Retired Insurgents

[Thepartisan]

I thought those re-education camps where from the south Vietnamese army traitors. And some of those where killed for sure.

There will not be a civil war in Iraq. If that's what your suggesting.
Sadr's already expelled 600 men that where accused of secterian killings. And if it does happen, that's iraq's business. No matter what will happen, the occupation must end.

Murders will be dealt with, the same way you, would deal with your murderers. The crazed soldiers returning home.

[Sargent]

Once the americans leave, AND the puppet government and puppet securit aparatus they left behind is annihilated.

Unfortunately, you, like everyone else in history, must fight the war you have, not the one you want. As much as I hate to say it, there are very few Americans who are going to countenance -- for the best of intentions, no matter what you'd like to believe -- leaving Iraq before something stable is established to take its place. It's going to take a lot more loss in the way of casualties and treasure for people to just throw up their hands and quit -- we're a stubborn lot, which is going to mean time, which is going to mean a continuation of the dismal situation for the Iraqis.

In war, you must be effective. It may be satisfying to kill Americans and their supporters, and it may seem that it is only just to demand that the new Iraq get set up on your own terms in the way that you want. But pursuing that as a goal is not effective to your policy objective, which is an Iraq free from foreign interference. In the short term, you may have to alter your desired sequence, get something stable and amenable to the largest number of people established. And then ask -- or tell, I don't really care -- the Americans to leave. The public/political sentiment in this country will be overwhelmingly in support of such a thing, and there won't be a damn thing any administration will be able to do to argue that we must maintain a presence there. If you want to go back and tinker with the system established, go for it -- these United States were originally established under one set of governing principles (Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union), which were discarded and replaced with the Constitution we now have.

So, the question is, is it more important to kill Americans, to dictate a timetable that's just not likely to work, or to be effective to your policy goals, to have a good strategy that achieves most of your aims in the shortest amount of time with the least damage to the Iraqis?

At this point, I'm one of the few people who believes that America can "lose" in Iraq and still walk away just fine, who's suggested a plan for admitting defeat, offering a reparations package, moving out, and getting on with being a better and more productive force for something positive in this world. However, it's not likely I'm going to be elected president any time soon. Thinking like mine isn't common, so you need to come up with a plan that takes better account of your enemy.

[Steve Blair]

I thought those re-education camps where from the south Vietnamese army traitors. And some of those where killed for sure.

You're quite mistaken here. Reeducation camps were used for a variety of purposes, including the consolidation of power for the northern leadership. That included a "weeding" of VC cadre who might have ideas that were different than the direction given by Hanoi (and there were many of them). And before you tar the SVN as traitors, I suggest you take a look at the history of Vietnam. The north did not have a deadlock on nationalism.

Now maybe we should get back on topic for the thread....

[Sargent]

You're quite mistaken here. Reeducation camps were used for a variety of purposes, including the consolidation of power for the northern leadership. That included a "weeding" of VC cadre who might have ideas that were different than the direction given by Hanoi (and there were many of them). And before you tar the SVN as traitors, I suggest you take a look at the history of Vietnam. The north did not have a deadlock on nationalism.

I think Truong Nhu Tang's memoir captures this point really well. Here was a committed nationalist, big in the NLF, fought long and hard against the Americans and the Southern regime, and then (along with a lot of his fellow nationalists) was absolutely crushed when the North marched in, ended up in a reeducation camp, and eventually fled. Turns out the Americans were not the biggest problem facing the Southern nationalists. As well, a good lesson in "be careful what you wish for."