A diary downstream took Kerry to task for advocating for 40,000 more troops for Iraq.
Regardless of what one thinks of Kerry and his policy on Iraq, one point was made repeatedly by those belittling the diarist:
We can't just walk away and let Iraq devolve into chaos, become a new haven for the likes of al Qaida or other fanatical organizations, or fall under the sway of Iran.
Does that argument sound familiar? It should to anyone over the age of 40...
(more)
Vietnam
Claiming that we'll simply stay until Iraq has:
- a stable government
- a strong enough military so it can defend itself
- the ability to remain free from the influence of Iran
are all the same arguments used to keep us in Vietnam for an extra decade.
And what happened in Vietnam? The day we left:
- the South Vietnamese government crumbled
- the army we "trained" vanished
- the country was taken over by the very communists we stayed the extra decade to keep out.
In other words, whether we stay in Iraq for one year or 10 years is irrelevant. The same events are likely to happen there shortly after we leave, whether that's in 2005 or 2015.
And in the process, thousands more of our soldiers and thousands more Iraqis will die.
But don't take my word for it. The Army War College recently issued a report highlighting the stunning similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. (Here is a link to the actual report.)
Please tell me how we will ever "stabilize" this country? I haven't heard a plan yet from anyone, including Kerry.
Granted, we may need to actually build troop strength in the short run so we can exit safely. But the claim that we need to stay "until Iraq is stabilized" is both unrealistic and lacking in pargmatism.
One other point... those criticizing Kerry on his Iraq position are not necessarily "anti-war." Some may be, but I suspect there are many more of us who remember Vietnam. And we remember that we stayed 10 years too long and achieved the same results we wwould have had we left 10 years earlier and saved thousands of American lives.