Harry Reid: Iraq Worse Than Vietnam
Vietnam, without a doubt, is the darkest campaign for the American military. We invaded, escalated, lost tens of thousands of our troops and ultimately left that country with our tails between our legs as support for the war crumbled here at home. We can argue about whether or not the outcome would have been different had certain variables been changed, but as water under the bridge it was no victory for American foreign policy. It can be, and is by this observer, considered the worst American foreign policy flop of all time. It didn’t have to be, but the end result is what it is.
We lost some 58,000 American troops in Vietnam from 1959 to 1975, or an average of about 3,600 troops a year. A terrible price to pay for a military campaign in which we ultimately did not achieve our objectives.
Now given Vietnam’s status as an foreign policy flub, the left has been quick to compare Iraq to that earlier conflict. In the past those comparisons, by mainstream politicians at least, has been limited to statements about Iraq being “like” Vietnam. Or having Vietnam overtones.
But now, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has broken new ground in the Iraq vs. Vietnam debate. He is actually saying that Iraq is worse than Vietnam.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — After months of heated rhetoric slamming President Bush’s Iraq policy, the Senate’s top Democrat moved into new terrain by declaring the Iraq war a worse blunder than Vietnam.
“This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country,” Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”
“So we should take everything seriously. We find ourselves in a very deep hole and we need to find a way to dig out of it.”
Asked whether he considers it a worse blunder than Vietnam, Reid responded, “Yes.”
So far we’ve lost 3,136 troops in Iraq. The war is just one month shy of four years, so that’s about 784 troops a year. The total for casualties in Iraq since the war began nearly four years ago is roughly equal to just one year’s body count for Vietnam.
Yet to Reid, Iraq is the worse foreign policy blunder.
Can we set politics aside for a moment? Can we all just forget about how we feel about the decision to invade Iraq and about what’s going on there right now, take a step back, and admire Harry Reid’s comments in all their mind-blowing stupidity?
I mean, c’mon. Whatever side of the debate you’re on when it comes to the war, can we agree that saying it’s somehow worse than Vietnam is irresponsible political rhetoric from a blind partisan more worried about advancing his party’s agenda than advancing sound U.S. foreign policy?
When some right-wing politician tries to paint a cheery picture of Iraq, as though nothing were going wrong there, that politician deserves to be mocked and ridiculed. But on the flip side, when someone like Reid says something as stupid as that which he’s quoted saying above he also deserves to be mocked and ridiculed. Because what he said is dumb, and simply isn’t supported by fact.
Anyway, here’s some video of the comments quoted above as well as some other comments by Reid during an interview with Wolf Blitzer:
Reid responds to a question from Wolf about “dire predictions” from the recently-released National Intelligence Estimate as to what would happen if Democrats got their way America engaged in a rapid withdrawal from Iraq which would leave Iraqi security forces on their own before they were ready, something that would undoubtedly result in chaos and masses of civilian casualties. Reid responds by saying that the NIE report does predict that a rapid withdrawal “would cause problems,” but then states that no Democrat is calling for a “rapid withdrawal.” He must not have gotten the memo yet on Hillary’s 90 days plan yet, but whatever. What’s interesting is that he goes on to talk of Democrat plans calling for redeployment and training Iraqi security forces, counter-terrorism operations, etc. What’s dumb is that a big reason why we’re not able to do that force training and counter-terrorism now is that both the American and Iraqi security forces have about all they can handle fighting off the terror insurgency now. The whole point of the surge is to push back that insurgency for some breathing room so that the training, etc. can take place.
The paradox in the Democrat plans for Iraq, at least the version that’s coming from Reid’s mouth, is that somehow our troops are supposed to do the training of Iraqi security forces they’re having trouble with now with fewer troops. It’d be nice if some Democrat could explain how, exactly, we’re going to pull that off, but I suspect the truth is that our military isn’t expected to pull it off. They’re expected to fail so that Bush looks like an idiot and the Dems can score a political victory. Tags: Asshats, Politics, The Loony Left, War On Terror
