[Vision2020] Tet Offensive

Sat Nov 11 15:35:58 PST 2006

Matt,

Thanks for your reply.  I don't disagree with a lot of what you say here, 
but I think that it is important to keep in mind what the ultimate goal is 
supposed to be in looking at what is done to achieve victory in a war.

That's one reason I asked Kai how he would define victory in Iraq.  I don't 
know how Tony defines it.  Bush defines it as creating a democratic Iraq.  I 
don't think we can do that if first we invade a country that hadn't done 
anything to us, and then kill their people.  If someone invaded this country 
in order to impose their form of government, why would we find that 
acceptable?  We wouldn't.

Tony suggests we act against Iraq as Sherman did in our Civil War.  I don't 
think doing that to Iraq will create a democratic society there or anywhere 
else in the Middle East.  Tactics such as blowing up mosques as he wishes to 
do is fine if you're Nazi Germany taking over Poland, or the Soviets 
crushing Hungary.  And I suppose if we want to send hundreds of thousands of 
troops to Iraq and blow up everything that moves, we can crush them.  I 
don't think that's what we're about as a nation.  That doesn't represent any 
American value I recognize.

Sunil

>From: "Matt Decker" <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>
>To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Tet Offensive
>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:04:35 -0800
>
>Sunil,
>
>You have a lot or very good points and questions in your last post. What do 
>we do in Iraq? I myself won't kid anyone about what we shoould do and not 
>do now, for I am not the expert. I will leave that to the people in 
>postion. I do feel however, that we did not utilize the best military in 
>world to it's full capabilities. We have young very intelligent and highly 
>motivated Marines and soldiers. Instead we over used them and now have the 
>national gaurd pulling duties. These reservists, no offense, are not as 
>specilized as the regulars. Granted it doesn't matter who is driving into 
>the IED, but I can also say if we had let the generals do there jobs at the 
>begining of the war instead of the senators and brass monkies back home, 
>things would be different.
>
>The media has not played a very supportive role in this and vietnam war. 
>They tend to remind the public that Marines have surrounded Falujiah and 
>are about to destroy a mosque that has Al-Zaqauri in it. They will focas 
>their opinion on how destroying that Mosque will be devistating to our 
>cause, but won't realize that in war you have to be fast, deadly, and pack 
>fury with you. War is never good but if your going to do it, then kill them 
>quick. Use sense and only kill the bad ones, including the 13 kid with an 
>ak47 shooting at you. But get it done quickly. It sounds  bad but all great 
>leaders have realized this concept, including Hitler. Bad man but a great 
>leader. Ok now i'm rambling.
>
>As in the media, they do whats good for them, the story. Portraying a 
>marine as a baby killer, but not have the slightest clue that the kid was 
>shooting at him. If they had shown the bad things we did in WWII, we would 
>have never one. Shooting unarmed Japanese, bombing Drisdin, assasanations, 
>Etc. I don't agree with them, but will also tend to push that aside for the 
>overall agenda, victory and peace.
>
>In no means should the media not do story about Cambodia or, Muy Lia, or 
>the recent 7 Marines in Iraq that staged a civilians death as terroristic. 
>They should. We should know about what going on, in order to learn from it. 
>But, the medias portrayal of the Vietnam War and Iraq war has been nothing 
>but negative. Which in turn WILL kill more Marines and soldiers.
>
>Try the next time you watch the news and count how many positive stories 
>you here about. Kids being helped, buildings being built, area being 
>secured, then count how many bad stories you here.
>Then go to conservative web site and look at the good stories you see. A 
>total different story.
>
>Anyways I won't go on any further for now, but since I will most likely be 
>called a bunch of names and ridiculed for this, not by you, you have too 
>much class, but by others, I will just let you know I am leaving town for 
>the weekend so a response won't be for a couple of days.
>
>Take care Sunil
>
>
>>From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Tet Offensive
>>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:12:27 -0800
>>
>>Matt,
>>
>>I tried to find the show tonight at 9, and it wasn't there.  So I did some 
>>reading about Tet here:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_offensive
>>
>>and browsed through Stanley Karnow's 'Vietnam, a history.'  I think Kai is 
>>right in that neither the Vietcong nor the NVA could claim a traditional 
>>military victory after Tet.  But I think they scored a propoganda victory, 
>>and I don't think that was media's fault or doing.  After years of our 
>>government claiming we were close to victory, they struck all over South 
>>Vietnam, even hitting our embassy.  Until Tet, the media went along with 
>>whatever the government was saying.  Tet changed that, and led to more 
>>critical reporting.
>>
>>Ultimately, I think Tet points out some of the problems inherent in wars 
>>like Vietnam or Iraq: when you end up in the middle of someone else's 
>>civil war, how do you define victory?  How can you win?  That we had a 
>>military victory at Tet was not enough in the end.
>>
>>This is a quote I came across several times in the last couple of months, 
>>in articles comparing Iraq and Vietnam:
>>
>>'This brings to mind a story from the Vietnam era, as written up in the 
>>March-April 2005 Military Review: "While negotiating in Hanoi a few days 
>>before Saigon fell, U.S. Army Colonel Harry Summers, Jr. [later author of 
>>On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War], said to a North 
>>Vietnamese colonel, ‘You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield.' 
>>The Vietnamese colonel replied, ‘That may be so, but it is also 
>>irrelevant.'" '
>>
>>People often blame the media for the outcome of the Vietnam War.  Would it 
>>have been right for the media not to cover, for example, the bombing of 
>>Cambodia?  If Americans and Vietnamese had continued to die without news 
>>coverage, would that really have changed the outcome or made what we were 
>>doing right?
>>
>>I don't think a lesson we should draw from Tet is that the media should 
>>not cover what is happening.  While I agree that some good things may 
>>occur in Iraq, I think there's a civil war going on.
>>
>>Seems to me if you're in the middle of someone else's war, they've got 
>>more to fight for than we do.  And if you're there for the wrong reason, 
>>how do you answer the question 'Why are we there?'  If the question can't 
>>be answered, public support for that war is going to wane.  I don't think 
>>that question could be answered in Vietnam, and it isn't being answered in 
>>Iraq either.
>>
>>I don't think we should crap on the troops sent off to war by politicians 
>>and generals.  I think when the politicians and generals send off troops 
>>for no good reason, the leaders deserve to get crapped on.  I think that's 
>>what they did in Vietnam, and again in Iraq.  They put troops in 
>>situations where victory might only be reached at a price that is obscene, 
>>and the troops pay for it first, and then the nation as a whole.  They owe 
>>the people an answer about what they're doing and why.
>>
>>Today the question is 'What do we do now?'  I think the only way out is 
>>for us to give up our idea of permanent bases in Iraq, and undo the 
>>economic decisions made by Paul Bremmer.  He privatized the Iraqi economy 
>>(such as it is), basically into our hands.  I think the only way out for 
>>us is to get other nations to join in stabilizing Iraq.  I don't think we 
>>can do it alone, but it may happen if others get involved.   But no one's 
>>going to help if they think it's just going to cement our control over 
>>Iraq.  Why would they risk their kids for that?  How would they explain 
>>that to their people?
>>
>>Well, I thought that was the question.  I just saw a report that Rice said 
>>the election will not change our objective in Iraq, and that Iraq has to 
>>be successful.  I don't know what that means or how we will get there.
>>
>>Anyway, that's my two cents.  Sorry if I rambled.
>>
>>Sunil
>>
>>
>>>From: "Matt Decker" <mattd2107 at hotmail.com>
>>>To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Tet Offensive
>>>Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:47:27 -0800
>>>
>>>Sunil,
>>>
>>>I would think that the negative media towards our troops and how "they" 
>>>dictate the battlefield would be a start.
>>>
>>>Take Care
>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>=======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get today's hot entertainment gossip  
>http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>