From Donnie Johnston's editorial in today's Fredericksburg Freelance-Star, "As conflict drags on, Americans lose interest in Iraq":
Last May, after I wrote a column comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I received an irate letter from one man who said, in effect, that I was crazy, that within a year our boys would be home.Well, that year will be up in a few weeks and we seem no closer to getting out of Iraq. And our soldiers are still dying at the rate of more than one per day.
Those who don't see Iraq as another Vietnam are right in one respect. During Vietnam, America cared. Now it seems that only a handful of us even acknowledge there is still a war going on.
Every poll I have seen lately places the economy at the top of America's trouble list. In other words, we are more concerned with money than the lives of our soldiers.
I suppose that's understandable. It is our money, but, for most, it is someone else's son or daughter over there getting shot at.
The primary reason for this obvious distance between Americans and their soldiers is conscription--or the lack of it. During Vietnam, there was hardly a household that didn't worry that a son or a grandson would be drafted.
Now we know our kids will be safe, unless they choose to join the military.
The draft--at least the draft during the 1940s, '50s, and most of the '60s--did not discriminate between the rich and the poor. If you were fit, you got drafted. College graduates and high school dropouts bunked together in the same barracks.
Now, for the most part, the fighting element of the military is made up of less-affluent Americans. Let's face it, few recent graduates with master's degrees are going to trade a $50,000-a-year job for Army pay.
It is easy to talk about making war when you know that your son or daughter will not be forced to fight.
I think you're both wrong. First, he's wrong because he didn't predict correctly and second, you're wrong because the Vietnamese never attacked us; Al Queda and the Taliban DID! So we have entirely different reasons for these wars. This one fits our foreign policy in that there was a clear and present danger to us RIGHT HERE. They did bomb us, more than once. What if we'd let the Japanese continue their reign of terror? California was next on their list.
Also, we lost (along with other nations) 3,000+ in one day on 9/11. One a day to keep us safe from that is horrible but I think it's more logical than not because we'd surely lose more if we allow the terrorism to continue on our shores. Those terror guys aren't fooling around; they want us dead, all of us. They won't be reasoned with, ever. You cannot reason with a criminal. They're criminals!
You're wrong; our kids will not be "safe unless they join the military". First, we all will not be safe without our military doing what it is doing. That enemy will continue to kill more than we're losing this way. We must get them first. It's the rule of gunfighting. Don't you watch westerns?
Second, from looking at stats on the most dangerous major occupations by death rate on the job, firefighting is first, way up there. Second is mining and quarrying, Third is cops. Fourth is construction. Fifth is transportation. And military is lower than fiftieth on the list. So, it's actually probably a safer occupation than yours. It's way safer than driving!
So what's your point? You're not operating with facts. Get the facts! We cannot topple G.W. without facts that have meat to refute their side of the case.
