You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #42: No I don't I want the US out of Iraq [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-28-04 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. No I don't I want the US out of Iraq
One of the advantages of having the most powerful military in the World is you can dictate to the world, but that is only if the other side is willing to be dictated to. With the US military tied up in Iraq, Bush can NOT use it elsewhere, thus the US in Iraq gives a free hand to everyone else in the world. This is one of the problems when one relies on Military might, once it is in use you can NOT use it someplace else.

For example I once told someone the US lost the Vietnam War on the Suez Canal. He thought I was nuts, than I told him the Following:

1. During Easter 1972 the North Vietnamese launched a large scale attack on the South, it was defeated by the Introduction of American Planes to support the Army of The Republic (South) Vietnam (AVRN) AND the first use of the TOW anti-tank missiles when Americans used the weapons against North Vietnamese T-54 Tanks. This was the largest shipment of supplies to South Vietnam since the Vietnamization program started in 1969. It gave the South Vietnamese Army military Equipment the Regular US Army did not yet have.

2. The US Military had NOT yet made up the losses of Supplies when the Yom Kipper War of September 1973 started. The Yom Kipper war ended with a HUGE Air shipment of emergency Military Supplies to Israel (Including TOW Missiles) to help the Israelis defeat the attacks from the Egyptian Army. The Exact nature of the War is still classified, Egypt says it was winning when the Truce was entered, the Israelis says they had encircled the Egyptian Army and had cross the Suez Canal into Egypt proper when the Truce was agreed to. My Take, Both were right, the Israelis had encircled and cut off the Egyptians Army, but the Egyptian Army was still intake and Israel did NOT have the personal to destroy it (The losses on the part of Israel up to that point in the fighting was extremely high for its small population base, the losses to destroy the Egyptian 3rd Army would have been to much to Israel, it would have cost Israel the war).

3. One of the side affects of the Yom Kipper War was the Arab oil embargo. The Arabs had embargo oil after the 1956 War with Israel, the 1967 Six day war but till 1970 the US was a net EXPORTER of oil. Come 1970 the US was a net IMPORTER, by 1973 the US was importing about 10% of its oil from the Persian Gulf which meant the 1973 Oil Arab Embargo caused a drop in the supply of oil in the US of about 10%. This lead to a recession AND Congress realizing that the US has to plan to Invade the Persian Gulf to secure the oil if it was cut off again.

4. As part of the price of the Truce to end the Yom Kipper War the US agrees to ship military supplies to Israel. This continues till the end of 1974. At the same time President Ford adopts his "Whip Inflation NOW" (WIN) Campaign and it becomes a source of Humor as inflation escalates do to the increase in the cost of fuel and the excess debt the US had accumulated during the Vietnam War. While domestic expenditures increases (to defeat record high unemployment caused by the Recession) the US is also cutting all other expenditures to reduce the deficit so to reduce inflation (Also at record highs). You had stagflation, and Congress was trying to solve the problem. To defeat the Inflation attempts had to be made to reduce the deficit, while to defeat the high unemployment at that time the US had to increase domestic expenditures. Military expenditures had to increase to cover the costs of converting to an all volunteer army, and Congress had to supply military assistance to Israel given the recent Yom Kipper War. Something had to give, and Congress decided the the US could no longer support South Vietnam any where near what was needed to prevent the Viet Cong from taking over.

4. In the March 1975 the North Vietnamese launched another attack, 55 days later they march into Saigon (29-30 April 1975). The US does not provide any air cover as it had in 1972 not additional supplies as it had done in 1972. Congress had forbidden overflight of US Aircraft in South Eat Asia in the fall of 1974 which along with failing to fund the South Vietnamese Army meant nothing was going to stop the Viet Cong. Congress had decided that defeating American Inflation, defeating American Unemployment, providing for an ability to intervene in the Persian Gulf and to support Israel all had higher priority than South Vietnam and you can see this all came from the Israelis being thrown back from the Suez Canal in the opening days on the Yom Kipper War.

Thus the Egyptian attack during the Yom Kipper war that drove the Israelis from the Suez Canal lead directly to the fall of Vietnam two years later. WHY? Because the US had to make a decision of where to apply its military might. In 1974 Israel and the Persian Gulf was more important than Vietnam. The North Vietnamese was able to move because of the decision of the US to Support Israel (and to plan to intervene in the Persian Gulf). The same things is happening today, the US forces are tied up in Iraq, leaving everyone else relatively free to do as they please. For example the low intensity Conflict in Saudi Arabia is be caused by bin Laden for bin Laden knows the US is to tied up in Iraq to take on Arabia. Red China has made some nasty noise as to Taiwan for the same reason (Fear of lost of Trade with Japan and Taiwan has prevented the Red Chinese from attacking Taiwan more than any fear of US Military might). Who knows what is happening in North Korea (hopefully the CIA but I have my questions). As to Russia, Putin is slowly putting the Russian Bear back on top of the former Soviet States.

My point here is once the US military forces are committed, you can not use them to threaten someone else. Bush seems not to have realized that the most important function of a Military is as a threat more than the Military being used. Once the Military is used it starts to weaken, and you can use it no place else. The US military was stronger two years ago for the US Military was NOT committed to any long term fight. IT could have been sent anywhere to stop anyone. Thus everyone had to consider the US Military in any planning. Today, the same Military is committed to Iraq and as such a threat to no one else.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC