Oh, and Iraq and Viet Nam aren’t spelled the same. That’s another difference, I just thought of.

Former Senator Max Cleland who lost three limbs in Viet Nam said:

“Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn’t go when you had the chance.”

But, hey, what does Cleland know? Instead, let’s hear from Michael Totten who has never served in the military, never fought, never been to war-time Viet Nam, never been to Iraq, yet can say that Iraq is just a “particularly nasty pothole“. He writes:

It has become fashionable among the anti-war crowd to say Iraq is the new Vietnam. “Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam,” is a popular bumper sticker.

Former Senator Max Cleland recently went on record as well: “Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President. Sorry you didn’t go when you had the chance.”

The war in Iraq really only has one thing in common with the Vietnam War. They’re both wars. The differences are significant and worth outlining.

First of all, Iraq is a lot less violent. More than 58,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam. Since the March 19th invasion of Iraq, we’ve lost fewer than 400. At the rate this is going it will take more than one hundred years before the two wars are comparable.

It’s not just a question of scale. Vietnam and Iraq are categorically different animals.

There must be good money in deliberately acting obtuse.

When someone calls Iraq the “new Viet Nam” they are generally saying that it is an unpopular war and that it is unwinnable and because of that, there is no end to it.

Why can’t the Chickenhawk Keyboard Brigade understand that?

Exit mobile version