MyDD :: Iraq: No end in sight

Iraq: No end in sight

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 05:18:21 PM EST

Just in case you haven't looked in a while, the trend continues....

I'm not sure what the tipping point is, as the war seems to have no accountability in sight, and the apathy toward this by the general public is summed up as "better there than here"-- an ignorant position that neverminds the longterm instability being created.

Hell or highwater, there WILL be an election in Iraq, and after that, who knows?

Bush and the Republicans have got to move onto privatizing social security, cutting more taxes, securing rightwing judges, and deepening the deficit.... so Iraq, is going onto the backburner after their "election". But it's become obvious that whatever state leadership is imposed within Iraq, it will not be able to defeat, or even hold back, the "insurgent" counter within Iraq without a longterm presence of the US. And even then, that's just the status quo, which returns us to the chart... I see no end in sight, other than through a retreat by the US. They'll frame it differently, sure, but that's the only alternative.

Tags: World (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

When will Iraq Break? (none / 0)

It took about 4 years for public sentiment to turn decidedly against the Vietnam war. Of course by 1968, Vietnam encompass more people than Iraq and was far more costly. However it took the Tet Offensive to make people start believing it was a war we were never going to win. Once that was realized mainstream opinion turned against the War, and LBJ, with a vengence. So much so that Johnson entered 1968 still fairly popular, but within 3 months gave up all hopes of running for reelection. At this point a majority of the people are wary of the Iraq war ranging from them not being sure we will get out soon to ouright believe that we should get out now. Perhaps the upcoming elections (if they happen) will provide the catalyst, like the Tet Offensive did in 1968, when the American public has had enough.

by southerndemnut on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 06:36:03 PM EST

Re: When will Iraq Break? (none / 0)

Good question, I am guessing the pressure will increase if 3 months after the elections things are still very bad, as then there is nothing on the horizon to act as a marker or a tipping point.

At first it would be over with flowers
Then the death of Saddams sons
then the Capture of Saddam
then the handover
Now the elections.

the graph is pretty clear, the insurgents intend to carry on regardless, and there is no new dynamic after the elections.

Its then that I think people will start asking questions, and as the military gets worn down more and more too, esp wit the coalition bound to weaken further.

by Pounder on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 10:13:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

1968 and Vietnam (none / 0)

While I was only born in late 1961, I remember 1968 and Vietnam quite well. On June 6th of that year, my brother David was killed at Binh Duong. Although I was only 6, I remember coming home with my Aunt and my brother to see the military cars in our driveway.

Does anyone have any statistics to show how many deaths per year there was in Vietnam in the early years?

Paul
Bring Ohio Home

by bringohiohome on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 08:50:49 PM EST

Re: 1968 and Vietnam (none / 0)

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/10/20/us-deaths-in-vietnam-and-iraq-by-month/

I believe this is what you are looking for.

by Lakhim on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 09:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

vietnam deaths (3.00 / 1)

1961-65.......1,864
1966..........5,008
1967..........9,378
1968.........14,594
1969..........9,414
1970..........4,221
1971..........1,380
1972............300

by cleek on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 10:03:06 PM EST

Re: vietnam deaths (none / 0)

Note also: In Vietnam, the medical care was much worse. According to this article in today's Chicago Sun-Times, for every soldier killed in action, there were four wounded. In Iraq, there are twelve wounded soldiers for every soldier killed in action. When the number of casualties in theater and sent to Landsthul in Germany are counted, there are about 21,000 wounded in this war. That means that approximately 5500 troops would have died up to this point in Iraq had Vietnam-style medical treatment been available. Iraq truly is Bush's Vietnam.

by Robwaldeck on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 10:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: vietnam deaths (none / 0)

Yep, in Vietnam, 153,300 received hospital treatment, vs. the 47,400 hostile and 58,200 total deaths. Let's not forget about body armour too - and troop levels. In Vietnam, peak troop level was 543,482; and all in all 3,453,000 people were deployed. In Iraq, the latter number is maybe a seventh of the Vietnam number.

by DoDo on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 04:54:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No end in sight... (none / 0)

...until the pleasure we derive as a nation from killing brown people who worship the wrong God exceeds the pain we experience from the loss of our own sons and daughters.

Given the frankly racist administration that the American people just renewed, and its nakedly theocratic approach to the world, I think it far more likely that Bush's SS 'reform', gutting the tax code, stuffing the courts, etc. will be sacrificed to maintain the war, rather than vice versa.

I dont' think the people running this show, and the people who re-elected them, will ever get the sort of satisfaction that they can derive from a Fallujah merely from overhauling the inheritance tax, or installing prayer in the schools for example.

These are profoundly evil times.

by Davis X Machina on Sun Dec 05, 2004 at 11:05:16 PM EST

People don't care (none / 0)

The real tipping point of Vietnam was the draft. At this point it is still an all Volentay military. With the extsion of service of people alerady there, they won't need to burden the average american.

The real problem become what happen is the futre, when the umber of reservist goes down, because they feel betrayed, by their long extend deployments. In the longrun the number of reservestist will go donwn and theyn when where will they gethe numbers they need. They might have no choice but to initiate a draft.

by likesun on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 10:47:20 AM EST

I ain't no Senator's son (none / 0)

Face it folks, we are stuck with another guerilla war until 2008. Unlike Nixon, Dippy has no political motivation to bring the troops home. Right now we are psychologically at 1965 when LBJ began committing more troops to the chaos because "we can't afford to loose". But even the demoralized legionaires are beginning to see the light--some are pulicly resisting their extended tours. I too blame JFK for no clear anti-war stance, but strategically he may have been correct--Joe Sixpack is not yet war weary.

Dominos anyone?

by Muy Loco on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 01:32:35 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.