Iraq = Guadalcanal, not Vietnam

My favorite conservative sent this link to me in an e-mail with the request that I analyze it.

Basically the author’s premise is that if we accept that the war on terror is World War II, then Iraq is Guadalcanal, not Vietnam. I basically responded that if I accept the initial premise (war on terror = WWII), then Afghanistan is much closer to Guadalcanal than Iraq could ever be. Of course, this takes into account a Guadalcanal where we cut out early, left a token force, then went after a different, more attractive, but unrelated to-the-conflict target.

Instead of responding to my “analysis” she just came back telling me I was biased.

Great, a person sends me a link to Fox News that shows an article from the Weekly Standard and I’m the biased one.

Sigh.

“Am I slanted and biased? You damn well bet I am!”

-Amanpour

i saw the same article in another forum. here was my reply:

login
password

latimes18485
latimes18485

(if it doesn’t work try out a few more from bugmenot.com, but i posted most of the article here anyway)

la times

According to Thucydides, the digression into Sicily in 416 BC — a sideshow that involved lying exiles, hopeful contractors, politicized intelligence, a doctrine of preemption — ultimately cost Athens everything, including its democracy.

Nicias, the most experienced Athenian general, had not wanted to be chosen for the command. “His view was that the city was making a mistake and, on a slight pretext which looked reasonable, was in fact aiming at conquering the whole of Sicily — a considerable undertaking indeed,” wrote Thucydides.

Nicias warned that it was the wrong war against the wrong enemy and that the Athenians were ignoring their real enemies — the Spartans — while creating new enemies elsewhere. “It is senseless to go against people who, even if conquered, could not be controlled,” he argued.

Occupying Sicily would require many soldiers, Nicias insisted, because it meant establishing a new government among enemies. “Those who do this [must] either become masters of the country on the very first day they land in it, or be prepared to recognize that, if they fail to do so, they will find hostility on every side.”

The case for war, meanwhile, was made by the young general Alcibiades, who was hoping for a quick victory in Sicily so he could move on to conquer Carthage. Alcibiades, who’d led a dissolute youth (and who happened to own a horse ranch, raising Olympic racers) was a battle-tested soldier, a brilliant diplomat and a good speaker. (So much for superficial similarities.)

Alcibiades intended to rely on dazzling technology — the Athenian armada — instead of traditional foot soldiers. He told the Assembly he wasn’t worried about Sicilian resistance because the island’s cities were filled with people of so many different groups. “Such a crowd as this is scarcely likely either to pay attention to one consistent policy or to join together in concerted action…. The chances are that they will make separate agreements with us as soon as we come forward with attractive suggestions.”

Another argument for the war was that it would pay for itself. A committee of Sicilian exiles and Athenian experts told the Assembly that there was enough wealth in Sicily to pay the costs of the war and occupation. “The report was encouraging but untrue,” wrote Thucydides.

Though war was constant in ancient Greece, it was still usually justified by a threat, an insult or an incident. But the excursion against Sicily was different, and Alcibiades announced a new, or at least normally unstated, doctrine.

“One does not only defend oneself against a superior power when one is attacked: One takes measures in advance to prevent the attack materializing,” he said.

When and where should this preemption doctrine be applied? Alcibiades gave an answer of a sort. “It is not possible for us to calculate, like housekeepers [perhaps a better translation would be “girlie men”], exactly how much empire we want to have. The fact is that we have reached a state where we are forced to plan new conquests and forced to hold on to what we have got because there is danger that we ourselves may fall under the power of others unless others are in our power.”

Alcibiades’ argument carried the day, but before the invasion, the Athenian fleet sailed around seeking allies among the Hellenic colonies near Sicily. Despite the expedition’s “great preponderance of strength over those against whom it set out,” only a couple of cities joined the coalition.

At home, few spoke out against the Sicilian operation. “There was a passion for the enterprise which affected everyone alike,” Thucydides reports. “The result of this excessive enthusiasm of the majority was that the few who actually were opposed to the expedition were afraid of being thought unpatriotic if they voted against it, and therefore kept quiet.”

In the face of aggressive posturing, Nicias appealed to the Assembly members to show true courage.

“If any of you is sitting next to one of [Alcibiades’] supporters,” Nicias said, “do not allow yourself to be browbeaten or to be frightened of being called a coward if you do not vote for war…. Our country is on the verge of the greatest danger she has ever known. Think of her, hold up your hands against this proposal and vote in favor of leaving the Sicilians alone.”

We don’t know how many Athenians had secret reservations, but few hands went up against the war.

other posters on that forum mentioned a few other things:

small island occupied for a 6 months vs iraq.

the defeat of japan ended when we got to their home islands, dropped nukes, and their leaders signed a peace treaty. who are we going to be dropping nukes on? who will sign the peace traty?

how will the war on terror end and how do we get there?