Semi-Daily Journal

The Boot piece is well worth reading, as a reminder that both god and the devil are in the details. Boot knows enough to give us something to talk about - substance rather than opinion. No wonder Yglesias likes it. Boot acknowledges (as everybody with half a brain does) that Iraq is a far cry from Vietnam before trying to draw lessons. He does not delve into cultural differences that might lead the lessons he takes from Vietnam to be of questionable value in Iraq. What if Iraq turns out to be more like Afghanistan than Vietnam in one particular regard. What if "help" from locals turns into a way to settle scores and gain advantages, rather than fight the guys we want fought?

Boot notes that Iraq ain't Vietnam, as does just about everybody. So why does this comparison not fade away? Maybe because Iraq and Vietnam are different, but not so different in their significance for us. A war fought without there being a clear threat to the US, in which massive differences in economic and conventional war-fighting power may not be what determines the winner. A war that is seen by a part of the public as undermining the credibility of the US government. It isn't the differences between Iraq and Vietnam that will matter to us in the end. It is their impact on us at home, which may prove very much the same.

You gotta love this stuff from Boot:

"Phoenix was a joint C.I.A.-South Vietnam effort to identify and eradicate Vietcong cadres in villages. Critics later charged the program with carrying out assassinations, and even William Colby acknowledged there were "excesses." Nevertheless, far more cadres were captured (33,000) or induced to defect under Phoenix (22,000) than were killed (26,000)."

You gotta love that (only 26,000 killed!). Endorsing Phoenix, under which tens of thousands were not only murdered but brutally tortured and imprisoned (see Boot's delicate euphemism of "captured") simply shows how utterly removed from reality Boot really is. A Phoenix program in Iraq would fully delegitimize everything the United States is doing. It would fill the reconstituted Abu Ghuraib with Iraqis accused under thin evidence, often for personal or tribal reasons, to be interrogated with methods quite familiar to those who lived under Saddam --- this is what happened under the RVN.

That Boot gives tacit approval to this is fully shown here:

"Also — and this is a more delicate matter — Iraqis would be able to try some of the strong-arm tactics that our own scrupulously legalistic armed forces shy away from ... Iraqis who suffered under Saddam Hussein's tyranny likely feel no such compunctions. More should be done to recruit relatives of those killed by the Baathists who would be eager to pursue a "blood feud" against Saddam Hussein's men."

Strongarm tactics? Blood feud? Isn't this what we supposedly came to Iraq to end (since it's no longer politically correct to mention WMDs)?

on Boot article == My biggest surprise In Iraq was that the military was still using "hearts & minds". One would think that after 25 years they would at least have come up with a different term.

I agree with most that comparisons to Viet Nam are off base. But comparisons to what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan may not be that unrealistic.

The real point of unconventional warfare, & Viet Nam & Iraq in particular is that the real battle is over the "will" of the American to continue.
Because Bush was not honest with American public about why we went to war, it will not take much
to destroy American "will" to continue the war.

The Weekend Update has become so good that last week I mailed TAPPED thanking them for it. Matt was kind enough to send a personal reply. Very classy.

Atrios linked to the Boot piece over the weekend. *sigh* Where do these people come from? Really?

The Weekend Update has become so good that last week I mailed TAPPED thanking them for it. Matt was kind enough to send a personal reply. Very classy.

Atrios linked to the Boot piece over the weekend. *sigh* Where do these people come from? Really?

What happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan was the US and their Pakistan client arming religious fanatics in the fight against secular Afghanistan in the name of anti-communism. In Iraq, the US is battling a secular but brutal dictatorship while trying to keep the religious fanatic enemies of the regime at bay. There is no outside power funding the Iraqis.

Algeria might be a better model than Afghanistan. When it was clear the fundamentalists would defeat the secularists at the polls, the elections were cancelled. The US could pull out tomorrow and let the religious fundamentalists take over Iraq.

Max Boot is deceiving himself if he thinks Vietnam was winnable. Iraq should be easier but the administration is too unilateral and too unwilling to take on Iraqi partners with warts. By continuing to promote a corrupt puppet government, the US will end up failing to install their puppets and antagonizing the popular proponents of self determination. Forget the Max Boot column and pick up a copy of "The Ugly American".

K Harris has a good point. The Vietnam/Iraq comparison does not rest so much on the specifics of what is happening on the scene as it does in the domestic political effects and the broad outline of the conflict.

In both case we have major deceptions by the administration, unclear goals, substantial skepticism about alleged dangers to the US.

Im with Brooklyn; Boot's attempt to whitewash Phoenix is disgusting. If he could've flatly stated what Phoenix was about and then endorsed it, at least he'd be being honest about the matter. But using euphamisms to hide torture and arbitrary killing is IMO pathetic.

I also find the basis of Boot's post to be unrealistic. Shorter Max Boot:
We tried to fight Vietnam like a regular war, and it didn't work then, and it won't work now. We tried to terrorize the Vietnamese people into submission, and it didn't work then, but it will work now.

Wu