can the administration expect the Iraqi government, such as it is, to really defend itself. There are no legacy defense forces!!! There is no one avaiable nor experienced to do the defense task.
Also, I like your comparison of public support for the Vietnam "conflict" with waning public support for the "war on terrorism" as developing in Iraq. Enough is enough!!! The Iraq invasion is unproductive.
However, I do see a major difference with Vietnam. The Northern communists were attempting to reunite with South Vietnam. This was a civil war in progress. The US attempted to stop communist agression, warning of a domino effect, whereby other neighboring countries might "become communist".
The US invasion did not begin with a civil war in progress, did it? Remember SecDef Rumsfeld said, "we are bombing Iraq because their are more targets there (as compared to Afghanistan). The invasion was initiated by US; there was no "helping hand" extended to intervene an on-going civil war.
14 - Peter J
I might say rather than Bush being around politics all of his life it would be more well put that politics have been around Bush all of his life. His failure to grasp and understand it are baffling.
Mordern wartime politics drove Johnson to the edge and Nixon over the edge. It's definitely no place for the timid. Maybe that's where Bush's power lies. He's so totally clueless.
I think the powers believed that the ignorance of Bush would mask the diabolics and intensity of Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and lovely Ms Rice.
There is obviously an agenda of this administration which reaches far beyond what average America would like to believe their leaders capable of. It would appear that the sole purpose of this so protected (by whom,I wonder) office is long term war.
15 - Bliffle
I don't think it is the Pentagon that failed to assimilate the lessons of Vietnam, but rather the civilian administration of Bush/Cheney (and their toady Rumsfeld) that discarded those lessons consciously and vigorously. For example, the "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force, which had proven itself in Desert Storm, was casually thrown aside, Powell himself was publicly humiliated, and the top Pentagon military officer, Shinseki, was humiliated and driven into retirement when he dared assert the logical conclusion of the Vietnam experience, namely, that several hundred thousand troops would be required to invade Iraq.
It is the civilian authority in the Whitehouse that carelessly threw aside what the military learned at great cost in treasure and lives in Vietnam.
16 - gonzo marx
well Bliffle..i think you got part of it...
perhaps the bit that the Pentagon did NOT learn from the whoel Nam bit, which IS applicable to Iraq is fairly simple...
don't get steamrollered by the civlians, stand up and speak the Truth...then accept the Consequences
when the military didn't stand up to the civilian leadership in Nam, a whole bunch of well documented shit happened...all of it bad for all involved, and a lot of it known to the higher ups in the military, but unspoken out of political fear for their retirements..
a lot of the same seems to have been happening vis a vis Iraq
just a Thought
Excelsior?