From teh Bush:

President George W Bush has turned the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam on its head in a speech to war veterans, arguing that America’s experience in south-east Asia support the case for keeping US troops in the Middle East.

He said that the rapid US withdrawal from Vietnam and Cambodia in 1975 had led to bloodbaths, persecution of those who worked for the Americans and the boat people refugee crisis.

He argued that a premature US exit from Iraq could have similar consequences.

“Many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people,” he said, addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars association in Kansas City.

Oh, Lord, so many things wrong, so little time.

First of all, let’s point out that last bit, about “Many argued.” That’s the famous Straw Man appeal. Now, I wasn’t really paying attention to politics much then, mainly because I was, like, under ten years old, but were there really many serious people who argued that a U.S. pullout from Vietnam would not result in any continued violence? Even if there were–and I doubt that–Bush’s statement makes the suggestion that there are a similar “Many” today who argue that a pullout from Iraq will also have “no consequences” for the Iraqi people–which, of course, is utterly false.

Then, as to the basic comparison, one could make so many other analogies between Vietnam and Iraq–the mistake of going in in the first place, the hopelessness of a major guerilla land war in Asia, investing more and more in a quagmire because it would look bad to pull out….

And let’s not forget an oldie but a goodie: the scare theory of what will happen if we leave. In Vietnam, it was the Domino Theory: if we leave, the Communists will start making victories that will topple the other countries until Communists take over Asia and we have a bigger problem and maybe a war taken to our doorstep. In Iraq, the shorthand version is, if we stop fighting them there, they’ll follow us home and make war on our doorstep. Same basic idea: if we end the war, disaster will befall us, and the boogeyman will come get us.

Then there is the whole argument that things will get worse if we leave, as if going in in the first place was not the error that led to the damage. That somehow the decision to invade was a good idea, that staying in is a good idea, and the only course that will do us harm is deciding to leave. The sad fact is, the invasion itself was the error, and withdrawing is the least bad of all resolutions to that error.

Bush claimed that it was the withdrawal from Vietnam that emboldened al Qaeda, suggesting the inference that withdrawing from Iraq would cause similar damage. However, the damage has already been done: it was the invasion of Iraq that emboldened our enemies; the withdrawal is only a painful resolution to a mistake already made, Staying in Iraq indefinitely would embolden our enemies further still, worse than if we were to withdraw. It has already proven to be a huge recruitment and fundraising bonanza for al Qaeda.

“In Vietnam, former American allies, government workers, intellectuals, and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished.”

This shouldn’t be too much of a problem in Iraq: almost all of those people have already left the country. Why? Because they have been targeted by death squads. In short, the horrors Bush warns of have already been taking place.

It also drew on a long-running belief in the military that the US Congress threw away the chance of victory in Vietnam by pulling troops home early.

And here we get into the real fantasy: that this is something we can “win.” Naturally, it is far easier to dream of a victory than to actually achieve one. Right-wingers argue that the “Surge” is working, allegedly because violence is on a downswing (many point to July’s numbers, ignoring the fact that over the past three years, July has always seen a downturn in violence). I would direct you to read what these soldiers have to say about the matter.

Here’s the thing: even if the surge were having the effect that right-wingers claim–and I have seen no persuasive evidence that this is actually the case–but even if it were, then the idea that this means we could win the war is still utterly a pipe dream. As I said before, Iraq is an arterial gash: you can make it look like it is bleeding a bit less by applying pressure to it, but that alone won’t be enough to repair the damage and bring the patient back to health. It is an illusion of repair, not repair in fact.

The theory is that if we can just apply enough pressure to dampen violence in Iraq for a while, then Iraq can heal itself, pull itself together, become a unified whole, pick itself up and banish the insurgents. That’s all, not much.

And that, my friends, is the extent of the pipe dream. The Iraqi government cannot pick its nose without falling apart at the seams; the insurgents, even if suppressed, are still there and are not going anywhere; the Iraqi militia, when they are not giving their weapons to insurgents or actively participating in the insurgency, are incapable of policing Iraq on their own; there is no solution in sight for solving the problems of sectarian division; and so many, many other problems.

So the optimists are saying, “Hey look, all we had to do was pour tens of thousands of extra U.S. troops which we cannot maintain for very long, and the number of violent attacks in Iraq fell by ”x“ percent, so that means all those other problems are not so insurmountable!”

I weep for the poor teen who thinks he’s immortal and gets suckered in by the huge signing bonuses now being offered to join the military. It does not matter if he has patriotism in his heart–in fact, it is worse if he does, for that only intensifies the tragedy of what he will be put through to satisfy the fantasies of those who say we will win this thing, but always find reasons not to serve in the military themselves.