[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by blankall

I just don't see the comparison. The Western nations are not sending in millions of ground troops. They are letting the locals do the vast majority of the fighting and giving them air support.

The fact of the matter is that the USA has no choice but to act now. If the violence spreads further into Turkey's borders, their (and our) NATO commitments will force them in. If the violence somehow gets entangled with what is going on in Egypt, you're looking at a total disaster. If ISIS were ever able to get a foothold in Egypt and ally with already existing militant groups, you'd see their ranks swell from 10s of thousands to millions. The USA also has an obligation to the Iraqi people to help them, as they, with their last war, are significantly (not entirely) responsible for the present situation in Iraq.

Vietnam was the USA going headstrong into a war that didn't concern them and they couldn't win. The present conflict with ISIS represents them reluctantly and cautiously taking part in a war they are already involved in.

It's also arguable that the current conflict in Syria/Iraq has much more in common with the post-Yugoslavia conflict than it does with Vietnam. In that conflict NATO air strikes were extremely effective and brought the conflict to a standstill.

I'm not saying that US military intervention will be effective here, but I just don't see a single parallel between this and Vietnam.

The Americans involvement with the Viet Nam war began with just advisers and airstrikes and than gradually grew more involved. Escalation is just another step away when the President has a blank cheque.

She says the earlier request was “an overly broad authorization which I could not vote for because it was a blank check for perpetual war.”
She was right. That authorization is still on the books, and the Obama Administration still cites it (along with the AUMF 2002), 13 years later, as sufficient authority for further escalation in Syria and Iraq. Lee says it should be repealed.

A. There are countless parallels. As in Vietnam, the U.S. is heading towards an American ground combat war under a president who assures us — before an election — that it isn’t going to happen. And as in Vietnam, his generals claim he can’t achieve his goal without boots on the ground.
Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, says you can’t defeat ISIS without ground troops. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified he will recommend U.S. ground forces in Iraq if and when air power alone is not sufficient. That day is certain to come, sooner than later, although not before the November elections.
In fact, I doubt there’s a single person in the Pentagon or the CIA who believes Obama can achieve his goals to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria with air strikes and advisers alone.
High-level officers can’t contradict the President publicly, without resigning or being fired. But retired officials can, and have. A former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Conway, put it succinctly: The President’s current strategy “doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell” of succeeding. I’m sure Odierno and Dempsey give it the same odds.

To bring us to the present, instead of saying “relying mainly on the South Vietnamese,” insert Syrians, Iraqis and Kurds. When those first steps are taken towards making this mainly an American war – steps Obama and his generals and Gates already hint at – should we expect to hear about that from the White House? Why? Because Obama is more transparent, less secretive than Johnson, Nixon or George W. Bush? He isn’t.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/01...s-in-isis-war/

We'll see what happens after the election. Maybe Obama will show some sense and stay out of it but I doubt it.