Those of us who have witnessed these days still remember the feeble excuses of General William Westmoreland: The press is killing us. The antiwar movement is alienating public opinion. We don’t have permission to bomb them to smithereens. They have a standing army of so and so.
So let’s look at the facts: roughly similar area, Vietnam 331,690 sq km, Irak 438,317 sq km
roughly similar troop to population ratio: Vietnam population 82,689,518 (2004 estimates), Irak 25,374,691 (2004 estimates), Peak of US troops in Vietnam 543,000, Irak: 140,000
But look at the goodies the present-day conquerors enjoy:
1- The press is muzzled: About one tenth of the reporting done for Vietnam events.
2- No antiwar movement to speak of: On the contrary, America have never seen so much flags at its doorsteps.
3- They have permission to create concentration camps and torture prisoners (Al ghraib prison and Guatanamo, among others…).
4- Nobody cares how much civilians are killed in air raids, a few people know about them anyway.
5- No standing army opposing the US and coalition troups (except for first laughable/shameful ten days).
6- Troups enjoy body armor, their enemies do not.
7- Latest technological armament for troups, none for the enemy.
8- World public opinion dormant, some western governments actively involved.
9- No jungle to defoliate, just open sahara.
and we can cite hundreds of such advantages to US troups, when compared to their situation in Vietnam.
It seems that nothing will statisfy these american generals. Has anyone considered that maybe, maybe people do not like to be humiliated, raped and tortured? Is it too far to grasp that people will resist oppression and invasion, whatever the pretext?
Here’s one of their proverbs: “Me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against the foreigner.”