People with a bug up their butt about Vietnam understand that the escalation began after regular American military officers got shipped into Saigon, and started directing actual military operations by our allies.
The slippery slope went like this: military support started in 1950, training in 1956, direct involvement in 1961, and war in 1965.
I'd like to know what those people think about the fact that regular Iranian military officers have been captured inside Iraq participating in military meetings with "rebels".
The ability to make and draw analogies is one of the best known tests of intelligence. Is anyone out there getting the third one?
- Iraq in 2000 = French Indochina circa 1950
- America in 2006/7 = USSR and PRC circa 1960
- Iraq in 2006/7 = Communist Vietnam in the 1960s
- Iran in 2006/7 = America in 1960-64
I used the term "communist Vietnam" intentionally. In Vietnam, the communists controlled some areas and were the more popular group in those they didn't; they just couldn't get the entire place under their control because elements descended from the previous regime were still in place.
So ... how long until the Iranians have to get more deeply involved just to save face? That was Kennedy's reasoning:
... We have a problem in making our power credible ...
That pretty much sums up the current Iranian position, don't you think? Let me paraphrase Kennedy, and let you wonder if a statement like this has been made in counsel in Tehran:
Iranian objectives and concept of operations [are] to prevent non-Shiite
domination of Iraq; to create in that country a viable and
increasingly Islamistc society, and to initiate, on an accelerated
basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military,
political, economic psychological, and covert character designed to
achieve this objective.
Hat tip to Cold Spring Shops for the December 27 post.