| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2005/11/29-12/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40763 Activity:very high |
11/29 Prominent military historian calls Iraq war most foolish war in 2,014
years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html
There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American
Jewish weekly, Forward. It calls for President Bush to be impeached
and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching
the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions
into Germany and lost them".
\_ I still think WWI is the most foolish war.
\_ There are plenty to choose from (including the Crusades),
but I'm not a military historian ...
\_ Stupider than the Soccer War of 1969?
\_ Yeah, and Vietnam was...? How many dead comparatively?
You people have no sense of perspective or history.
\_ Communism was a genuine threat that had conquered half the
world and looked to be on a roll. Millions were killed by
communist tyrants. "Terrorism" isn't even a definable
opponent, it is a tactic. It would make just as much
sense to declare war on cavalry charges or hand grenades.
All the extremist Islamic enemies of America, lined up
together, could have been beaten by a moderately large
cities police force, at least before the Fiasco in Iraq
increased their numbers 10X.
\_ They call it "The War on Terror" because they can't call it
"The War on Islamic Extremists". That wouldn't be PC. But,
you knew that. BTW, do you have a reference for the pre/post
Iraq terrorist head count? Didn't think so. Thanks.
\_ Calling it the "War on Terror" isn't a matter of PC so much
as it's a matter of PR; there really is a huge difference.
The PP makes a good point, though, that Vietnam was not
a stupid war -- there was a coherent strategy behind the
US's involvement. The problem was that the conflict was
run without total commitment, and the forces that were
engaged were insufficient to actually achieve the stated
military objectives. And this all on top of a very vocal
social backlash of the 50's conservatism adding fuel to
the fire of the (misguided) antiwar effort. -mice
the fire of the (misguided) antiwar effort. If you were
the "perspective or history" guy, then I suggest you should
take your own advice before weighing in about Vietnam
again. -mice
\_ I'm no fan of the Iraq war, but so far this just looks like
good old Bush blindness.
\_ With a solid dose of incompetence and dishonesty. -John
\_ Nonsense. There are shitloads of wars and battles in the last 2014
years that any reasonable person would say were far more stupid
than anything going on today. Open a history book instead of
seeking out articles that support your politics.
\_ There was a Germany 2014 years ago?
\_ Agreed, in principle. Where the Iraq War enters into folly is
the Administration's lack of planning, reliance on utterly
unreliable intel, and no viable exit strategy. Also, the sheer
size and resources of the invading country, i.e., us, makes
the folly look even more unreasonable.
\_ Seriously, this is nothing next to history. Militarily
speaking, no country has ever taken over another in so short
a period with so few casualities. To claim this is utter
failure is not ratioanl. It is political.
\_ agreed. eg,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
\_ Agreed, militarily speaking, especially when the vast
majority of the invading country's people still live their
normal lives instead of engaging in the war effort.
(Morally or politically, it's another story.)
\_ Our brave PLA soldiers took over Tibet much more easily.
The only resistance encountered was lots of whining
from imperialist pigs and their running dogs. The
Tibetan people welcomed us with open arms. Tibetan
girls gave us lots of flowers and kisses.
- chicom troll
normal lives physically. (Morally or politically, it's
another story.)
\_ What are you talking about? Are you a troll? Yes
we are ultra awesome at stomping in and defeating
any official army in the history of the universe,
but right now the US is bogged down in a massive
guerrilla war we have no idea how to fight properly
and we have no viable plan to leave. This has absolutely
nothing to do with how was fast we invaded Iraq
and how few casualties we took in the initial invastion.
I guess i've been trolled, oh well.
\_ Screaming "IHBT!!!" in response to factual points is
\_ i hate bit torrent?
\_ no, but I don't use it much, ;-)
not scoring you any points. The reason there is some
minimal resistence is we're fighting an egg shell
walking politically correct BS fight. In post WWII
Germany mop up operations, they shot the resistence
on the street on the spot, no trial. You want it like
that in Iraq? No. You'd scream "HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATION!!! WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL!!! ABU GRI'AB". So
in order to appease people like you we're doing this
stupid little dance around people's misguided
sensisibilities instead of just killing them all.
\_ Wouldn't it have been cheaper just to drop neutron
bombs on Iraq and wipe everyone out?
\_ It depends on how many we need for that country
size.
\_ You're right, we shouldn't worry about killing
innocent people.
\_ It's a war. The sooner it is over, for real
over, the sooner innocent people stop dying and
everyone can get on with their lives. You
would prefer it drag out for years like in some
places in Africa they don't even bother reporting
anymore? Once you start a war, you (your country
and leaders) have a responsibility to get it over
ASAP, short of silly things like neutron bombs or
nuking the place. If you want to toss in a few
more flip comments, go ahead, I won't be
responding to any more freshman quality attempts
at being clever.
\_ It was a good war for a good reason (the
"getting rid of a pigfucker" reason, not the
"imagined la-la land magic elf WMDs" reason.)
That said, we didn't plan, fucked it up, and
now that we broke it, we bought it and have
to fix it. I don't understand the problem
that people have with acknowledging that very
simple bit of mea culpa. -John
\_ I'm with you on all this, except that the
entire world has believed very publicly
that Hussein had WMD until after the
invasion. If there was some credible
source saying otherwise, pre-invasion,
they haven't had any press time.
\_ I thought it was rather obvious
before the war that Hussein didn't
have any nukular weapons and wasn't
close to getting any. He might at
best have some chemical weapons, but
that was also questionable, and
everyone knew "WMD" was just a
pretext to go to war cause US wanted
to get rid of Saddam.
to get rid of Saddam. The above was
obvious to the whole world except for
the brain-dead FOX news watching part
of Pax Americana.
of Pax Americana. That's why there
were all those spontaneous mass
protest all over the world, remember?
\_ "Getting rid of the pigfucker" cannot be
considered seperately from "What could we
realistically replace it with, and at what
risks and cost?" It also cannot be seperated
from "Can we trust Bush and gang with attaining
the above given their level of competency,
arrogance, and ideology driven agenda?"
Isn't it quite obvious from the start
that they didn't have a plan beyond getting
rid of Saddam?
considered seperately from "What could
we realistically replace it with, and at
what risks and cost?" It also cannot be
seperated from "Can we trust Bush and
gang with attaining the above given
their level of competency, arrogance,
and ideology driven agenda?" Isn't it
quite obvious from the start that they
didn't have a plan beyond getting rid of
Saddam?
\_ Obviously they didn't, which does not
remove the validity of this goal. -John
\_ I am very clever, mr Grim Historian Realist Dude. Please point
out a modern conflict where a large army defeated an entrenched
guerrilla insurgency. I think the US really fucked up letting
one develop by having no reasonable post invasion plan. I just
don't see a reasonable way for the US to "win". We don't even
have a set goal for "winning".
\_ exactly, they had no plan, and it's
obvious before the war started.
the goal of the exercise also
kept changing - first the focus was
all on WMD, then it's because Saddam
was harboring terrorists, then they
started saying how bad and evil Saddam
was to the people of Iraq, finally
they decided they want to democratize
Iraq and then all Middle East. If
I am an Iraqi, the question remains,
"why are US troops doing in my
country, they fucked up the whole
place and turned it into a war zone,
they tortured people. some of their
leaders even have the audacity to
say that invading my country draws
the terrorists to my country instead
of US. WTF?! And they say they are
invading us to help us?!!! why is it
not my patriotic duty to shoot at
them?"
\_ Because then they'll leave instead
of giving your country the first
realistic, if inefficient and
horribly mismanaged, stab at not
being goverened by a murderous
gang of thugs. According to the
CIA World Factbook there are ca.
26 million Iraqis--why are there
not 26 million of them shooting at
US troops? Anyway, "we broke it,
we bought it". Mind that it was
broken even more, but setting
aside that the whole thing was
initiated on bogus premises, we
sort of have a moral duty to try
and fix things now. -John
\_ there ain't 50 million
Vietnamese shooting at US
troops either. What's your
point? realistic chance?
Yes, US gave Iraq a very
realistic chance of
descending into murderous
chaos, disintegration,
total anarchy, and genocidal
sectarian and ethnic warfare.
while "broke it, bought
it" and "moral duty" are
nice gestures, we also know
that, in all your decisions,
US interests trump Iraqi
interests.
So you'd bail? Like right now, leave it _/
as it is? We fucked it up. If we go, "they"
won't just say "oh, righty-ho, jolly good old
chaps, we'll get on with beating on each other
then, thanks for the memories." -John
\_ I am very clever, mr Grim Historian Realist Dude.
Please point out a modern conflict where a large
army defeated an entrenched guerrilla insurgency.
I think the US really fucked up letting one
develop by having no reasonable post invasion
plan. I just don't see a reasonable way for the
US to "win". We don't even have a set goal for
"winning".
\_ Go ahead. Start shooting. You will get the
same result. There isn't that much difference
from what we are already doing - putting them
into torture prisons without trial.
\_ Arguably the administration did a good job in Afghanistan.
\_ Arguably Afghanistan
\_ Philapines. Columbia.
\_ Philippines. Columbia.
\_ eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
\_ I presume you mean the Argentine side was stupid.
\_ Malaysia, Kenya, Vietnam (yes, Tet broke the back of the
Viet Cong), and arguably Colombia is going in that direction.
Need more? -John
\_ There are two things working against the Malayan (pre
Malaysia and Singapore) insurgency. First, it was a
communist insurgency in a country that is predominantly
Islamic. Second, it was mainly an ethnic Chinese
insurgency in a country that is predominantly Malay.
Even then, it took several decades (end of WWII till
sometime in the 80s?) to defeat it. And the main
reason for its defeat is not military operations, though
that had helped contain it. The reason for its defeat
is the successful economic development of Malaysia and
Singapore.
\_ Nonetheless, they were well-funded and organized, and
presented a considerable threat to the British military
presence in E. Asia, which was significantly weakened by
WWII. -John
\_ yea, the one good thing about the insurgency was
that it caused the british to turn tails and run,
thus gaining independence for Malaya. After
independence, the movement began to subside.
thus, you can see that the movement wasn't defeated
by an outside power with military means.
\_ It did nothing of the sort. It was roundly
trounced; Malaysian independence went over fairly
smoothly in 1957. Or are you now saying that the
Malay insurgency wasn't actually mainly ethnic
Chinese and externally funded and organized? -John
\_ http://tinyurl.com/78rgr
"The British began to negotiate with various
political and ethnic leaders, promising
independence from the British Empire. Once
the Malay Federation became an independent
state in 1957 the terrorist movement began
to subside."
Even then the movement continued on until
1989.
\_ So, what's your point? The insurrection had
no decisive effect on the British decision to
go; they certainly didn't "turn tails and run".
It may have been a factor, but as you yourself
point out it wasn't just directed at the
British. Independence negotiations were
primarily with UMNO. If you want a better
example, use Indonesia. -John
\_ Good news! They are no longer "insurgents." The US now has a
chance. http://csua.org/u/e4d [sfgate.com]
\_ Germany existed 2014 years ago?
\_ Like "Germanic tribes occupying what is now considered Germany"
rolls off of the toungue.
\_ Germania?
\_ I'm sure there were many more foolish wars in China since the Han
Dynasty.
\_ ok, I hate gwb as much as the next guy and think this war is
really really stupid ... but how bout this for foolish wars ...
and this is just the first that comes to mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
\_ totally agree, but those white imperialist don't care about
China
\_ ok, 2000 years may be a bit overboard, but this is one of the
stupidist war American fought in the past 100 years, fair enough?
remember, the casualty rate is relatively high (~10%) and there
\_ Last I checked
there were over
120,000 US tro-
ops in Iraq and
about 1200 dead.
\_ You haven't
checked in a
LONG time.
We were over
1200 dead at
this time last
year.
--scotsman
_/
When I say 10% casualties, I counted the
wounded as well as the dead, as causalties
is defined through out the modern warfare.
I have been told the casualties is upward
of 15,000! -kngharv
That the total death went ~+900 _/
in a "LONG TIME" is probably a
point in favor of his argument.
\_ You check in with the status of our
current war once a year, yet feel capable
of commenting on it?
of commenting on it? --scotsman
\_ I'm not the 1200 dead guy. But the
point remains that the number US
dead only went up +900 or so in
a year, which backs up the guy's
claim that this is a relatively
non-lethal war. -pp
\_ There have been 2110 "causalties"
since the war began (2%):
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties
2% isn't nearly 10%, however if
wounded are included then there
have been ~ 16% casualties.
\_ casualties == dead *AND*
wounded. your figure is number
of the dead. and let me repeat,
the casualties (including
dead and wounded) is about
10%, and I am being very
conservative.
\_ [ I believe we are
in violent agreement
but anyway... ]
Actually no. I took
your advice and looked
up the definition for
what qualifies as a
military casualty. It
is dead + wounded who
are no longer able to
perform their duties;
wounded but able to
return to active duty
is not a casualty.
Assuming that the
wounded count on the
page above does not
include any wounded
but able to return
to duty, then we
find that the rate
is 16%. I agree that
10% is conservative.
My original comment
re 1% was based on
a misunderstanding.
If you look at the url
above they give the
number of "casualties"
as 2110, which I'm
assuming is ONLY dead
hence the 2% number.
To this I'm adding
the official injured
count (not limited
to those who cannot
return to duty) to
arrive at the 16%
number.
\_ So are 2%/16% high or low in a
historical context? We were
told this (16%) is "relatively
high". Data and URL please.
Or is the "relatively high"
guy just blowing smoke and has
no comparative data? For all
we know, this war may have the
*lowest* casualty rate in modern
times. It already quite likely
has the lowest mortality rate.
The best numbers I could find are from: _/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM
Here is the summary (my math might be a bit off, check for
yourself):
War % Dead % Dead+Injured
WWI 2.5% 6.8%
WWII 2.5% 6.7%
Korea 0.6% 2.5%
Vietnam 0.6% 2.4%
I agree that as a percentage 2%/16% is *relatively* high,
but the percentages are deceptive - the sheer numbers
of people serving and dying is almost unimaginable in
comparison to Iraq II. In Vietnam, more people were
injured than are currently deployed. [ I am not vietnam
war guy ]
\_ Thanks. Good data set, reasonable analysis on your
part. [Thanks for the clarification. I thought the tone
was quite different than the death in 1965 Vietnam guy.]
\_ By the end of 1965, we had
~184k troops in vietnam.
There were 1863 fatalities
that year.
http://thewall-usa.com/stats/
http://http://www.vietnamwar.com/timeline65-68.htm
I leave other years as an
exercise to the reader.
--scotsman
\_ Gee, isn't that comparison
just a tiny bit
disingenuous? The Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution was
passed in 1964, and the
war wasn't in full swing
in '65. Now is that a
fair comparison against
the state of affairs in
Iraq today? I am sure
you can obfuscate better
than that.
The best numbers I could find are from: _/
http://http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm
http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM
Here is the summary (my math might be a bit off, check for
yourself):
War % Dead % Dead/Injured
WWI 2.5% 6.8%
WWII 2.5% 6.7%
Korea 0.6% 2.5%
Vietnam 0.6% 2.4%
I agree that as a percentage 2%/16% is *relatively* high,
but the percentages are deceptive - the sheer numbers
of people serving and dying is almost unimaginable in
comparison to Iraq II. In Vietnam, more people were
injured than are currently deployed. [ I am not pp ]
\_ Did you bother looking
at the other years?
And, by the way, I put
that up as a data point.
You seem to be
complaining about some
non-existent
editorializing. Also,
I wasn't obfuscating
anything there. I
said "by the end of".
The levels increased
over the course of that
year, and more
precipitously in the
following years.
--scotsman
\_ Yes I did. Total
death 58178 out to
1995. Unfortunately,
when you quoted 1863
fatalities, you
conveniently left out
the major Vietnam
combat years. Hardly
a reasonable
comparison against
comparable against
the current situation
in Iraq. Like I said,
not even a good
in Iraq. Like I
said, not even a good
obfuscation attempt.
Ergo, "excercise for the reader". In the rest of your _/
discussion here, people are conflating rates, totals, and
calculating percentages that mean nothing. How many individuals
do you think have served in OIF thus far? How would you suggest
we calculate and compare casualty figures? total casualties / total
individuals? casualties / current troop levels by month? I'm
not obfuscating anything. You're just not thinking. --scotsman
\_ The casualty level isn't the really bad part. The fact that the
some of US's voluntary forces are going to be serving fourth and
fifth tours of duty in Iraq in the next few years. The question is
can the US keep an effective professional military force while
remaining in Iraq for the next five years or so?
\_ Yeah, ok. So in addition to trying to pull a fast one ("exercise
for the reader" indeed), you're saying your original claim that
casualty rate is "relatively high" is unprovable. Do you have
any credibility left? Being an advocate is one thing, and being
dishonest is another. Thanks for playing.
\_ Ah, you're confusing me with someone else. I'll attribute
my statements. -scotsman
\_ So you quoted the fatality number for up to the end of 1965.
In what way do you think 1965 in Vietnam is comparable to
the current state in Iraq?
\_ Like I said, I was offering a data point on the mortality
rates during Vietnam. I wasn't comparing it to anything.
--scotsman
\_ But why pick 1965? Why not any other year afterwards,
which would lend lie to the claim that the number of
fatalities in Vietnam is low? It was just "random"?
\_ Look, grow the fuck up and get off my ass. Your
argument is not with me. --scotsman
\_ Oh, ok, so it was "random". I'm ok with that.
\_ Whatever. The point is, you can compare
these troop level numbers with casualty totals
and get "rates" as high as 5% or probably more
if you broke it down by month. In the end,
8.7 million troops had been deployed in Vietnam.
~47k were killed. I haven't found any numbers
yet to answer my above query "how many have
served in OIF thus far". Setting all this
aside, you're a belligerent little troll.
--scotsman
these troop level numbers with casualty
totals and get "rates" as high as 5% or
probably more if you broke it down by
month. In the end, 8.7 million troops
had been deployed in Vietnam [and] ~47k
were killed. I haven't found any numbers
yet to answer my above query "how many
have served in OIF thus far". Setting
all this aside, you're a belligerent
little troll. --scotsman
That is 1% not
10%. Are you
including inju-
red as well?
\_ You may want
to look up
the defn of
the word
'casualty'.
I didn't know it included _/
inability to fulfill ones
duties due to death "or
injury." thanks.
What were the casualty rates for other major _/
wars last century? What is the breakdown of
serious injury versus twisted ankles and such?
Hard to say if the casualty rate is high without
other data in comparison. URL?
\_ One thing we do know is that lots of serious
injuries that would have meant death in the
past, are now survivable due to medical
advances.
\_ But that's no justification for a claim that the
casualty rate is "relatively high". Also, it's
*good* to trade a high casualty rate for a low
mortality rate. Do you have data to compare
this war's casualty rate to previous wars' to
back up your claim it is "relatively high"?
\_ Does this mean there's *no* data to back up
the "relatively high" claim?
\_ Please see above.
\_ Are you referring to the bullshit
1965 Vietnam comparison? Or the good
globalsecurity data? Like the global-
security poster said, the percentages
are deceptive as the absolute numbers
dwarf Iraq 2 and defy comparison.
\_ The inability to let go even after
you've been smacked down. This has
got to be ecchang. Am I right?
--scotsman
\_ Global Security data. Personally,
anytime someone says "exercise
left to the reader" my BS alarm
\_ My initials are, literally,
BS. --scotsman
goes off.
\_ The formatting in this thread
is truly amazing.
are no clear military objective to achieve. And, what makes you
think people in Iraq are living in a normal live?
\_ Bay of Pigs? Vietnam?
\_ RTFA
\_ Korea, WWI, letting Pearl Harbor happen, Lebanon, & Somalia come
to mind without doing any research. Where do you get the idea
there's a high casualty rate? Compared to what? The objectives
are "kill the anti-government forces and train the locals to
take care of themselves in the future". And no, duh, they are
not living a normal life. Normal life is Iraq until very
recently has consisted of living in mortal fear of the government
putting your family in a wood chipper.
\_ Now it's living in mortal fear of your neighbor, your local
rebels, etc., putting your family in a wood chipper.
\_ Yes, there are mass graves of wood chipper victims all
over the country from their neighbors tossing them in.
Riiiiiiight.
\_ Yup the Sunnis and Shiites just spend all day
singing "Kum-bay-ya" (sp?) around the campfire!
\_ If you'd kept up with the situation instead of
reading propaganda, you'd know the Sunnis are
spending their time campaigning for the upcoming
election. The Shiites already had that down
from the first interum election. Don't let the
facts get you down, though, keep tossing out
the one liners. They seem to make you feel
better even if they're not reality based.
\_ It's interesting to hear an anti-Bush Jewish voice.
\_ Why? Most Jews are left wing.
\_ But I thought Bush is pro-Israel.
\_ Not really. He's just not as anti-Israel/pro-arab as
the previous admin. Anyway, that has zero bearing on
how the majority of Jews vote in this country.
\_ I can't imagine a country more stupid than the US. They have
Vietnam as a precedent, and they still made the exact same
mistake with Iraq. They didn't even get the tactical details
right. What's with disbanding the Iraqi army and taking away
these people's livelihood. That's the most stoopid thing evar.
And it's not just the Bush admin either. Most Americans
supported him at the time.
those people's livelihood. That's the most stoopid thing evar.
That's literally like telling these trained dudes, "Go home
and become guerillas so we can fight you." And it's not just
the Bush admin either. Most Americans supported him at the time.
\_ I can't imagine a country more stupid than Germany. They have
WWI as a precedent, and they still made the exact same mistake
with WWII. They didn't even get the tactical details right.
What's with invading the heart of Russia right before the
start of the Russian winter? That's the most stoopid thing
evar. That's literally like telling your soliders, "Have a
nice time freezing to death." And its not just the Bush,
er Hitler, admin either. Most Germans supported him at the
time. [ Many apologies for violating Goodwin's law ]
\_ Russia was defeated by Germany in WWI.
\_ yeah, what's your point? Germany lost! We're doomed.
\_ Okay, US is the second most stoopid country.
\- hello, the reference to the "Clades Variana" in 9bc is
really better characterized as a "military disaster"
rather than a foolish war. i think it is pretty hard
to beat the "War of Triple Alliance" for crazy war.
rather than a foolish war (same for say Agincourt from
the french perspective). i think it is pretty hard
to beat the "War of Triple Alliance" for a crazy war.
From a random WEEB page: "The war left Paraguay utterly
prostrate; its prewar population of approximately
525,000 was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which
only about 28,000 were men." ok tnx. --psb
\_ Those sound like good dating odds for sodans
\_ Pretty optimistic, don't you think?
\_ the war was only part of a grand plan to legitimize
polygamy by the survivors. |
| 7/9 |
|
| www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html It calls for President Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching the most fo olish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany a nd lost them". To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a swe eping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know. He is Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusal em and one of the world's foremost military historians. Several of his b ooks have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-Ameri can author on the US Army's list of required reading for officers. Professor van Creveld has previously drawn parallels between Iraq and Vie tnam, and pointed out that almost all countries that have tried to fight similar wars during the last 60 years or so have ended up losing. Why P resident Bush "nevertheless decided to go to war escapes me and will no doubt preoccupy historians to come," he told one interviewer. More than two years after t he war began, and despite the huge financial and human cost, it is diffi cult to see any real benefits. The weapons of mass destruction that provided the excuse for the invasion turned out not to exist and the idea that Iraq could become a beacon of democracy for the Middle East has proved equally far-fetched. True, there is now a multi-party electoral system, but it has institution alised and consolidated the country's ethnic, sectarian and tribal divis ions - exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided when attempting to democratise. In the absence of anything more positive, Tony Blair has fallen back on t he claim that at least we're better off now without Saddam Hussein. The fall of Saddam has brought the rise of Zarqawi and his ilk, levels of corruption in Iraq seem as bad as ever, and at the weekend former prime minister Iyad Allawi caused a stir by asserting that the human rights a re no better protected now than under the rule of Saddam. Noting that some two-thirds of Americans believe the war was a mistake, v an Creveld says in his article that the US should forget about saving fa ce and pull its troops out: "What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon - and at w hat cost." Welcome as a pullout might be to many Americans, it would be a hugely com plex operation. Van Creveld says it would probably take several months a nd result in sizeable casualties. More significantly, though, it would n ot end the conflict. "As the pullout proceeds," he warns, "Iraq almost certainly will sink int o an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time t o emerge - if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and w ill take place whether George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and C ondoleezza Rice like it or not." This is one of the major differences between Iraq and the withdrawal from Vietnam. In Vietnam, it took place under a smokescreen of "Vietnamisati on" in which US troops handed control to local forces in the south. many people were aware at th e time that these southern forces could not hold out and in due course t he North Vietnamese overran the south, finally bringing the war to an en d Officially, a similar process is under way in Iraq, with the Americans sa ying they will eventually hand over to the new Iraqi army - though the c hances of that succeeding look even bleaker than they did in Vietnam. "The new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less co hesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese a rmy was," van Creveld writes. Worse still, in Iraq there is no equivalent of the North Vietnamese regim e poised to take power. What will happen once the Americans have gone is anyone's guess, but a sudden outbreak of peace seems the remotest of al l the possibilities. Not surprisingly, many who in principle would argue that the Americans ha d no right to invade Iraq in the first place are apprehensive about what might happen once they leave. The conference organised by the Arab Leag ue in Cairo last week was one example: it called for "the withdrawal of foreign forces according to a timetable" but didn't venture to suggest w hat that timetable might be. With or without American troops, the war in Iraq has acquired a momentum of its own and threatens to spill over into other parts of the region. There are four major issues: terrorism, Sunni-Shia rivalries, Kurdish asp irations, and the question of Iraq's territorial integrity - all of whic h pose dangers internationally. Back in July 2003, terrorism in Iraq seemed a manageable problem and Pres ident Bush boldly challenged the militants to "bring 'em on". American f orces, he said, were "plenty tough" and would deal with anyone who attac ked them. There were others in the US who talked of the "flypaper theory" - an idea that terrorists from around the world could be attracted to Iraq and th en eliminated. Well, the first part of the flypaper theory seems to work , but not the second. As with the Afghan war in the 1980s that spawned al-Qaida, there is every reason to suppose that the Iraq war will create a new generation of ter rorists with expertise that can be used to plague other parts of the wor ld for decades to come. The recent hotel bombings in Jordan are one indi cation of the way it's heading. Contrary to American intentions, the war has also greatly increased the i nfluence of Iran - a founder-member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" - and opene d up long-suppressed rivalries between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The impact of this cannot be confined to Iraq and will eventually be felt in the oil-rich Sunni Gulf states (including Saudi Arabia) that have si zeable but marginalised Shia communities. Kurdish aspirations have been awakened too - which has implications for T urkey, Syria and Iran, especially if Iraq is eventually dismembered. With a fragile central government in Baghdad constantly undermined by the activities of militants and weakened by the conflicting demands of Sunn is, Shias and Kurds, the demise of Iraq as a nation-state sometime durin g the next few years has become a distinct possibility. The effect of that on the regional power balance is difficult to predict, but at the very least it would bring a period of increased instability. The dangers had been fo reseen by numerous analysts and commentators long before the war started but they were ignored in Washington, mainly for ideological reasons. There were, of course, some in the neoconservative lobby who foresaw it t oo and thought it would be a good thing - shaking up the entire Middle E ast in a wave of "creative destruction". The result is that even if the US tries to leave Iraq now, in purely prac tical terms it is unlikely to be able to do so. Professor van Creveld's plan for withdrawal of ground troops is not so mu ch a disengagement as a strategic readjustment. An American military presence will still be needed in the region, he says . "Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest winner from the war ... Now t hat Iraq is gone, it is hard to see how anybody except the United States can keep the Gulf states, and their oil, out of the mullahs' clutches. "A divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a horn ets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Mid dle East, conducting acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governmen ts in Allah's name. "The Gulf States apart, the most vulnerable country is Jordan, as evidenc ed by the recent attacks in Amman. However, Turkey, Egypt and, to a less er extent, Israel are also likely to feel the impact. Some of these coun tries, Jordan in particular, are going to require American assistance." As described in the article, van Creveld's plan seems to imply that the U S should abandon Iraq to its fate and concentrate instead on protecting American allies in the region from adverse consequences. A slightly different idea - pulling out ground troops from Iraq but conti nuing to use air power there - is already being considered in Washington , according to Seymour Hersh in the latest issue of the New Yorker ma... |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War edit Life under the occupation Argentina attempted to make several unwelcome changes to the culture of t he Falkland Islands, in spite of earlier assurances that the Islanders' way of life and cultural identity would be maintained. drive on the right by painting arrows on the road indicating the direction of traffic and cha nging the location of street and traffic signs. Despite the arrows, isla nders defiantly continued to drive on the left, demonstrating their dete rmination to remain British. A second component was t he amphibious assault shipping, commanded by Commodore MC Clapp RN. Co ntrary to common belief, Admiral Woodward did not command Commodore Clap p's ships. John Fieldhouse, in Brit ain, who was the overall commander of the operation. In order to keep ne utral shipping out of the way during the war, the UK declared a 'total e xclusion zone' of 200 nautical miles (370 km) around the Falklands befor e commencing operations. Secretary-General said that he wa s amazed at the compromise that the UK had offered. Nevertheless, Argent ina rejected it, basing their arguments on rights to territory based on actions before 1945 and the creation of the UN. Many UN members realised that if territorial claims this old could be resurrected, and invasions of territory allowed unchallenged, then their own borders were not safe . April 30) headed a "shuttle diplomacy" m ission between London and Buenos Aires, but at the end of the month Reag an blamed Argentina for the failure of the mediation, declared US supp ort for Britain, and announced the imposition of economic sanctions agai nst Argentina. UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire, then announced minutes later that she had received instructions to abstain. The situation was blamed on a delay in communications, but perceived by many as part of an ongoing power struggle between Haig and Kirkpatrick. otherwise, it is d oubtful that Argentina would have launched the attack. AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles of the latest L model (these missiles were much more deadly than older models of the S idewinder), spy satellites and intelligence information. Margaret T hatcher stated that "without the Harrier jets and their immense manoeuvr ability, equipped as they were with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by US Defence Minister Caspar Weinberger, we co uld never have got back the Falklands." There were also rumours, later expanded upon by Weinberger, which spoke o f lending an aircraft carrier, although this was not public knowledge at the time. Franois Mitterrand gave full support to the UK in the Falklands war. As a large part of Argentina's military equipment was French-made, French support was crucial. France provided aircraft ident ical to the ones it supplied to Argentina for British pilots to train ag ainst. In 2005, the British Guardian newspaper gave a different account of Frenc h cooperation, quoting Mitterrand - "I had a difference to settle with t he Iron Lady. "With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash a n atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and bli nd." The effects of France's actions during the war have contributed to Argent ina's shift toward American sources for combat aircraft and upgrades (e. FMA (Fbrica Militar de Aviones) is now owned by Lockheed-Martin. Since the end of the war, Latin America has consistently purchased more A merican and Russian aircraft than French. Meanwhile the main British naval task force arrive d at Ascension to prepare for war. However a small force had already bee n sent south to re-capture South Georgia. ARA Santa Fe, locating it on the 25th and damaging it e nough that the crew decided to abandon it. With the Tidespring now far o ut to sea and an additional defending force of the submarine's crew now landed, Major Sheridan decided to gather the 75 men he had and make a di rect assault that day. After a short forced march the Argentine forces s urrendered, making it official the next day. The Vulcan had originally been designed for medium-ran ge stand-off nuclear missions in Europe and did not have the range to fl y to the Falklands, requiring several in-flight refuelling missions. The RAF's tanker planes were mostly converted Victors with similar range, s o they too had to be refuelled in the air. logistical effor t In the end only a single bomb hit the runway at Stanley, but the Arge ntine Air Force (FAA) realized that the British were likewise capable of hitting targets on the mainland, and immediately recalled all jet fight ers in order to protect against this possibility. The attack was therefo re a strategic success, hampering Argentine efforts at close air support , reducing the effective loiter time of incoming Argentine aircraft, and compelling them to overfly British forces in any attempt to attack the islands. Stanley by night, bringing supplies, weapons, ve hicles, and fuel into the Falklands and airlifting out the wounded. Arge ntine air transports continued to slip past the British through the last night of the war. cluster bombs on Stanley and the smal ler grass airstrip at Goose Green. Both missions scored aircraft kills o n the ground, as well as causing some damage to the airfield infrastruct ure. Brian Hanrahan was forbidden to divulge the number of planes involved, he came up with the memorable phrase "I counted them all out and I counted them all back". Mirage fighters of Grupo 8 Both sides refused to fight at the other 's best altitude, until the Mirages finally descended to engage. One was shot down, and another was damaged and made for Stanley, where it fell victim to friendly fire from the Argentine defenders. The Sun famously greeted t he initial reports of the attack (and the sinking of a small torpedo boa t) with the headline GOTCHA. The nuclear-powered Conqueror was captained by Commander Christopher Wreford-Brown. Tam Dalyell), who declared that the ship had been sailing away from the Falklands at the time. The vessel was inarguably outside the exclusion zone, and sailing away from the area of conflict. In later years it has been revealed that the information on the positi on of the ARA General Belgrano came from a Soviet spy satellite which wa s tapped by the Norwegian intelligence service station at Fauske in Norw ay, and then handed over to the British. The sinking occurred 14 hours after President Belande, of Per, had prop osed a comprehensive peace plan. At the time, and in response to Chile's support of Britain, Belande called for regional unity. Regardless of controversies over the sinking, it had an important strateg ic effect. After the loss of General Belgrano, the entire Argentine flee t returned to port and did not leave again for the duration of hostiliti es. The two destroyers supporting General Belgrano and the task force bu ilt around the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo both withdrew fr om the area, ending the direct threat to the British fleet that their pi ncer movement had represented. Sir Lawrence Freedman stated in the second volume of his Off icial History of the Falklands, his latest work on the Falklands, that i ntelligence about the Belgrano did not reach senior British commanders a nd politicians until it was too late. Rear-Admiral John "Sandy" Woodward (commander of the RN task f orce). Thus it appears that neither Margaret Thatcher nor the Cabinet we re aware of the Belgrano's change of course before the cruiser was sunk. C-130 Hercules shortly after launch, they went in at low altitude, po pped up for a radar check and released the missiles from 20 to 30 miles (30 to 50 km) away. The weapon struck with d evastating effect, hitting the centre of the ship and starting raging fi res which quickly spread, killing 22 sailors and severely injuring 24 ot hers. Whilst fighting the fire, Yarmouth fired anti-submarine weaponry i n response to a possible Argentine submarine attack. Sheffield was aband oned several hours later, gutted and deformed by her still-burning fires which lingered on for six more ... |
| tinyurl.com/78rgr -> www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/malaysia.htm Submit Military Communist Uprising in Malaysia After World War II, Malaysia began a new federalization program which inc luded laws that stated that non-Malays could only qualify as citizens if they had lived in the country for 15 of the past 25 years and had to pr ove proficiency in either Malay or English. The new laws did not sit wel l with Malaysia's significant Chinese minority, as the new laws would ha ve essentially made them second-class citizens. They then began to turn to the Malaysian Communist Party who began establish guerrilla cells in the jungles of the Malay Peninsula and beginning in 1948, they began spo radic attacks, mainly bombings against rubber estates and elsewhere. The following campaign of terror came to be known as "The Emergency." The B ritish, who were the colonial holders of Malaysia at the time, tried to put down the insurrection by military means. Another means the British a ttempted, called the Briggs Plan (1950) which proved to be wildly unpopu lar, included forcibly moving ethnic rural Chinese into tightly controll ed government villages. The terrorists began to increase their campaign in 1951, destroying rubber trees, intimidating plantation workers, and a ssassinated the British high commissioner. The British finally began to have some success against the uprising when they began to address the po litical and economic grievances of the Chinese minority, isolating the r ebels as extremists. The British began to negotiate with various politic al and ethnic leaders, promising independence from the British Empire. O nce the Malay Federation became an independent state in 1957 the terrori st movement began to subside, and many terrorists surrendered following government offers of amnesty. While there was continued limited resistan ce, The Emergency was declared to be over in 1960. The Emergency prompted the Malaysian government to adopt the Internal Sec urity Act to defeat the remnants of the communist opposition. Unlike the temporary emergency procedures enacted by the British government in res ponse to the insurrection, the ISA was passed into law and still exists today. It has received harsh criticism for its violation of human rights standards. |
| csua.org/u/e4d -> sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/11/29/national/w130539S09.DTL Email This Article (11-29) 14:38 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) -- More than 2 1/2 years into the Iraq war, Donald H Rumsfeld has decided t he enemy are not insurgents. "This is a group of people who don't merit the word insurgency,' I think ," Rumsfeld said Tuesday at a Pentagon news conference. He said the thou ght had come to him suddenly over the Thanksgiving weekend. Rumsfeld's comments drew chuckles but had a serious side. "I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe," he s aid. Webster's New World College Dictionary defines the term "insurgent" as "r ising up against established authority." Without missing a beat, Rumsfeld replied with a wide grin: "Enemies of th e legitimate Iraqi government. At another point in their news conference, Rumsfeld and Pace had an unusu al exchange in which Rumsfeld corrected his senior military adviser, onl y to have Pace gently insist that it was the defense secretary who was w rong. A reporter asked Pace what US commanders in Iraq are supposed to do if they find Iraqi forces abusing prisoners. Pace replied that if inhumane treatment is observed it is a service member's duty to stop it. "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it i t's to report it," Rumsfeld said, turning to Pace. Replied the general: "If they are physically present when inhumane treatm ent is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it." |
| www.antiwar.com/casualties -> www.antiwar.com/casualties/ UPI reports : As many as 1 of every 10 soldiers from the war on terror evacuated to the Army's biggest hospital in Europe was sent there for mental problems. Between 8 and 10 percent of nearly 12,000 soldiers from the war on terror , mostly from Iraq, treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues," according to the commander of the hospital, Col. That means about 1,000 soldiers were evacuated for mental problems. The hospital has treated 11,754 soldiers from the war on terror, with 9,6 51 from Iraq and the rest from Afghanistan, according to data released b y the hospital. |
| www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/casualties.htm B Marine Corps data for World War II, the Spanish-American War, and prio r wars represent the number of individuals wounded, whereas all other da ta in this column represent the total number (incidence) of wounds. C Not known, but estimates range from 184,000 to 250,000. D As reported by the Commissioner of Pensions in his annual report for f iscal year 1903. E Authoritative statistics for the Confederate forces are not available. Estimates of the number who served range from 600,000 to 1,500,000. The final report of the Provost Marshal General, 1863-1866, indicated 133,8 21 Confederate deaths (74,524 battle and 59,297 other) based upon incomp lete returns. In addition, an estimated 26,000 to 31,000 Confederate per sonnel died in Union prisons. F Number serving covers the period April 21 to August 13, 1898, while de ad and wounded data are for the period May 1 to August 31, 1898. Active hostilities ceased on August 13, 1898, but ratifications of the Treaty o f Peace were not exchanged between the United States and Spain until Apr il 11, 1899. Battle deaths and wounds not mortal include casu alties suffered by American forces in northern Russia to August 25, 1919 , and in Siberia to April 1, 1920. Other deaths cover the period April 1 , 1917, to December 31, 1918. H Data are for the period December 1, 1941, through December 31, 1946, w hen hostilities were officially terminated by Presidential Proclamation, but a few battle deaths or wounds not mortal were incurred after the Ja panese acceptance of the Allied peace terms on August 14, 1945. Number s erving from December 1, 1941, through August 31, 1945, were: Total - 14, 903,213; J Battle deaths and wounds not mortal include casualties incurred in Oct ober 1941 due to hostile action. K Tentative final data based on information available as of September 30 , 1954, at which time 24 persons were still carried as missing in action . L As reported in "Battle Casualties and Medical Statistics: US Army Ex perience in the Korean War" by Frank Reister, published by the Surgeon G eneral of the Department of the Army in 1973. This figure represents non battle admissions in Korea and includes deaths resulting from injuries, suicides, homicides, and disease. M Number serving covers the period August 4, 1964, through January 27, 1 973, (date of cease-fire). Wounds not mortal exclude 150,332 persons not requiring hospital care. Worldwide there were 1769 deaths among active duty military. Of the 30 illness deaths, none was from cancer, 1 was from infect ious disease, 2 were from cardiovascular causes, 21were initially descri bed as unexpected/undefined, and 6 others died from miscellaneous causes . Of the 21unexpected deaths, autopsies were performed on 18 of the dece ased. There was no excess risk for unexpected /undefined d eath among the deployed. Deaths from unintentional injury among the depl oyed exceeded the number expected based upon rates that obtained for the non- deployed. Limitations of this study: The databases used are not in tended for use in medical research; the accuracy of the personnel data t o determine who deployed had not been validated; there was some imprecis ion in the dates of deployment for many of the servicemembers. Analysis of deaths among US military personnel during the period of hos tilities (17 Jan 28 Feb 91) of the Persian Gulf War is based upon inform ation from the Department of Defenses Worldwide Casualty System. Two hun dred and nineteen personnel died, including 7 women. The autho r categorizes the deaths by service, gender, race, age, geographic locat ion, and occupational specialty. Battle deaths included 35 from friendly fire and 28 from the SCUD missile which struck Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. R ates of both battle and non-battle deaths were highest among the Marine Corps but the Army accounted for the majority of deaths in both categori es (58% and 71%, respectively). The causes of the 65 non-battle deaths i ncluded accidental injuries (55), illness , suicide , and homicide . Rates for both battle and non-battle deaths were by far the lowest of any US conflict in this century. |
| web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM TABLE 2-23 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PRINCIPAL WARS IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES PARTICIPATED US MILITARY PERSONNEL SERVING AND CASUALTIES A/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ CASUALTIES ---------------------------- BRANCH OF NUMBER BA TTLE OTHER WOUNDS NOT WAR/CONFLICT SERVICE SERVING DEATHS DEATHS MORTAL B/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- REVOLUTIONARY WAR TOTAL - C/ 4,435 - 6,188 1775-1783 AR MY - 4,044 - 6,004 NAVY - 342 - 114 MARINES - 49 - 70 WAR OF 1812 TOTAL 286,730 D/ 2,260 - 4,505 1812-1815 ARMY - 1,950 - 4,000 NAVY - 265 - 439 MARINES - 45 - 66 MEXICAN WAR TOTAL 78,718 D/ 1,733 11,550 4,152 1846-1 848 ARMY - 1,721 11,550 4,102 NAVY - 1 - 3 MARINES - 11 - 47 CIVIL WAR ( UNION FORCES ONLY) TOTAL 2,213,363 140,414 224,097 281,881 1861-1865 E/ ARMY 2,128,948 D/ 138,154 221,374 280,040 NAVY - 2,112 2,411 1,710 MARIN ES 84,415 148 312 131 SPANISH - AMERICAN WAR TOTAL 306,760 385 2,061 1,6 62 ARMY F/ 280,564 369 2,061 1,594 NAVY 22,875 10 - 47 MARINES 3,321 6 - 21 WORLD WAR I TOTAL 4,734,991 53,402 63,114 204,002 1917-1918 ARMY G/ 4,057,101 50,510 55,868 193,663 NAVY 599,051 431 6,856 819 MARINES 78,83 9 2,461 390 9,520 WORLD WAR II TOTAL 16,112,566 291,557 113,842 671,846 1941-1946 H/ ARMY I/ 11,260,000 234,874 83,400 565,861 NAVY J/ 4,183,466 36,950 25,664 37,778 MARINES 669,100 19,733 4,778 68,207 KOREAN CONFLIC T TOTAL 5,720,000 33,651 3,262 103,284 1950-1953 K/ ARMY 2,834,000 27,70 9 2,452 L/ 77,596 NAVY 1,177,000 475 173 1,576 MARINES 424,000 4,269 339 23,744 AIR FORC 1,285,000 1,198 298 368 VIETNAM CONFLICT TOTAL 8,744,00 0 47,378 10,799 153,303 1964-1973 M/ ARMY 4,368,000 30,922 7,273 96,802 NAVY 1,842,000 1,631 931 4,178 MARINES 794,000 13,084 1,753 51,392 AIR F ORCE 1,740,000 1,741 842 931 Historical Background and Notes for Table 2-23 |
| thewall-usa.com/stats -> thewall-usa.com/stats/ Status and Branch - US MILITARY CASUALTIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA - - DEATHS BY PAY GRADE AND SERVICE - - REFLECTS POSTHUMOUS PROMOTIONS - - AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 - Since 1997 71 names have been added to the memorial that are not show in the stats below. Status and Branch - US MILITARY CASUALTIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA - - DEATHS BY RACE AND PAY GRADE - - REFLECTS POSTHUMOUS PROMOTIONS - - AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 - Since 1997 71 names have been added to the memorial that are not show in the stats below. Status and Branch - US MILITARY CASUALTIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA - - DEATHS BY STATE HOME OF RECORD - - AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 - Since 1997 71 names have been added to the memorial that are not show in the stats below. Status and Branch - US MILITARY CASUALTIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA - - DEATHS BY CALENDAR YEAR - - Year of death may either be actual or based on a presumptive finding of death - - (originally declared missing and later declared dead). To The Wall Page - US MILITARY CASUALTIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA - - DEATHS BY STATUS - - AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 - Since 1997 71 names have been added to the memorial that are not show in the stats below. |
| www.vietnamwar.com/timeline65-68.htm Related Topics Vietnam War Timeline Vietnam War - The Jungle War, 1965-1968 The Jungle War 1965 - 1968 1965 - Vietnam War January 20, 1965 - Lyndon B Johnson takes the oath as president and decl ares, "We can never again stand aside, prideful in isolation. " January 27, 1965 - General Khanh seizes full control of South Vietnam's g overnment. January 27, 1965 - Johnson aides, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bund y and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, send a memo to the President st ating that America's limited military involvement in Vietnam is not succ eeding, and that the US has reached a 'fork in the road' in Vietnam an d must either soon escalate or withdraw. January 1965 - Operation Game Warden begins US Navy river patrols on So uth Vietnam's 3000 nautical miles of inland waterways. February 4, 1965 - National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy visits South Vietnam for the first time. In North Vietnam, Soviet Prime Minister Alek sei Kosygin coincidentally arrives in Hanoi. February 6, 1965 - Viet Cong guerrillas attack the US military compound at Pleiku in the Central Highlands, killing eight Americans, wounding 1 26 and destroying ten aircraft. February 7-8 - "I've had enough of this," President Johnson tells his Nat ional Security advisors. He then approves Operation Flaming Dart, the bo mbing of a North Vietnamese army camp near Dong Hoi by US Navy jets fr om the carrier Ranger. Johnson makes no speeches or public statements concerning his decision. Johnson now agrees to a long-standi ng recommendation from his advisors for a sustained bombing campaign aga inst North Vietnam. In Hanoi, Soviet Prime Minister Kosygin is pressured by the North Vietnam ese to provide unlimited military aid to counter the American "aggressio n" Kosygin gives in to their demands. As a result, sophisticated Soviet surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) begin arriving in Hanoi within weeks. February 18, 1965 - Another military coup in Saigon results in General Kh anh finally ousted from power and a new military/civilian government ins talled, led by Dr. Marines to protect the American air base at Da Nang from 6000 Viet C ong massed in the vicinity. The President approves his request, despite the "grave reservations" of Ambassador Taylor in Vietnam who warns that America may be about to repeat the same mistakes made by the French in s ending ever-increasing numbers of soldiers into the Asian forests and ju ngles of a "hostile foreign country" where friend and foe are indistingu ishable. March 2, 1965 - Operation Rolling Thunder begins as over 100 American fig hter-bombers attack targets in North Vietnam. Scheduled to last eight we eks, Rolling Thunder will instead go on for three years. The first US air strikes also occur against the Ho Chi Minh trail. Thro ughout the war, the trail is heavily bombed by American jets with little actual success in halting the tremendous flow of soldiers and supplies from the North. Afte r each attack, bomb damage along the trail is repaired by female constru ction crews. During the entire war, the US will fly 3 million sorties and drop nearl y 8 million tons of bombs, four times the tonnage dropped during all of World War II, in the largest display of firepower in the history of warf are. The majority of bombs are dropped in South Vietnam against Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army positions, resulting in 3 million civilian refugee s due to the destruction of numerous villages. In North Vietnam, militar y targets include fuel depots and factories. The North Vietnamese react to the air strikes by decentralizing their factories and supply bases, t hus minimizing their vulnerability to bomb damage. March 8, 1965 - The first US combat troops arrive in Vietnam as 3500 Ma rines land at China Beach to defend the American air base at Da Nang. Th ey join 23,000 American military advisors already in Vietnam. March 9, 1965 - President Johnson authorizes the use of Napalm, a petrole um based anti-personnel bomb that showers hundreds of explosive pellets upon impact. March 11, 1965 - Operation Market Time, a joint effort between the US N avy and South Vietnamese Navy, commences to disrupt North Vietnamese sea routes used to funnel supplies into the South. The operation is highly successful in cutting off coastal supply lines and results in the North Vietnamese shifting to the more difficult land route along the Ho Chi Mi nh trail. March 29, 1965 - Viet Cong terrorists bomb the US embassy in Saigon. April 1, 1965 - At the White House, President Johnson authorizes sending two more Marine battalions and up to 20,000 logistical personnel to Viet nam. The President also authorizes American combat troops to conduct pat rols to root out Viet Cong in the countryside. His decision to allow off ensive operations is kept secret from the American press and public for two months. President Johnson delivers his "Peace Without Conques t" Speech at Johns Hopkins University offering Hanoi "unconditional disc ussions" to stop the war in return for massive economic assistance in mo dernizing Vietnam. "Old Ho can't turn that down," Johnson privately tell s his aides. April 15, 1965 - A thousand tons of bombs are dropped on Viet Cong positi ons by US and South Vietnamese fighter-bombers. April 17, 1965 - In Washington, 15,000 students gather to protest the US . Student demonstrators will often refer to President Johnson, his advisors , the Pentagon, Washington bureaucrats, and weapons manufacturers, simpl y as "the Establishment." April 20, 1965 - In Honolulu, Johnson's top aides, including McNamara, Ge n Westmoreland, Gen. Wheeler, William Bundy, and Ambassador Taylor, mee t and agree to recommend to the President sending another 40,000 combat soldiers to Vietnam. April 24, 1965 - President Johnson announces Americans in Vietnam are eli gible for combat pay. May 3, 1965 - The first US Army combat troops, 3500 men of the 173rd Ai rborne Brigade, arrive in Vietnam. May 11, 1965 - Viet Cong over-run South Vietnamese troops in Phuoc Long P rovince north of Saigon and also attack in central South Vietnam. May 13, 1965 - The first bombing pause is announced by the US in the ho pe that Hanoi will now negotiate. There will be six more pauses during t he Rolling Thunder bombing campaign, all with same intention. However, e ach time, the North Vietnamese ignore the peace overtures and instead us e the pause to repair air defenses and send more troops and supplies int o the South via the Ho Chi Minh trail. May 13, 1965 - Viet Cong attack the US special forces camp in Phuoc Lon g During the fighting, 2nd Lt. Charles Williams, earns the Congressiona l Medal of Honor by knocking out a Viet Cong machine-gun then guiding re scue helicopters, while wounded four times. June 18, 1965 - Nguyen Cao Ky takes power in South Vietnam as the new pri me minister with Nguyen Van Thieu functioning as official chief of state . July 1, 1965 - Viet Cong stage a mortar attack against Da Nang air base a nd destroy three aircraft. July 8, 1965 - Henry Cabot Lodge is reappointed as US ambassador to Sou th Vietnam. July 21-28 - President Johnson meets with top aides to decide the future course of action in Vietnam. July 28, 1965 - During a noontime press conference, President Johnson ann ounces he will send 44 combat battalions to Vietnam increasing the US military presence to 125,000 men. "I have asked the commanding general, General Westmoreland, what mo re he needs to meet this mounting aggression. I do not find it easy to send the flower of our youth, our finest you ng men, into battle. I have spoken to you today of the divisions and the forces and the battalions and the units, but I know them all, every one . I have seen them in a thousand streets, of a hundred towns, in every s tate in this unionworking and laughing and building, and filled with hop e and life. I think I know, too, how their mothers weep and how their fa milies sorrow." August 1965 - Combined Action Platoons are formed by US Marines utilizi ng South Vietnamese militia units to protect villages and conduct patrol s to root out Viet Cong guerrillas. August 3, 1965 - The destruction of suspected Viet Cong villages near Da Na... |
| sfgate.com Friday, May 14, 2004 Updated: 12:07 AM PDT ' I'm guessing that the best way to hail a cab or a bartender in Athens will not be by waving an American flag." Sorensen Capital group He's already got more money than god, but that isn't stopping Steve Young (above, right) from embarking on a second career in business. Gov's Balancing Act Schwarzenegger unveils revised budget containing spending cuts and (as promised) no new taxes. Wedding Date's Still On Same-sex marriage opponents lose bid to halt gay nuptials, scheduled to begin Monday in Massachusetts. Researchers say they've found evidence of impact greater than the one that probably caused the dinosaurs' extinction. Wars' $50 Bil Price Tag "It's a big bill," says Wolfowitz, who estimates the cost of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. No Plea From Anderson Using a wheelchair, the haggard-looking suspect is arraigned in the murder of Xiana Fairchild. Giants Left Stranded G-men leave 12 men on base, including two in the bottom of the 9th, and drop series to Philly. Sex, Drugs, And Then 5 Deaths Playboy Playmate tells how she got involved with 2 suspects, but left in just the nick of time. Pixar Growth Plan Wins Fans 20-year proposal for Emeryville site gets flak from activists, but city says go for it. |