Those who think that human mentality evolves or societies learn from their errors might consider the parallels between the Iraqi and Vietnam wars. After the war against communist thugs was definitely lost, Pentagon increased the American troops in Vietnam by four times. Throughout the history, good commanders knew that numbers do not substitute for tactical advantage, let alone for strategy. Pentagon bureaucrats ignore that simple wisdom.

Around 1967, the anti-war movement became convinced the war is over and it became a “liberal matter.” Then, the Tet offensive precluded the US from honorable withdrawal and opened an especially bloody chapter. Honorable settlement in Iraq would include concessions to Baathists or Islamic fundamentalists, and the US cannot settle in Iraq just as in Vietnam.

Training of local troops worked neither in Vietnam, nor in Iraq because those troops lacked motivation. America relied essentially on traitors who forgo nationalist or other ideological ambitions. What soldiers accept to be trained by infidel occupiers against their own people? The tactics of sending military instructors did not work. Local armies failed in Vietnam and Iraq, and the US troops had to fight the others’ war. Both wars produced bizarre alliances Caligula would be ashamed of: Khmer Rouge, implicitly the Shiite Iran, and possibly Syria.

Unable to establish control over Vietnam, Pentagon opted for soft targets, Laos and Cambodia. Today, the “search and destroy” missions move into Somalia.

During the Vietnam War, American troops massively (unavoidably) killed civilians. In Iraq, that job is implicitly reserved for the de facto allies, fundamentalist Shiites who so far prop the pro-US government.

Wars in Vietnam and Iraq lacked the definition of victory; absent of a clear objective, attrition remained the only option and the wars drugged on. Now Bush accepts imperfectly democratic Iraq as long as it does not harbor terrorists; Iraq was also semi-democratic under Saddam and did not condone terrorists - why the war?

There is no politically active young generation today, as in the 1960s. Middle-age Americans are “tolerant” to senseless inhumanity and will continue to tolerate the war until the costs in money or reputation become unbearable. Costs in soldiers’ lives are easy to bear.

—

Colonel Joseph Bellas ‘They’re young, they’re idealistic and don’t like man’s inhumanity to man. As they get older they will become wiser and more tolerant.’

A staff major said: “We are at war with the 10-year-old children. It may not be humanitarian, but that’s what it’s like.”

Pentagon ‘reported that the carnage was due to artillery fire. Civilian casualties by artillery fire among hostile villages are so common that this explanation ended the inquiry.’

Americans are not now rejecting “war,” they merely wish to see this current conflict ended. To achieve this goal, most Americans would pursue a more militant policy and ignore resultant atrocities.

[President Thieu] is calculating that the US cannot afford to lose the war and is therefore stuck here almost no matter what Saigon does.

Thus the current political developments confirm, once again, the failure of the American military to create a workable Quisling regime

Noam Chomsky, After Pinkville,1971

Maliki leaked information that the political schemer Khalilzad asked him to postpone Saddam’s execution for two weeks, apparently to find a more favorable media spot for the American audience rather than letting the execution sink unnoticed in the holiday bustle.