Lessons not learned

William L. Anderson believes it not just the lessons that should have been learned in Vietnam that the neocons ignored when they invaded Iraq but in fact they igonored the lessons of every invasion the US has participated in.

Today, as it is painfully obvious that while the Iraqi insurgents are not wearing black pajamas, they have been as effective in blocking U.S. military initiatives as the Viet Cong and their North Vietnam allies were in demoralizing the Yankee invaders two generations ago. Indeed, there are lessons of Vietnam to be learned, and we will learn them – yet, not learn them – again and again.

[.....]

While readers will disagree on the "real" lessons of Vietnam, I would like to cite what I believe are some lessons that we should have learned from that fiasco there many decades ago – and what we should have learned from all of our military escapades, and especially those invasions since 1898.

• Lesson #1: An occupation is not a "liberation."


• Lesson #2: A standing army is no match for determined guerrilla fighters.


• Lesson #3: The "sunk costs" argument is not a viable reason for continuing a war.

You should recognize #3, as we reported here it's the latest "reason" given by Bush for "Staying The Course". Newsfare explained the "sunk costs" argument very well.

We are fighting because we were fighting.

Anderson explains the wrongness of "sunk costs".

The best way to "honor" those who have died in Iraq is for those who made the decision to invade to resign their positions and to apologize to the families of the dead, the nation, to the Iraqis, and to the rest of the world. Instead, we have people scrambling for political cover while they continue to speak of the "heroes" of Iraq, as though they were mere political pawns and not the sons and daughters of real people.