In Iraq -- much more important to the US than Vietnam -- the US continued to pursue its major geopolitical goal: control of Mideast oil as a choke-hold on its principal economic rivals, the EU and northeast Asia. The Bush II wars sought to establish permanent military bases in the midst of the oil-producing region, a goal in which it seems the US will succeed, even though the occupation has been wretchedly conducted and the the US reduced to a "Fort Apache" approach. There were subsidiary goals, notably once again a demonstration of what to the US was prepared to do -- "pre-emptive war.")
The "Vietnam syndrome" was primarily the revulsion of the US populace at what had been done in their name in Vietnam. Almost three-quarters of Americans came to believe that the war in Iraq was not a mistake, but a crime, an immoral use of military force by the US. That opinion was what successive administrations strove to overcome. (Apologists for Israel predictably labeled as "anti-Semitism" a perceived reluctance by Americans to exercise military force abroad; the Neocon venture was particularly concerned about that.) --CGE
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Michael Dawson wrote:
> What was the central war objective in Vietnam? Iraq?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > On Behalf Of joanna bujes
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:04 AM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The end of warfare?
> >
> > No, they wanted to win both times. Viet Nam was a loss and everyone knew
> > it. If it were not a loss, there would have been no syndrome to recover
> > from.
> >
> > Iraq will be a loss too. Not only that, it may take the U.S. economy
> > down with it.
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> > Michael Dawson wrote:
> >
> > >Isn't analysis of objectives the only proper basis for making good sense
> > of
> > >wars? If so, then why talk like Vietnam was a loss for the U.S.? Sure,
> > the
> > >elites would have loved to crush the country and wound up with ticker
> > tape
> > >parades, but it was the crushing of the country that was the more
> > important
> > >of the two aims, by far.
> > >
> > >Similar point about Iraq. The main strategic objective is to perpetuate
> > >irrational, undemocratic, fractious cultural politics in Oilsville.
> > Sure,
> > >the U.S. would love to end up with ticker tape parades and a compliant
> > and
> > >stable puppet regime, but it's the stirring of the pot that's the more
> > >important objective.
> > >
> > >End of warfare, my butt!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-
> > talk.org]
> > >>On Behalf Of Carl Remick
> > >>Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 8:04 AM
> > >>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > >>Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] The end of warfare?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>From: joanna bujes <jbujes at covad.net>
> > >>>
> > >>>"Against the most heavily armed opponent in the history of War,
> > Fallujah
> > >>>has still not let itself be "taken" to date. The mightiest military
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>machine
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>in history has met its match. A turning point in military affairs? The
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>end
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>of warfare, as practiced by the Americans - the application of
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>overwhelming
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>force to obtain a victory?"
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>I've seen this movie before. However clichéd it may be to compare Iraq
> > to
> > >>Vietnam, the fact is that the US *is* acting out its fantasies of power
> > in
> > >>Iraq in the same way it did in Vietnam, and once again it is getting its
> > >>tuchus handed to it. Unfortunately, the US didn't learn any lesson 30
> > >>years
> > >>ago and doesn't seem likely to learn any this time either. We'll just
> > go
> > >>back to the lab for a few years to figure out more ingenious,
> > spectacular
> > >>and "precise" ways to inflict pain and death, and presto, the US will be
> > >>out
> > >>democratizing the world again through main force better than ever.
> > >>
> > >>Carl
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>___________________________________
> > >>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >___________________________________
> > >http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > >.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>