On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:34:17 (PDT) David Brin wrote:
>And Now the bigger town of Ramadi has joined Fallujah
>and many others as "no go zones" for US forces,
>effectively joining the New Anarchy of Iraq and
>kicking out our sponsored governors.
>
>Has ANYONE else noticed that maps of zones of control
>are never released by the Pentagon or Administration?
>(We saw them all the time during Vietnam.) The reason
>is simple.
>
>The amount of territory and number of people that we
>control in Iraq is SHRINKING weekly.
America in Iraq is not only repeating Vietnam's mistakes;
it's making them bigger.
On three areas:
1)
In terms of controlling land and people,
the American situation in Iraq is worse than Vietnam.
As David says, this is why they can't show maps.
The more or less puppet government of South Vietnam had
substantial control of large parts of the country most of the time.
Vietnam 1, Iraq 0
2)
And it is not only the maps!
(Maps can't tell all the story of control of resources.)
The organization of the state has collapsed and
nothing has come to replace it.
After the fall of Saddam with no replacement,
and the disolution of the Iraqi army,
Iraq had no real state structures left at any level.
Correcting that would be tough business, even if not
under guerrilla opposition.
By contrast, South Vietnam existed as a state
up to its bitter end.
Corrupt and inefficient, but still a state.
America will have to work hard and have very good luck
to transform Iraq into something
as good to the USA as South Vietnam was.
And now we know that even that much was *not* enough...
Vietnam 2, Iraq 0
3)
I once wrote - on the good side, there is no
equivalent of North Vietnam. Vietnam 2, Iraq 1?
But that's wrong.
As regular armies, there is no North Vietnam down there.
But all of us can point out some neighbors who sponsor guerrilla
and terrorism coming through porous borders.
I think all of us can point out to some...
OK, let's count this as a tie with Vietnam.
Vietnam 2.5, Iraq 0.5
---
I still keep some hope that America could perhaps pull off
the reconstruction of Iraq; but it's not going to be an easy
or guaranteed task.
Kerry will be a better leader than Bush for it.
Even before the invasion stated, Kerry realized that
major nation building would be needed after the eventual
defeat of Saddam.
While Bush's advisors rushed into an unrealistic dream of
their own greedy imagination.
Ruben
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
