Fox News says Iraq is like WW2 not Vietnam

[diamond geezer]

More "opinion" from a so-called news service. Just who or what is the Weekly standard?

People love to draw historical analogies because they seem to offer a sort of analytical proof—after all, doesn't history repeat itself? In fact, such comparisons do have value, but like statistics, it's possible to find a historical analogy to suit any argument. And Vietnam's the wrong one for Iraq.


In fact, World War II is a far more accurate comparison for the global war we are waging to defeat terrorism. Both wars began for the United States with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy. We had many faint and not-so-faint warnings of the impending*Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor (search), not least the historical precedent of Port Arthur in 1904, when the Japanese launched a preemptive strike against Russia.


We had similar ill-defined warnings and precedents about*Al Qaeda (search)*and*Islamist terrorism (search)*(the*East Africa embassy bombings (search)*in 1998; the*USS Cole bombing (search)*in 2000), but in 2001 as in 1941, we lacked the "hard" intelligence requisite to convince a country at peace that it was about to pitched into war.

Historical apologists say that the Japanese were "forced" to attack us because we were strangling their trade in Asia. Sound familiar? American foreign policy in the Middle East is responsible for the anger and rage that has stirred up Al Qaeda, right? In fact, there is a crucial similarity between the*Japanese imperialism (search)*of 50 years ago and Islamic fundamentalism of today: both are totalitarian, anti-Western ideologies that cannot be appeased.


As Japan amassed victory after victory in the early days of the war, America and our allies could see that we had a long, hard slog ahead of us. Americans understood there was no recourse but to win, despite the fearful cost. This was the first and foremost lesson of World War II that applies today: Wars of national survival are not quick, not cheap, and not bloodless.


In one of our first counteroffensives against the Japanese, U.S. troops landed on the island of*Guadalcanal (search)*in order to capture a key airfield. We surprised the Japanese with our speed and audacity, and with very little fighting seized the airfield. But the Japanese recovered from our initial success, and began a long, brutal campaign to force us off Guadalcanal and recapture it. The Japanese were very clever and absolutely committed to sacrificing everything for their beliefs. (Only three Japanese surrendered after six months of combat—a statistic that should put today's Islamic radicals to shame.) The United States suffered 6,000 casualties during the six-month Guadalcanal campaign; Japan, 24,000. It was a very expensive airfield.

Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission, and the populations that support them have to be convinced they can't win. This is a bloody and difficult business. In the Pacific theater, we eventually learned our enemies' tactics—jungle and*amphibious warfare (search), carrier task forces, air power—and far surpassed them. But that victory took four years and cost many hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal—one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.


For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win.


Fox again tows the party line, suggesting that Iraq had something to do with terrorist attacks on the US.

Is there any "news service" more adept at keeping the US public ignorant, angry and scared?

[diamond geezer]

Sorry, forgot the link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133518,00.html)

[t300]

Is there any "news service" more adept at keeping the US public ignorant, angry and scared?

Try the Clinton News Network...ahem...CNN.

[skunk]

Snappy retort, Batman...

[yellow]

Fox. For the love of flowers.. in NO WAY (except one) is the war on terrorism like World War II. I will conceed that they both 'started' the same way. That's all. World War II had well defined enemies. There was a well defined purpose, defeat Nazi Germany & Japan and their Allies. Do we even know whom or what we're waging war on? Is there any particular point to our Service people and civilians dying in foreign countries?

[wwworry]

No wonder Fox news consumers are the worst informed. Only a stupid person could accept that article on face value.

why not let Iraq equal Iraq? look at the current facts.

you can see from the posted link the use of analogy only clouds the issues in the current situation. For instance, if you agree that current administration policies in the mid-east are misguided then you are lumped in with "apologists" who say that japan was "forced" to attack the US.

Then, because we are not "apologists",
???
Iraq is like WW II

and Iraq has to be "bludgeoned into submission".

[mda01aqt]

i actually use to watch foxnews to try and understand why the american population seem......uh hum.....stupid an ill informed.

after watching it i understood perfectly.

what a crappy piece of journalism.

[edesignuk]

You gotta be sh*tting me. Like WWII!? Glad we don't get Fox news, I'll still with the BBC thank you.

[takao]

one word: ridicoulus

[Chip NoVaMac]

Fox. For the love of flowers.. in NO WAY (except one) is the war on terrorism like World War II. I will conceed that they both 'started' the same way. That's all. World War II had well defined enemies. There was a well defined purpose, defeat Nazi Germany & Japan and their Allies. Do we even know whom or what we're waging war on? Is there any particular point to our Service people and civilians dying in foreign countries?

And witnessed by the increased violence following our "justified" invasion of Iraq, we have only succeeded in creating a new generation of terrorists.

[Thomas Veil]

Is, uh, Fox aware that in WW II we had a lot more allies?

Are they clear that we're battling not a country, but a widespread organization that is more akin to the Mafia?

Do they understand that, if we'd fought WW II with the same logic we're fighting this war, we would first attack Japan, then turn around and attack China?

[IJ Reilly]

The Weekly Standard is a Fox Newscorp-owned right wing publication edited by William Kristol. FWIW.

The historical analogy presented in this article would be laughable if so many people weren't prepared to park their brains at the door and accept any comparison, no matter how foolish and counter-historical, that rationalizes the misbegotten Iraq adventure.

[LethalWolfe]

People love to draw historical analogies because they seem to offer a sort of analytical proof—after all, doesn't history repeat itself? In fact, such comparisons do have value, but like statistics, it's possible to find a historical analogy to suit any argument.

I agree w/this. Everything after this is just, well, :rolleyes:


Lethal

[stubeeef]

Only a stupid person could accept that article on face value.

Reminds me of the way many here followed and believed the mindless drivel their demi-god rather was spewing while he foamed at the mouth. :D

[pooky]

I think they've actually got it right here. The Iraq war IS a little like WWII, but not in the way they're thinking.

We're the Japanese. Think about it - we strike a country preemptively despite their attempts to appease us. The country we've attacked happens to be oil rich, a resource we'd like desperately to get our hands on. Our attack forces a country that had, for the most part, been quiescent towards us to unite in a fury of nationalism.

I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but it's a whole lot closer to the real situation than what faux news has put out. Nor am I suggesting that we will ultimately lose this war. And I'm certainly not endorsing the actions of the militants who've been doing so many nasty things, both to "coalition" forces, private contractors, and peaceful iraqi citizens (are you reading this Mr. Ashcroft?)

[Vector]

You gotta be sh*tting me. Like WWII!? Glad we don't get Fox news, I'll still with the BBC thank you.

You have Sky news isn't that close enough?

[LethalWolfe]

We're the Japanese. Think about it - we strike a country preemptively despite their attempts to appease us.
Iraq was well aware of the force build up aginst it and the US never tried to appease Japan nor did Japan demand anything from the US.

The country we've attacked happens to be oil rich, a resource we'd like desperately to get our hands on.
Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor to get oil (or any other resources). Japan attacked PH to cripple/desotry the US Navy's ability to wage war in the Pacific.


Lethal

[applemacdude]

Fox News is a POS station anyways. I hate it how the media is convincing average americans what the real "truth" is.......

[Blue Velvet]

Right, so this war in Iraq is just like the one where 'we' happened to win.

Not like that other one which turned into a messy, ignoble complete ******-up that left the country in ruins for years...

[LethalWolfe]

Personally, I find the whole war X is like war Y thing stupid. I think that the climate and mistakes of the Vietnam era are being watered down by the severe over-use of comparisons like these. The first Gulf War, Somalia, the Balkins, Afghanistan... all got the "Vietnam" treatment. "It's just like Vietnam" has turned into a fear-invoking catch phrase.

All wars have similarities between them and if you want to narrowly comment on those specific parallels that's fine. But soundbite friendly blanket statements are just uncalled for and misleading.


Lethal

[blackfox]

Iraq was well aware of the force build up aginst it and the US never tried to appease Japan nor did Japan demand anything from the US.
Lethal
Not to get off the argument, but I believe this statement is not entirely accurate. Japan was aware that by joining the (original) axis powers, that it would most likely have to deal with the military force of the allies, especially the US, at least eventually.

I also believe the US attempted to "appease" the Japanese by engaging in diplomatic solutions between the US and Japan, although the latter was being duplicitous by virtue of sneaking their carrier fleet w/in striking distance of Pearl Harbor, while speaking of non-aggression.

I do agree, however, with the larger point of each War being unique, and not prone to be understood through the prism of another engagement, under vastlyy different circumstances. I think the WWII analogy is particularily poor, however.

The Vietnam War was also, of course, about ideology and about anti-western encroachment (ie communism) and the guerilla warfare style of combat is much more analgous to current affairs, as well as the lesson that under such circumstances the US's conventional military superiority was rendered largely irrelevant. I believe that the US's inability or unwillingness to understand or acknowledge this led to our defeat in Vietnam and the subsequent repeat of similar mistakes in Iraq.

I believe it was Ho Chi Minh who when asked about the effects of the Vietnam War, said something to the effect of: " They will lose many lives, we will lose many more...but they will tire of it first."

Again, although the US has the most technologically advanced military, when this advantage is erased in urban guerilla-warfare, to succeed, the US must be willing to lose many soldiers lives, which is, suffice to say, unpopular with the public and therefore difficult to push politically. In this sense, the US does not have the determination of our "enemies", whose fight runs deeper and who are willing to sacrifice more.

If you insist on historical comparisons, I believe the Crusades might be an apt example. Back then, an advanced Islamic Culture was spreading throughout the east and towards Europe. Western Culture stepped in and began nearly a millenia of conflict, which culminated in the defeat of the Ottoman empire, and the humiliation and subjugation of Islam to the West (re: Colonial Middle East). It is foolish to think that this cultural competition has been extinguished or that Islamic culture does not have a desire to regain past glory by shirking off the West.

Speaking of learning from History, we might take a lesson from the Romans...they managed to conquer their large Empire both by military might and by flexibility and adaptation. More often than not, they did not impose their customs and culture on their conquered lands, but co-opted and assimilated local customs. The US, in it's ideological zeal, does not seem able to see the wisdom of tempering ideology with pragmatism. As I heard the other day: " Do you really think that a Culture that keeps half of it's population in bee-keeper suits is ready for Democracy?"

An unfortunate reality, but a reality nontheless. Perhaps we truly need a woman President, as women have long understood that a modicum of cleverness and tact goes much further than that of brute force or fiat in getting what you want.

[zimv20]

a followup on blackfox's point...

lesson #1, as expressed by robert mcnamara is errol morris' excellent The Fog of War, is "empathize with your enemy."

though the main emphasis of his point was the US' lack of understanding of who it was fighting in vietnam, the lesson applies to all wars. imo, the US understood germany well, both in military terms and in western thought.

in this light, i'd say the wars in afghanistan and iraq are more similar to vietnam than to europe in WWII.

[blackfox]

As a follow-up to zim's follow-up to my post <ahem>...

I might add that the US had some difficulty understanding even Japan's Culture and subsequent tactics. The usage of Kamikaze pilots and the propensity for the Japanese to fight down to their last man, made our progress in the Pacific theatre slow and extremely high in casualties as we were fighting an enemy who did not conceptualize the conflict or the stakes in a way we could easily understand. The McNamara quote Zim posted addresses this issue.

It is perhaps the most important concept to understand. Some comparisons can be drawn between Kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers and the willingness and tenacity of both Islamic and Japanese forces to fight to the death, regardless of any hope for Victory.

With this in mind, I would remind everyone of the manner which we brought the War in the Pacific to a close...Hiroshima is not a precendent I enjoy...do any of us want it to come to that?

[zimv20]

yet another followup...

and preceding the two nukes on japan was the firebombing of just about every city in japan. tokyo lost 100,000 civilians in a single night (yikes!).

if we want to use these types of high-level bombing raids -- against civilians, no less -- for comparison to iraq, perhaps Fox (the media outlet, not blackfox) is onto something after all.

[blackfox]

yet another followup...

and preceding the two nukes on japan was the firebombing of just about every city in japan. tokyo lost 100,000 civilians in a single night (yikes!).

if we want to use these types of high-level bombing raids -- against civilians, no less -- for comparison to iraq, perhaps Fox (the media outlet, not blackfox) is onto something after all.
See: November 3rd, 2004 (assuming Bush Victory)

Fallu...where?

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, the US did attempt to "appease" Japan prior to WWII, and in fact the basis of the war was economic resources. During the 1930s the US was perfectly happy to allow Japan, a resource-poor nation, to exercise its imperial prerogatives so long as they didn't interfere with US interests in the Pacific. The US began a slow and not very enthusiastic military buildup in 1937-8, but this was by no means a preparation for war, but strictly a series of defensive measures meant to bring the US military back from virtually nothing in terms of preparedness. The US did sanction Japan's steel industry after they invaded Manchuria, which raised tensions between the countries and alerted Japan to the fact that US and Japanese interests in the Pacific were on a collision course.

Japan decided to strike first not so much because they hoped to disable the US militarily, but because their leaders were convinced that the American people (after decades of isolationism) had no stomach for war and could be persuaded by the attack to not challenge Japan's imperial expansion. IOW, Japan's leaders thought the US would continue on its path of "appeasement."

[LethalWolfe]

Not to get off the argument, but I believe this statement is not entirely accurate. Japan was aware that by joining the (original) axis powers, that it would most likely have to deal with the military force of the allies, especially the US, at least eventually.

I agree that they knew that eventually the US would enter the war, but I think the US/Iraq situtation is different. Japan didn't b'cast their intent to the whole world and give the US deadline for attack.


The Vietnam War was also, of course, about ideology and about anti-western encroachment (ie communism) and the guerilla warfare style of combat is much more analgous to current affairs, as well as the lesson that under such circumstances the US's conventional military superiority was rendered largely irrelevant. I believe that the US's inability or unwillingness to understand or acknowledge this led to our defeat in Vietnam and the subsequent repeat of similar mistakes in Iraq.

I agree, but I think, as far as the fighting force is concered, those mistakes are not being repeated. Who are the major fighters in Afghanistan? Special Forces troops fighting a guerilla style war. How many US casualties have their been in Iraq? During the same time frame in Vietnam? A key problem during Vietnam were civilians in the WH trying to run the war like a business and not letting the military run the war like a war. I think the US military has done a much better job of adapting to fight unconventional forces.

Again, although the US has the most technologically advanced military, when this advantage is erased in urban guerilla-warfare, to succeed, the US must be willing to lose many soldiers lives, which is, suffice to say, unpopular with the public and therefore difficult to push politically. In this sense, the US does not have the determination of our "enemies", whose fight runs deeper and who are willing to sacrifice more.

I agree for the most part.

If you insist on historical comparisons,...
I don't because I think they are largely misleading to the general public. ;)

Nice series of posts. I liked the Fox/Zim tag team. :) It's nice hearing such educated statements regarding history. It is usually very lacking in Americans of my generation (I'm in my mid-20's). I think much of my "it's another Vietnam" irritation comes from people saying just 'cause they heard it on the TV even though they really have no idea what it means.


Lethal

[blackfox]

To add (via tangent) to the discussion about comparisons between Iraq and previous US conflicts, I would also add the addition of the media into the alchemy of modern warfare.

WWII, by virtue of insufficient technology for rapid and visceral media coverage of the War (ie pictures, esp. color/moving images), remained somewhat abstracted and mysterious to the average citizen and perhaps even many of the Politicians involved.

It was not till Vietnam that Media War coverage, both "official" and not, flowered. To a public used to dealing in the "simplicity" of image, the results made the experience of war more tangible and real to the layman and subsequently elicited a level of concern and engagement in the process of conducting a war. This opens up the possibility of image manipulation/control by the Government or other partisan groups, but the level of control does not approach that of WWII era due to that era's relative media simplicity and the relative power of the State. The role of the Media in the events that were the Vietnam War should be apparent, as they have been i every conflict since (sometimes by their absence).

Currently with Iraq, with the current level of development in the media, the fate of Iraq will largely depend on US Media coverage of events. As events in Africa and the Caucasus have shown, only conflicts which interest the cameras are given pause and genuine, sustained levels of commited action.

The fact that Agfhanistan, far from a success (in the way we frame it), has been inferred to be a victory by it's lack of coverage in the US Media. As stated in these forums before, since the transfer of "power" to Allawi, Media coverage of Iraq has ebbed, despite sustained or worsening violence and instability. The amount,scope and depth of media coverage in Iraq will prove to be the most decisive element to future US involvement there. To the extent that a Government can, the success or failure of a particular strategy lies in the adept control/manipulation of information/image flow via domestic media, rendering a partisan version of reality. Vietnam is a excellent primer on such interplay.

Still, this War is unique, as is the type and level of Media presence. I have probably presented my point badly, but suffice to say, you can't leave out Media as a component in appropriate analogy...

[zimv20]

How many US casualties have their been in Iraq? During the same time frame in Vietnam?
that's a good question. i think i'll do a little research. first, though -- when did the vietnam war "begin?"


A key problem during Vietnam were civilians in the WH trying to run the war like a business and not letting the military run the war like a war.
have you watched The Fog of War? i saw it for the first time last week and was absolutely riveted. whatever i thought of mcnamara before watching it, well, i really can't remember. he's fascinating.

[zimv20]

these are from here (http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html). scroll down to "Casualties By Year". i have no idea if they're accurate.

KIA, combat troop strength, % KIA

1961-65: 1864, n/a, n/a
1966: 5008, n/a, n/a
1967: 9378, n/a, n/a
1968: 14,594, 62,850, 23.2%
1969: 9414, 67,600, 13.9%
1970: 4221, n/a, n/a
1971: 1380, n/a, n/a
1972: 300, n/a, n/a

obviously, i'm missing a few figures here. if anyone wants to fill them in, that'd be great.

[SPG]

In defense of the Vietnam analogy:
The US is involved in a war without having a very good plan, or plan at all, of how to end it. We can't just pull out immediately without losing the region. The war isn't particularily popular at home. We are spending vast fortunes in this war that we desperately need here. The outcome of this war will not immediately affect our safety and quality of life in the short term, as in the Iraqis like the Vietnamese were not advancing toward the US mainland.

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is shorthand for saying all of the above as well as saying that we are not fighting a WWII freedom of the world is at stake kind of war. As a shorthand it is very appropriate and whether the reader adds more to it may be the only downside of using it. Perhaps the question should be "How is Iraq not like Vietnam?"

[IJ Reilly]

I agree that they knew that eventually the US would enter the war,

This as I've pointed out already is not the case. As a matter of historical fact, the Japanese leaders calculated that they could keep the US out of the war by attacking first.

[mda01aqt]

You have Sky news isn't that close enough?

thank god, it nothing like foxnews. sky news has copied the format of bbc news and itn news,more similar to itn news. by this i mean it covers slightly more celebraty stuff. no ****** journalim as thestories are consistant wid the rest of the news channels. it is more rightwing that itn and bbc,and has selective coverage of the israeli-palstinian crisis (like cnn and foxnews) just showing the israeli suffering predominantly. that is prob y the world have such a different view to the crisis than americans.

sky news has good digital selection, but i still stick wid the god ol' bbc.

[skunk]

the god ol' bbc.
It's THAT good!

[LethalWolfe]

This as I've pointed out already is not the case. As a matter of historical fact, the Japanese leaders calculated that they could keep the US out of the war by attacking first.

I think we got our wires crossed. Japan attacked in an attempt to keep the US out of the war because they knew, if nothing was done, the US would eventually get into the war. If they didn't think the US would eventually get into the war they wouldn't have attacked in an attempt to keep the US out of the war.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

Okay, fine. But that's only half my point. The other half was that the US in fact did attempt to "appease" Japan during the mid and late-1930s. I am kind of tired of hearing this overworked term trotted out every time two nations attempt to settle their differences by some means other than war.

[blackfox]

To add (or subtract) from IJ's point...I would remind everyone of the ubiquity of compromise in all political activity (defined as decision-making). Compromise, by definition, often means giving something up, which if you wish, can always be seen as appeasement... compromise is the de-facto standard of reconciling differences of opinion responsibly from individuals to States...sadly, both the conceptualiztion and execution of compromise requires an understanding of the nuance and complexities of the issue at hand...something sorely lacking in some...

[IJ Reilly]

Resisting the temptation to expound at length on this subject... The reason it seems to me that we keep hearing about "appeasement" is because this term makes the confrontational policies of the Bush administration seem somehow reasonable by comparison. It's become a convenient way of describing every means of resolving conflict short of war or the threat of war. And it's precisely this false dichotomy that scares the hell out of those who should be our allies.

[pseudobrit]

Both wars began for the United States with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy

I stopped reading after this.

Japan declared war on the US just before attacking. We also knew it was inevitable that Japan would be forced into attacking us. They were a cornered cat.

[takao]

I stopped reading after this.

Japan declared war on the US just before attacking. We also knew it was inevitable that Japan would be forced into attacking us. They were a cornered cat.

and after all WWII started at least 2 years earlier

;)