January 03, 2007

Can we say 'escalation'?

NBC News is reporting that Dubya's administration plans to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. This is, of course, only a couple of months after US voters clearly indicated that they wanted the occupation ended.

If anyone in the White House knew their history, they'd know that LBJ kept sending more troops to Vietnam, figuring that increasing the number of troops would make the war turn out better. They'd also know that the main result of LBJ's escalation was the deaths of thousands of US troops and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese troops and civilians — and that the Vietnamese won the war anyway.

Knowing all of this would involve reading history books, however, so I'm not expecting Dubya or any of his minions to figure this out and avoid a similar result in Iraq.

I'm torn between wanting to make a snide comment involving 'worst president ever' or one involving 'Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam.' This administration makes my brain hurt too much to decide.

Posted by Magpie at January 3, 2007 09:18 AM | Iraq | Technorati links |

"Though it isn't really war
Still we're sending fifty thousand more..."
--or something like that. Anybody remember who wrote that?

Posted by: peter webster at January 3, 2007 03:32 PM

the song you're thinking of is 'lyndon johnson told the nation,' written by tom paxton in 1965. here's the chorus:

Lyndon Johnson told the nation,
"Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending fifty thousand more,
To help save Vietnam from Vietnamese."

you can find the full lyrics here: http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietimages/Audio/lbj-paxton.html

Posted by: Magpie at January 3, 2007 03:45 PM

And you know it's the well-educated who come up with these Orwellian evasions of reality. "Surge," indeed!

Posted by: peter webster at January 3, 2007 03:45 PM