Good Morning, VietNam
 

Reports from VietNam were so negative that Henry Luce of Time Magazine had them rewritten in NYC and Washington. Charlie Rose periodically interviews reporters in Iraq who are pressured by their editor for good news. Reporters have complained for months that good news is difficult to find.

A reporter from The Economist could have been reporting from VietNam over 30 years ago. Those estimates of 20,000 insurgents is now at about 40,000 full time insurgents and about 160,000 part time insurgents. Increases also seen in VietNam.

Mosul demonstrates the problem. When he could not get support from the Bremmer bureaucracy, the 101st Airborne General started a program much like the British. His soldiers went out to find and work with the people. They all but stole money from the Bremmer 'we are the experts' bureaucracy (George Jr's chosen one) to get reconstruction going. Money from Bremmer's people was all but non-existent. Bremmer's people never even bothered to put staff in Mosul. Relations in Mosul were some of the best. Now even Mosul is a center of the insurgency. Once the 101st left, then intelligent cooperation left with it. George Jr's people were in charge. When insurgents from Fallujah arrived in Mosul, the 500 man Iraqi Army Battalion and 6,000 policemen disappeared. Just like the S Vietnamese Army - a coincidence?

Some expressions in Iraq. FISH - Fighting In Someone's House. IOW first throw in a grenade. Then learn who you have harmed - civilian or insurgent. Muj - short for mugahideen. This was previously called Charlie, VC, or gook. The language tells us how this war is progressing. In a previous war, "We burned the village to save it." We also saved Fallujah? Where progress is being made - once we ask for honest news reports.

Confirmed recently was another fact. Phase Four planning must be fully in progress if not completed when combat starts. But Phase Four plans never appeared until seven months after the president declared "Mission Accomplished". That was four months too late according to American military leaders in Iraq. Phase Four only has 90 days show results. Rumsfeld is still denying the looting even occurred - or at least he will not admit to it. The honeymoon is long over.

Another expression in VietNam - light at the end of a tunnel. Where is the light at the end of this Iraqi tunnel? Look into George Jr's mind or Rush Limbaugh's propaganda. Its the only place that Iraq is getting better. Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard told us this over a year ago when he said the administration had screwed it up. Billy Kristol is a founding member of the Project for New American Century.

Iraqi elections must go forward. Why? No matter how bad things are today, we know this to be fact: it is only going to get worse. Better to have elections when violence is less. Both the numbers and troop language say same thing: Good Morning, VietNam.

'Morning.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft were National Security Advisors for Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. They recently defined what to prepare for in Iraq. Gen Scowcroft's comments are especially interesting since he is also a closest friend and trusted advisor to Bush Sr.

What will it take to end the problems of Iraq?Dr Brzezinski has probably defined the best we can hope for. That would get America out of Iraq. A resulting Civil War could then could be blamed on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it is how to get out and claim what follows is not America's fault.

Even if Sunni's do not vote, then Shi'ites can write the Constitution, Shi'ites can dominate the government, and Americans can leave. It is probably the best that America can hope for considering how badly the war is currently being fought and how much worse it will get. To hope for anything more would only turn more Iraqis into insurgents and make it only harder for America to leave. The alternative is demonstrated by how troops are now fighting this war.

I agree with their assessment. At $120-150 billion per year, we could looking at $1 trillion dollars if we spend most of a decade in Iraq and factor in additional stateside costs like pensions and rehabilition for 10 to 20 thousand wounded. The US spent about $15.8 in foreign aid in 2003. If we want to see the Iraq war as an exercise in foreign aid, than the program is costing 7 times the amount of aid going to the rest of the world and will continue to do so each year, while actually costing us goodwill instead of promoting it.

The next US president is probably going to have to clean this up and he had better start by finding a diplomatic way to say that Bush screwed up. Any attempt by the next adminstration to help Bush paint Iraq in the 'win' column will damage or destroy credibility. Everyone except the most partisan or clueless individual realizes that we screwed up. Any attempt to deny that would make us look like "Baghdad Bob".

Presidents never say things bad about their predecessors. It is an unwritten rule of the office - much like the Senate. However there is no good exit strategy. Anyone who thinks America is going to fix this country is playing fiction games. Best we can hope to do is warn the Iraqi for our exit in a hope that they will make plans among themselves to avoid a Civil War. IOW up front we must define the exit date - and then let the chips fall where they may.

Those who think somehow we are going to stay and fix things really have no exit strategy other than a solution based upon more status quo. This was the Vietnam reasoning. Obviously this will only be a lose lose strategy - just like Nam. Are they ready to commit 300,000 or 1/2million troops? Unfortunately those who advocate the status quo will not commit to troop numbers and years. Status quo is a no win strategy. Few are even willing (yet) to publically admit to what these former National Security Advisors are saying. Brzezinski and Scowcroft are both well respected for their pragmatic and honest approach to analysis. Neither comes with a political agenda. But what they say will be politically difficult for any politician to endorse. Its not a winning strategy. But it does get America out.

Of course not. Anyone here who does programming knows the kind of specifications that went into Iraq. "I know what everyone has been saying, but I'm sure we can do it in half the estimated time, with half the estimated resources. I doubt that anyone will have to put in any overtime, either. If you do, you must have done something wrong and we didn't budget for the overtime because there shouldn't be any so don't ask."

If Iraq had been a programming project, 3/4 of the staff would have had their resumes out. Unfortunately, it's not a programming project, the staff are getting killed, and they're finding that once they signed on they can't get out, even if their contract expires.

History will not be kind to GWB, and even the best efforts of the next guy in line will not keep us from finding out what really went on, unless they intend to intern the entire white house staff on an island like in The Prisoner .

You know, this just might explain why Colin Powell never resigned after he figured out that GWB would never take his advice. ;)

The beautiful part is we will call it a victory for democracy and the networks will turn off the cameras soon after we pull out. The resultant turmoil will not be on the American voter's radar screen. The next administration will easily sell us the same story with different players and Marines will continue to die for reasons unrelated to defending America.

I remember seeing The Outsider (1961), a movie about Ira Hayes, one of the men who raised the flag at Iwo Jima. In the movie he goes on the bond tour and sits at a table where the guests are being served ice cream statues of Ira and his buddies raising the flag.

Maybe it's me, but if it were Clinton's second inauguration under the same circumstances, I think it would be much more low key. For one thing, liberals are always under attack from the "patriots" on the right and would be more sensitive. Only a great warrior-king :headshake would have the confidence to celebrate while his troops were in the field.

I'm sure the guys in Iraq eating sand with their meals in mess tents guarded by MPs will be comforted by all of the food and drinks being passed around in Washington to honor them. :guinness: :us: :beer: :band:

Good tickets to the swearing in are available for only $4800. :biggrinje

You heard it here first folks. %51 of the vote means no accountability for Iraq. How many Americans who voted for Bush would have done so if they knew that they were signing a 'stay out of jail free' card for everyone associated with the decision to go to war and it's management.

BTW, I agree that the two sentences quoted do not mean what the first paragraph states. I need to find the rest of the interview to see where they draw their conclusion.

If they are true, it can only mean one of two things.
1) GWB has finally learned how to flat out lie.
2) GWB has completely abandoned reality to listen to his advisors, and is ignoring any implication that the public caved in to socially conservative fear-mongering to elect him and that his approval for the war is below %40, not the %51 he got in the vote, and that even %51 is not enough to sweep aside issues of how this cluster-f*** of a war has been handled.

I'm still trying to figure out how a decision based on less than a 1 in 3 vote can be considered a mandate.

We are talking about the same folks who did the interpeting on the weapons of mass destruction related programs, are we not?

I'm still a proponent of killing off all of the politicians and starting over. They just piss me off.

Think of it as cancer surgery as opposed to the chemo we're going through right now.

Same may be a problem in Iraq. The insurgents and Sunni clerics are saying not to vote. Just recently, the Iraqi tribal leaders also told their people not to vote. How can an election where most voters don't vote be considered a mandate? Voting probably will not happen in 4 of Iraq's 18 proviences. But these 4 proviences are a substantial minority of Iraq's people. The White House forgets to mention that part.

Again how does that election become a mandate for a new Iraqi government? Interesting to see how this all plays out in two weeks.

That is suppose to be a government for 11 months. This temporary government is suppose to write the Constitution. How do they have a mandate when the majority of Iraqis don't even vote for that government?

1 Iraqui voter + US Marines = mandate. :eyebrow:

Well, the new spin is this -

Let's see, the plan went from a quick victory, welcomed by cheering Iraqis who quickly establish a democracy during a small occupation by 50,000 or so troops by voting in a US-friendly government, paying for their own reconstruction with oil-revenues from a rebuilt infrastructure which also brings down US energy prices - to this. I can't wait to see how many commentators they're going to have to buy to sell this load of manure. :greenface

Or Iran?

Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing.

“This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism.”

Lets hope someone is deliberately misleading Mr. Hersh. A reasonable Administration would recognize our overcomittment now, but we are not talking about a reasonable Administration. A few years ago R.W. Bradford wrote a book called The Last Democrat arguing that Clinton would be the last Dem President for a long long time. I don't think Bradford understood the level of stupidity/evil that resides in the GOP.

Well, that point was brought up today at the conference. The wars which have faced the most criticism are ones where the burden has been spread among a majority of Americans. Right now, every effort has been made to insulate the American public from the true cost of the war. The debt is being charged to the future and there is no draft.

Any further overextension of our military would require a draft which would be the death knell of the Republican majority.

The thread began with these examples:A recent Frontline (on PBS) broadcast followed troops in southern Baghdad. Did you notice the details? Those gunners are telling each other how much 50 caliber rounds they had fired that day. Notice in what is suppose to be a peaceful Iraq, as portrayed in the US press - they fire massive 50 Cal bullets routinely on every mission. Is it no wonder that the Iraqi people agree on one thing - they want the Americans out?

Now we have another example of what is business as usual when the invading and occupying Army calls everyone the enemy:
He won't get it. What US troops did to the Italians is SNAFU - just like VietNam.

BBC provides more information: US troops fire at freed hostage

The Italians have been there long enough to know the drill and although they were euphoric over the release, warnings certainly should have snapped them back to reality.
Besides...they're swarthy. :)

A secret service agent ignored clear warnings including warning shots?

No, a driver.

I don't think it's clear, from these 2 articles, just who was driving or how many were in the car. :confused:

Then it gets even more interesting. Sgrena, the wounded journalist, says there was no checkpoint. Military spokesman would not deny it. Who is telling the truth?

Again, the bottom line. Americans are routinely firing weapons in Iraq because Iraq remains that dangerous - as should happen when Bremmer even violated fundamental principles of war defined even in 500 BC. A BBC interview of two female Iraqi doctors at a confernce in Europe said life in Iraq had become worse. Why? Safety. Security. What good is democrary when you cannot even go safely in the street?

American troops routinely fire upon anything they consider a threat - including someone standing at the roadside talking on a cell phone. He might be triggering an explosive device. But again, the local US propaganda downplays how danagerous Iraq still remains and how many Iraqis die only because they might be a terrorist. What happened to Sgrena is normal in Iraq. Even in the south - Basara - are about two violent attacks per day. From the perspective of American troops, everyone is a probably enemy which is why so much 50 calibre rounds are routinely expended - 'into automobile engines' as warning shots.

I was sent this semi-anonymously. It doesn't count the shots you're talking about but it does help understand the big picture.

According to http://www.casualties.org, there have been 88 hostile fire deaths caused by firearms since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. The remainder of coalition deaths has been due to explosives or accidents.

What does this mean? If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in theater during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death rate of 55 per 100,000.

The rate in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

So what that article is saying is that if it weren't for the improvised explosive devices, Iraq is safer than parts of DC? Whoopee.

BTW, that just counts gun deaths. Since troops have body armor and faster access to emergency medical care, their survivability is 10 to 1. This means that those 88 deaths might include 800 wounded.

I doubt that someone shot in DC has access to a medic or is wearing body armor, especially since many states now make it illegal for anyone with a prior felony conviction to possess body armor.

Also, not all of those 160,000 troops are in Iraq or patrolling civilian areas. Many are in supply positions in fortified bases. Being shot at while on a base is pretty rare. Most of those on-base casualties are from mortars or suicide bombers. If all coalition troops had to patrol any part of Iraq, you would see a huge jump in those numbers.

So as those gunner were discussing how much ammo remained, the one guy said he only had 1/4 of a box of 50 cals left. Since the death rate in Washington is so much higher, then gun dealers in Washington must be selling bullets by the crates and kegs.

The Italian reporter, Sgrena, said a tank opened fire on their vehicle for no reason and with no warning. Her comments are more in line with what has long been reported internationally and consistent film news reports showing that US troops routinely fire weapons even on every convoy. That highway - five miles between the airport and Baghdad - is so unsafe that US government personal have been forbidden to travel it. That threat only due to insurgents. US soliders don't tend to fire on their own vehicles have no problem firing warning shots into a car that poses no threat. With insurgents and Americans firing at civilians, well clearly Washington DC is still more dangerous.

Clearly it must be true ... or another classic example of the effective George Jr propaganda machine.. They also take credit for demonstrations in Lebanaon, citing the Iraqi elections. Clearly international news broadcasters are again wrong. International broadcasters report the Lebanon people were strongly inspired by the Ukraninian Orange Revolution. Obviously domestic propaganda must be right. Washington DC is obviously more deadly. Or just maybe the death rates are higher where 50 calibre bullets are routinely fired at anyone who gets near to or approaches Americans? In one convoy, the gunners had fired most of their ammo - in warning. And managed not to hit anyone because Baghdad is so much safer?

A tank?

BTW, the propaganda machine was making the same claims about VietNam. All those areas were safely under control of American and S Vietnamese army. So how did Col John Paul Vann and Daniel Ellsberg (also of the Pentagon Papers) travel through these regions? At 4 AM when even the guerillas had gone home to bed, flat out full speed, with the M-16 cuddled in the lap and already pointed out the side. Just like in Iraq, it was less safe to travel with convoys in safe areas. The 5 o'clock follys said it was safer than in some American cities. Clearly Nixon would not lie.

Deja Vue? At what point do we finally admit they (and Rush Limbaugh) are only echoing White House propaganda. Clearly Baghdad (like Vietnam) is safer. Clearly we are winning the war because the president even declared "Mission Accomplished".

I see light at the end of the tunnel. Its called that politician's shiny teeth. Clearly he did not lie about Vietnam. Why would he lie about Iraq? Clearly those troops are not firing 50 calibre rounds daily. Baghdad is safer than Washington DC!

Does the word facetious sound relevant?

A few tidbits from Alternet:

Whole article

I am sure you have been following it. Journalist Giuliana Srgena, in Iraq for Italy's Il Manifesto newspaper was kidnapped by parties unknown. Her country is mobilized to demand her release. A top intelligence agent finds her and reportedly pays off the kidnappers. She is freed and gets within 600 yards of the airport in Baghdad when her car is shot up–300 bullets according to one account – by U.S. soldiers. The U.S. offers one version; Srgena another.

~~~

"… the Italians are not taking the incident lightly. According to a report posted on the Corriere della Sera site [news item in Italian], the Italian government is demanding the Department of Justice turn over the names of the soldiers involved in the attack. ‘The shooting could rekindle anti-war sentiment in Italy, where public opinion opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,’ writes Christiano Corvino for SwissInfo. ‘Italy’s center-left, which hopes to unseat Berlusconi next year in elections and to weaken his standing at local government polls next month, is campaigning on a platform of withdrawing.’ Italian newspapers ‘warned the government against a cover-up given Berlusconi’s cozy relationship with Washington,’ Media 24 reported yesterday.

Predictably, the corporate media in the United States is in the process of downplaying the fallout from this incident, viewed by many Italians as an attempt to assassinate Giuliana Sgrena. About 100 demonstrators outside the U.S. Embassy in Rome blocked traffic and one banner read: 'U.S.A., war criminals.'"

~~~

Many are saying that there was military antipathy to Giuliana's stories which reported in the use of napalm and prohibited weapons by U.S. troops in Fallujah last November. At the time, no U.S. outlets even reported on this. Last week, Dr. ash-Shaykhli of Iraq's Health Ministry confirmed that U.S. troops used internationally banned weapons including mustard gas, nerve gas and other burning chemicals. Sounds like the kinds of prohibited weapons that Saddam was accused of having.

Not enough information on this one yet. There are any number of explanations good and bad for it. But I will say this.

It's her claim that there were 300-400 rounds shot, and her claim that she was targetted. If she was targetted and only one fatal wound was caused, we now have an explanation for tw's too-high expenditures of bullets: US servicemen are horrible shots.

It's my understanding that that's generally the case no matter what conflict.

er Ut wouldn't that mean you are more likely to be shot in DC if you happen to be a US soldier than Iraq? I cannot believe that total includes anything other than troops, the number of hacks and associates shot by US troops alone wouldn't be far off that toll. Considering her political position and the dislike of the US of people paying bribes to get their citizens back I wouldn't be surprised to learn this was an assassination attempt.

Also - isn't a box 100 rounds? i was looking though photos I've got, all the shots where you can see 50cal mounted weapons the box has 100 on it. From memory those things have a rate of about 600 RPM, that means we're only looking at a 7 second or so burst. She claims tank, considering everything I'd say she might mean APC.

That's true Jag, the number is misleading - probably intended to make a statement about gun control and I took it out of context.

I'm against paying bribes for hostages and we can thank the Philippines because they did it first. When they did it the price was lower too - $6M. The new price is $10-13 million.

There is too much error in every party's statements. Most glaring is a credibility problem with any statement from the military. Politics being more important than the truth. Not because the military is lying as it did in VietNam. Unlike Vietnam, the military now has public affairs people from the White House who approve what military spokesmen say. Similar to how the USSR military worked. USSR military commands also required approval of the political officer. In Iraq, they are not called political officers. But military spokesman in Iraq must get permission from a White House official who is attached to his office. Military must lie when ordered to by the politicians. And so we have a new variation of the 5 o'clock follies.

When White House approval is required for a public statement, then nothing from the military spokesmen in Iraq can be accepted at face value. First ask what are White House objectives before even considering the credibility of the public statement. Being politically correct has become more important than the truth - just like in Vietnam.

Was it a tank, an APC, or two Humvees that fired on the Italians? Clearly the victims are not a fully reliable source of information when so much violence happened so quickly and without warning. Were US troops trying to first warn the car? Maybe. But the car's occupants never got that warning until fired on. That is what US troops were also doing in that Frontline piece. The car was 1/4 miles away. Since it did not stop 1/4 to 1/2 mile away, then US troops fired on the car. Would you stop 1/4 mile away from an officer who is ordering you to stop? Most would never even see that officier let alone understand what that officer was ordering. But this is Iraq where everything is much worse than what the White House spins.

It will take long to sort through the details. But the bottom line fact remains unchallenged. Iraq is a far more dangerous place then the White House claims. These politicians are not interested in the truth. They want you to "don't worry ... be happy". This justifies lying. Just like in Vietnam, everyone in Iraq is 'assumed' to be the enemy. Happens when troops are there on lies from top management - just like in Vietnam. This Italian was killed because the situation in Iraq is like Vietnam - where there was 'light at the end of the tunnel'. We learned that light was nothing more than shing white teeth on a smiling and lying politician. Iraq is that unstable no matter how the administration spins it. That is one fact this dead Italian proves - and that the White House denies.

The details of this shooting are irrelevant to that bottom line. Good Morning - Vietnam. 30 years later and we do the same mistakes. When do we finally burn a village to save it?

Pictures of the car:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/070580.php

photos seem to be very selective about what they show, no clear shots of the whole bonnet or the windscreen, a guy was shot and she had shrapnel in her shoulder, some stuff must've gone though the windscreen. There are no clear shots of the indside and the whole side window is missing, if it was shot though someone kindly cleared away the remains of it before the photos were taken making it impossible to tell if 1 or 100 rounds went though it. Something stinks here.

If that's truly the car, then that rules out 50 cal or any other US military machine gun for that matter. :confused:

Depends on the window, if it was laminated safety glass like a windshield then it would show multiple holes before it would collapse. However, if it was tempered safety glass like most US cars, one bullet would likely take out the whole window and the second shot for sure. :cool:

I'm sorry, if 300 rounds were fired at that vehicle, I would expect at least 30 rounds to have hit it, and if that many rounds had actually hit the car then it would be in much worse shape.

Assuming that that was the car, and that many rounds were fired, etc., etc...

Wouldn't there be some fragments left at the bottom? This doesn't make sense. She had shrapnel in her shoulder, how the fuck do you get SHRAPNEL in your shoulder if the entire front of the car including windscreen is intact?

If they fire into the engine block and pieces of bullet and engine go through the firewall.

bonnet shows no signs of damage, no does the cowel inside, if you start bursting 50cal into it, you'd be able to see some damage. If the engine was shot out that would imply they were shot from the front, so why would the side window be the direction he was shot from (there's no bullet hole in the windscreen). There's no damage to the front but the front tire looks like it was shot out. I don't know what or why but something doesn't add up here somewhere.

If that is a bullethole in the windscreen it's a very low angle to hit the driver without hitting the cowel first. Secondly, every time I've seen a car shot up by US troops for not stopping it's been riddled, I'm sure it's not practice to fire one shot like that.

Maybe it's not the right car.

Who knows, maybe it isn't the car, maybe she was lieing badly and it was a freak shot of some sort, maybe it's a coverup and there's a car riddled with 50cal holes somewhere, what I don't know, that something doesn't add up is clear.

I agree....something stinks. :eyebrow:

There are two posts here at the Reason, Hit and Run section that sum up the confusion pretty good.

Their posts are always riddled with links so you'll want to go look.

~~~

"Journalist Sgrena detested yankees"

Not the Bronx Bombers, 'Mmericans. Or at least that is what the combination of a free Web translating site and a Dutch dispatch on the Sgrena affair relate.

If I read the Yoda-speak results correctly, a Dutch correspondent says the Italian journalist told him she had no fear of being a kidnap target in Iraq because, "We stand on the side of the suppressed Iraqi people." Oh.

More according to Harald Doornbos' account of their conversation during the flight into Baghdad from Beirut, by way of our trusted Yoda-izer:

"You get the situation not. We are anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, communists," said she. "The Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers, the enemies of the Americas have nothing to fear."

And this tidbit as picked up by the Command Post:

"The Americans are the biggest enemies of mankind."

This thing just keeps getting better and better.
Posted by Jeff A. Taylor at 02:58 PM | Comments (16)


J.G. Ballard in Iraq

La Repubblica says it has photos of the car that was carrying Giuliana Sgrena when she encountered those American bullets in Baghdad. If the pictures are legit, Sgrena's account of the shooting simply can't be accurate.

Jim Henley notes that the photos undercut the official U.S. story as well. Meanwhile, The Washington Post reviews the larger topic of checkpoint shootings in Iraq.
Posted by Jesse Walker at 02:44 PM | Comments (20)