It took them six years to realise they were losing in Vietnam and had to get out somehow, while in Iraq it has only taken six months.
Washington turning to Vietnam exit strategy in Iraq
Moving to pull US troops from Iraq amid intensifying attacks, replacing them with a hurriedly trained Iraqi force, Washington is accused of seeking an exit strategy similar to the Vietnam war. The move to “Iraqify” military and police forces is reminiscent of the option taken by Washington over the so-called Vietnamization that came before south Vietnam collapsed before northern forces in 1975, observers and politicians say. Former president Richard Nixon chose to “Vietnamify” – progressively putting heavier military responsibility on the south Vietnamese so as to disengage the United States, which lost 58,000 soldiers in the tortuous war. Though the Iraqi conflict is quite different and US casualties nowhere near the levels een in Vietnam, the analogy is being seen increasingly, after Washington said it may cut US troops from 132,000 to 105,000 by next spring. Parallely, the United States is aiming to take the number of Iraqi security forces – army, police and border guards – from 118,000 men to 170,000 by early 2004.
Concerns have been raised over the policy, with claims the US administration is more interested in improving public opinion ahead of the November 2004 elections – in which Bush will seek a second term – than in Iraq’s stability. “Frustrated by the lack of quick progress on the ground and fading political support at home, Washington is now latching on the idea that a quick transfer of power to local troops and politicians would make things better,” states columnist Fareed Zakaria. Or at any rate, it would lower American casualties. It was called Vietnamization; today it’s called Iraqification," Zakaria wrote in a column in The Washington Post and Newsweek. While political commentator Thomas Friedman said there was “no question this is necessary,” he added: “But it’s not sufficient”. We could have 100,000 Iraqis in the police and army and it would not be enough without one other person. We need an Iraqi leader (or a leadership council) elected as a result of an Iraqi constitutional or political process," wrote Friedman in The New York Times.
Republican Senator John McCain, a former pilot and Vietnam war veteran has added his voice to the debate, saying US forces in Iraq must be increased not reduced in number. When our Secretary of Defense says that it is up to the Iraqi people to defeat Baathists and terrorists, we send a message that America’s exit from Iraq is ultimately more important than the achievement of American goals in Iraq," McCain said Wednesday. To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations," said McCain underlining his belief that at least one more full division should be added to US troops there. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, seeking to reassure Thursday, said cutting troops would not be done to the detriment of military objectives and that Washington aims to stabilize the country it has its sights on transforming into a democratic model for the Middle East. “We’re bringing in forces that are appropriate to deal with the evolving threats in Iraq today, including more mobile infantry elements,” said Rumsfeld. “So while the number of US forces may be level or decline slightly, this much is certain: The overall capability of the security forces in Iraq will increase,” said the Pentagon chief, stipulating that “numbers do not necessarily equate with capability”.
Thank you i think that’s precisely what i mean. Had we learned our lessons the first time around, we would never have got entangled with Iraq in the first place.