View Full Version : Rumsfeld And the Generals
NousDefionsDoc
03-30-2005, 09:15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11309-2005Mar29.html
Rumsfeld And the Generals
By David Ignatius
Wednesday, March 30, 2005; Page A15
Sometime this summer President Bush will pick a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to lead a U.S. military that has been battered by the war in Iraq. When you ask military officers who should get the job, the first thing many say is that the military needs someone who can stand up to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The tension between Rumsfeld and the uniformed military has been an open secret in Washington these past four years. It was compounded by the Iraq war, but it began almost from the moment Rumsfeld took over at the Pentagon. The grumbling about his leadership partly reflected the military's resistance to change and its reluctance to challenge a brilliant but headstrong civilian leader. But in Iraq, Rumsfeld has pushed the services -- especially the Army -- near the breaking point. The military is right that the next chairman of the JCS must be someone who can push back.
The process of selecting the next chairman is one of those subterranean Washington political affairs that the public often learns about when it's over. But it is already a subject of lively discussion among current and former officers. Since there's so much at stake in this year's decision, here's a JCS form sheet, based on conversations with current and retired officers and Pentagon civilians:
To appreciate the difficulty of the job, think about the body language when Rumsfeld holds a news conference with the current chairman, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers. Rumsfeld is feisty, irreverent, outspoken; Myers is decorous, upright, respectful. Perhaps that's the way it should be, but some in the military argue that Myers has taken deference too far. His friends counter that working for Rumsfeld isn't easy and that Myers has tried, quietly and behind the scenes, to challenge the secretary when he was over the line.
Iraq has been a delicate dilemma for Myers -- he needs to support the president's policy publicly while also challenging the civilians privately. Critics think Myers sometimes erred in sounding too dutifully supportive, as in comments he made during an April 2004 visit to Iraq. The insurgency had exploded so violently then that there was contingency planning to evacuate the Green Zone. But Myers blandly called the intense fighting "a symptom of the success that we're having here in Iraq," according to a forthcoming history of the war by The Post's Thomas E. Ricks.
The leading candidate to succeed Myers is the current vice chairman, Marine Gen. Peter Pace. He has served as Myers's deputy since October 2001 and is the image of the solid, square-jawed Marine. His supporters say that after four years of dealing with the White House and Pentagon civilians, he has unique skills, especially in operating at the interface of political and military affairs. Pace's detractors argue that he has been co-opted by Rumsfeld. They complain that he will sometimes pull his punches in meetings with the secretary and avoid criticizing him face to face.
Some observers think Rumsfeld has already decided to recommend Pace, and that he's likely to pick Navy Adm. Edmund Giambastiani as Pace's vice chairman. Giambastiani is a leading military expert on Rumsfeld's pet topic of high-tech "transformation." A Pace-Giambastiani team might help Rumsfeld lock in his legacy, but at a cost of continued grumbling in the Pentagon corridors.
A second Marine candidate is Gen. James Jones, who's currently the NATO commander. He's smart and sophisticated, with the polish of a corporate CEO. It's said he was considered for chairman last time around but signaled that he wasn't interested, and he was recently on the short list for director of national intelligence. Jones wouldn't be pushed around by anyone, but observers wonder whether he would have the right chemistry with Rumsfeld and Bush.
The third candidate mentioned most frequently is Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of Centcom. He's probably the strongest strategic thinker in the Army. It's said that Rumsfeld was ready to appoint him as Army chief of staff in 2003 but that Abizaid preferred to be in the field. He's tough, smart and outspoken, and is said to have challenged Rumsfeld, quietly but effectively, in the past.
When Bush thinks about picking the next Joint Chiefs chairman, he might recall an unusual gesture by Myers's predecessor, Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, who told his service chiefs to read a book called "Dereliction of Duty." Its subject was how the Joint Chiefs failed to challenge Defense Secretary Robert McNamara adequately during the Vietnam War. It took the Army decades to recover fully from Vietnam; that's a history the next JCS chairman must not repeat.
Rumsfeld won't be defense secretary forever, but a Joint Chiefs chairman who can stand up to him is the right military leader post-Rumsfeld.
rubberneck
03-30-2005, 10:48
Might it be time to send Rumsfeld out to pasture? He has served the President well but from what I gather his act tends to wear thin. Of course this could just be biased info but does it make sense to bring in someone with more of a velvet fist to work with the new Chairman?
NousDefionsDoc
03-30-2005, 10:55
No!
Airbornelawyer
03-30-2005, 11:29
Iraq has been a delicate dilemma for Myers -- he needs to support the president's policy publicly while also challenging the civilians privately. Critics think Myers sometimes erred in sounding too dutifully supportive, as in comments he made during an April 2004 visit to Iraq. The insurgency had exploded so violently then that there was contingency planning to evacuate the Green Zone. But Myers blandly called the intense fighting "a symptom of the success that we're having here in Iraq," according to a forthcoming history of the war by The Post's Thomas E. Ricks.
So let me get this straight.
As a result of a series of high-profile events - the media feeding frenzy on Abu Ghraib, the Sadr uprising in Baghdad's Shi'ite neighborhoods and several southern cities, and the murder of 4 PMCs and subsequent violence in Fallujah, there was a panic of sorts in April 2004.
And what did the CJCS do? Why, he failed to feed the panic and instead spun the negative events positively!
That bastard!!!
BTW, what's the status again of all those things that "exploded so violently" in April 2004?
Airbornelawyer
03-30-2005, 11:33
But wait a minute! Upon re-reading the article, I see that there was not "panic"; there was "contingency planning." What the hell are those soldiers doing "planning" for "contingencies"? Don't they know there's a war on?
NousDefionsDoc
03-30-2005, 11:50
I didn't write the article AL. ;)
Airbornelawyer
03-30-2005, 12:21
I didn't write the article AL. ;)
I know. BTW, I saw Ignatius this morning being interviewed on FoxNews.
That particular paragraph of his just has so much to parse. "Iraq has been a delicate dilemma for Myers -- he needs to support the president's policy publicly while also challenging the civilians privately."
I have no doubt that many in the military leadership differ with many in the civilian leadership over various aspects of Iraq policy, or preemptive action as a component of national security strategy in general. I also have no doubt that many DOD civilians differ with other DOD civilians on policy; many Air Force generals differ with Army generals, who differ with Navy admirals, etc.; and many Army officers differ with other Army officers; and so forth.
But it's nice that Ignatius assumes without actually bothering to present any, y'know, evidence, that Gen. Myers privately does not "support the president's policy."
And do you suppose, perhaps, that fighter jock Myers might occasionally disagree with and "challeng[e]... privately" operator Schoomaker, ground-pounder Pace or tin-can skipper Clark on policy matters?
Roguish Lawyer
03-30-2005, 17:38
What exactly do they want the new guy to complain about? Canceling Crusader? :rolleyes:
aricbcool
03-30-2005, 17:39
...to lead a U.S. military that has been battered by the war in Iraq.
Put downs like this are overly all-inclusive, untrue, and unnecessary. :mad:
It took the Army decades to recover fully from Vietnam; that's a history the next JCS chairman must not repeat.
When, oh when, will journalists stop comparing the modern military with Vietnam? It's getting soooo old!
It's not enough that the US military has broken the backs of the terrorists (in Iraq and abroad), in some cases to the point where many are looking to call it quits.
See:http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6267&highlight=insurgent
It's not enough that the US military has, in less than two years, taken a dictatorial regime and turned it into (the first?) Arab democracy in the Middle East.
Somehow the situation still has "echoes" of Vietnam. I'm sick of it. :mad: :mad:
--Aric
The Reaper
03-30-2005, 23:45
Put downs like this are overly all-inclusive, untrue, and unnecessary. :mad:
When, oh when, will journalists stop comparing the modern military with Vietnam? It's getting soooo old!
Somehow the situation still has "echoes" of Vietnam. I'm sick of it. :mad: :mad:
--Aric
When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.
The media considers the Vietnam War their victory, and will continue to use it as a comparison for every conflict they cover.
I have seen it done with Grenada, Panama, DS, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. All were compared at some point to Vietnam, none were remotely similar.
TR
Airbornelawyer
03-31-2005, 10:51
When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.
The media considers the Vietnam War their victory, and will continue to use it as a comparison for every conflict they cover.
I have seen it done with Grenada, Panama, DS, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. All were compared at some point to Vietnam, none were remotely similar.
TRWhy limit yourself to places we actually fought (or at least sent peacekeepers)? Colombia has been the "next Vietnam" for going on two decades. El Salvador was the next Vietnam in the 1980s (of course, some did actually fight there). Lebanon in 1982-84 was a Vietnam quagmire waiting to happen, and Lebanon was Israel's Vietnam. Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam, South-West Africa was South Africa's Vietnam and Timor l'Este was Indonesia's Vietnam (and I suppose someone somewhere is calling Cote d'Ivoire France's Vietnam). Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Cambodia and everywhere else the Reagan Doctrine was applied (or we thought about applying it) was viewed through the lens of Vietnam.
To be fair, the media aren't the only ones. "No more Vietnams" became a mantra for military officers for conflicts that also did not resemble Vietnam. While in most cases this was a good thing, in other cases it led to military leaders opposing actions when the Vietnam analogy might be too close for comfort (Lebanon in 1984, Iraq in 1991, Bosnia in 1993, Somalia in 1994). There is much to be said for the so-called Powell Doctrine (originally the Weinberger Doctrine), but sometimes you can't predict with certainty what the end-state will be.
Iraq in 2003 to today has become, in a sense, a "no more Desert Storms" campaign, where we set achievable goals, accomplished them, declared victory and went home, leaving Saddam Hussein in power and effectively abandoning the Kurds and Shi'ites to their fate, only to have to come back later.
And one of the other responses to Vietnam, besides Weinberger-Powell, was the emphasis on high-tech solutions to the body bag problem. Both the military and the media concluded that Americans have no tolerance for casualties, and popular support for Vietnam erodes because of the daily drumbeat of casualty stories (arguably, what Americans won't tolerate is senseless sacrifice). So the military, especially the Air Force, emphasized high-tech weapons that had the promise of relatively casualty-free warfare. Kosovo was supposed to be the vindication of the dreams of airpower theorists since the 1920s of winning wars without armies (ignoring the role played by the KLA). Then Afghanistan, too (downplaying the role of the anti-Taliban Afghan forces and their SOF advisors). Many in the Air Force and OSD favored the same approach to Iraq, despite the strategic and tactical differences between Iraq and Afghanistan.
I suppose inapt World War Two analogies were made in Vietnam, inapt World War One analogies were made in World War Two, and inapt Civil War analogies were made in the Spanish-American War. Do you suppose after the Battle of New Orleans the British press dusted off its Yorktown analogies?
Peregrino
03-31-2005, 11:34
AL - With a little twist inapt becomes inept. That might be a better (more charitable) descriptor of the minds behind the comparisons. And it's a whole lot nicer than assigning/exposing or just assuming nefarious designs on the part of the authors. Another of the axioms frequently quoted/misquoted here - "Never assign to malice what can be explained with stupidity." :munchin Just stirring the pot Boss, just stirring the pot. Peregrino
aricbcool
03-31-2005, 23:33
The media considers the Vietnam War their victory, and will continue to use it as a comparison for every conflict they cover.
Well put TR.
I think it also has to do with the "Old Guard" in the media i.e. Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, etc.
All these guys made their careers off of Vietnam and the Vietnam era right?
(Like you said, their victory) They just can't let go of their past "glory" of taking on the "mean old opressive government."
I'd like to think that as these guys start retiring, the comparisons will stop, but I think it's a matter of them training all the new "talent" to conduct news the same damn way.
Why limit yourself to places we actually fought (or at least sent peacekeepers)?
AL,
Yeah, no kidding. :rolleyes:
It's despicable what some groups will go to in the name of a political agenda.
I remember in 01 right before we went into Afghanistan, many of the talking heads couldn't stop comparing the US going to Afghanistan with the Russians in Afghanistan, and the Brits before that. I think they compared us to every Army that had ever failed there. It was so obvious it was almost funny. Almost.
What was funny was how wrong they were.
Regards,
Aric
Roguish Lawyer
03-31-2005, 23:39
I think it also has to do with the "Old Guard" in the media i.e. Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, etc.
All these guys made their careers off of Vietnam and the Vietnam era right?
(Like you said, their victory) They just can't let go of their past "glory" of taking on the "mean old opressive government."
I'd like to think that as these guys start retiring, the comparisons will stop, but I think it's a matter of them training all the new "talent" to conduct news the same damn way.
The new "talent" was "educated" by a bunch of hippy academics who are way to the left of the Rathers and Brokaws. I wouldn't hold your breath.
aricbcool
03-31-2005, 23:41
The new "talent" was "educated" by a bunch of hippy academics who are way to the left of the Rathers and Brokaws. I wouldn't hold your breath.
Oh yeah. I forgot about the liberal education system. </hope>
I think the problem is dealing with complex situations with generalizations-- ie Iraq is Vietnam, the press are liberal sob-sisters, academics are hippies etc...
I just don't think it's a particularly useful way to approach a complex subject. Just my .02 and said with all due respect.
The Reaper
04-03-2005, 20:13
I think the problem is dealing with complex situations with generalizations-- ie Iraq is Vietnam, the press are liberal sob-sisters, academics are hippies etc...
I just don't think it's a particularly useful way to approach a complex subject. Just my .02 and said with all due respect.
When the generalization is supported by the facts, I am fine with using it.
Do you doubt the leftist leanings of academicians and reporters?
TR
When the generalization is supported by the facts, I am fine with using it.
Do you doubt the leftist leanings of academicians and reporters?
TR
Well, I guess you could make a strong case that the majority of acadamics lean to the left but I would have to respectfully disagree with you with regards to the press/media. I think 30 years ago that was probably the case but I don't think that argument holds water in 2005. For instance I don't think you could accuse the Washington Times or Fox News of having a leftist agenda. And anyway, I think the sad reality is that the only ideology the News Media as a whole espouses is that of the almighty $. They follow the wind to the nearest carrion and feast... Hence the sub-standard tabloid Michael Jackson journalism we're all fed 24/7. But maybe THAT'S a generalization! Again, just my .02.
Stone
The Reaper
04-04-2005, 08:18
Well, I guess you could make a strong case that the majority of acadamics lean to the left but I would have to respectfully disagree with you with regards to the press/media. I think 30 years ago that was probably the case but I don't think that argument holds water in 2005. For instance I don't think you could accuse the Washington Times or Fox News of having a leftist agenda. And anyway, I think the sad reality is that the only ideology the News Media as a whole espouses is that of the almighty $. They follow the wind to the nearest carrion and feast... Hence the sub-standard tabloid Michael Jackson journalism we're all fed 24/7. But maybe THAT'S a generalization! Again, just my .02.
Stone
Stone:
When over 80% of the media identifies themselves as Democrats, I see that as a problem.
The real issue is that they do not report the story, they editorialize on it while reporting it as news. If you are going to "report" a story, provide the facts from both sides and let us decide what we think. I do not need a blowhard like Jennings telling me what it means.
Washington Times and Fox News provide a more centrist viewpoint of the news. They represent what, maybe 10% of the media? Their creation and growing popularity reflect dissatisfaction with the rest of the media. They are still left of what I believe, but at least usually report both sides of a story.
Have to agree with you on reporting sensationalist stories in the most salacious manner possible. Yellow Journalism at its finest.
TR
Stone:
When over 80% of the media identifies themselves as Democrats, I see that as a problem.
The real issue is that they do not report the story, they editorialize on it while reporting it as news. If you are going to "report" a story, provide the facts from both sides and let us decide what we think. I do not need a blowhard like Jennings telling me what it means.
Washington Times and Fox News provide a more centrist viewpoint of the news. They represent what, maybe 10% of the media? Their creation and growing popularity reflect dissatisfaction with the rest of the media. They are still left of what I believe, but at least usually report both sides of a story.
Have to agree with you on reporting sensationalist stories in the most salacious manner possible. Yellow Journalism at its finest.
TR
TR:
Well I'm not sure being a Democrat makes you a leftist, but I'm probably just splitting hairs and anyway I take your point. It's damn hard finding the straight scoop anywhere these days-- everybody's selling something-- and they usually appeal to the lowest common denominator. I'd be interested to know what you think of the BBC. They still seem to be a quality outfit-- at least they try to operate with a certain degree of decorum and integrity. As far as print goes, I think the Christian Science Monitor presents news in a fairly objective manner.
Stone
The Reaper
04-04-2005, 09:48
TR:
Well I'm not sure being a Democrat makes you a leftist, but I'm probably just splitting hairs and anyway I take your point. It's damn hard finding the straight scoop anywhere these days-- everybody's selling something-- and they usually appeal to the lowest common denominator. I'd be interested to know what you think of the BBC. They still seem to be a quality outfit-- at least they try to operate with a certain degree of decorum and integrity. As far as print goes, I think the Christian Science Monitor presents news in a fairly objective manner.
Stone
The Beeb has lost its credibility recently in its efforts to spin the news. More like Pravda these days.
Name some conservative, right-wing Democrats.
TR
The Beeb has lost its credibility recently in its efforts to spin the news. More like Pravda these days.
Name some conservative, right-wing Democrats.
TR
Well not being right-wing doesn't automatically make you a "leftist." I'd like to think it's possible to have a center.
NousDefionsDoc
04-04-2005, 10:14
Well, I guess you could make a strong case that the majority of acadamics lean to the left but I would have to respectfully disagree with you with regards to the press/media. I think 30 years ago that was probably the case but I don't think that argument holds water in 2005. For instance I don't think you could accuse the Washington Times or Fox News of having a leftist agenda. And anyway, I think the sad reality is that the only ideology the News Media as a whole espouses is that of the almighty $. They follow the wind to the nearest carrion and feast... Hence the sub-standard tabloid Michael Jackson journalism we're all fed 24/7. But maybe THAT'S a generalization! Again, just my .02.
Stone
No way Stone. Dead wrong. 30 years ago, at least some of them had a modicum of professionalsim. You name two out of how many and claim a center? LOL.
If you truly analize Fox News, they are what they claim to be for the most part - fair and balanced. There is a flaming communist for every fascist on there. It just looks to the right because all the others have slide so far to the left.
The media is out of control and are trying to set an agenda in the US. They have the same arrogant, elitest vanguard, "The masses are too stupid to know what's good for them, so we have to do it to them." attitude as the academics. The same one Lenin had. Unfortunately for the media, their replacement is in the Repl-Depl. The internet.
The Reaper
04-04-2005, 10:30
Well not being right-wing doesn't automatically make you a "leftist." I'd like to think it's possible to have a center.
What is centrist for me is probably not centrist for you.
I think Fox is a bit left of center, but as NDD noted, at least they present both sides.
I'll take the party and the candidates that believe in all of the Constitution (and the writings of the Founding Fathers), including the Second Amendment. I don't see too many Democrats who don't want to take away my rights and continue the slide into a socialist, welfare, nambyist state.
TR
No way Stone. Dead wrong. 30 years ago, at least some of them had a modicum of professionalsim. You name two out of how many and claim a center? LOL.
If you truly analize Fox News, they are what they claim to be for the most part - fair and balanced. There is a flaming communist for every fascist on there. It just looks to the right because all the others have slide so far to the left.
The media is out of control and are trying to set an agenda in the US. They have the same arrogant, elitest vanguard, "The masses are too stupid to know what's good for them, so we have to do it to them." attitude as the academics. The same one Lenin had. Unfortunately for the media, their replacement is in the Repl-Depl. The internet.
I agree with you absolutely about the decline of professionalism but I still have to respectfully disagree about the myth of the liberal media. First of all, I think "media" is too homogenous a term-- what/who exactly are we talking about? Who are "they"? And what exactly is this agenda they are trying to set? Sorry, no offense, but I just don't buy it. They only agenda I see is one to make a lot of money but force-feeding people tabloid garbage, like who's the freak for today's story, instead of keeping their fellow members of the Republic informed about real news and issues to ensure we keep running as a healthy democracy. Anyway, just my opinion.... and it's all good food for thought.
Stone
The Reaper
04-04-2005, 10:46
First of all, I think "media" is too homogenous a term-- what/who exactly are we talking about? Who are "they"? And what exactly is this agenda they are trying to set?
The media as defined by the major daily papers, weekly and monthly news magazines, and network radio and TV.
I would say that in the U.S., this would include the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Trib, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS.
The agenda is whatever the Democrats in general, or liberals want them to push as news.
Would you like examples?
TR
What is centrist for me is probably not centrist for you.
I think Fox is a bit left of center, but as NDD noted, at least they present both sides.
I'll take the party and the candidates that believe in all of the Constitution (and the writings of the Founding Fathers), including the Second Amendment. I don't see too many Democrats who don't want to take away my rights and continue the slide into a socialist, welfare, nambyist state.
TR
Fair enough-- alot of it comes down to perspective. Yea I'll take the candidate that stands by the Constitution as well.... and all the time-- not just when it's politically expedient.
The media is defines by the major daily papers, weekly and monthly news magazines, and network radio and TV.
I would say that in the U.S., this would include the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Trib, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS.
The agenda is whatever the Democrats in general, or liberals want them to push as news.
Would you like examples?
TR
Yea I would agree with that-- though you left out Fox which is hugely popular. Anyway we could go on like this forever, ad infinitum.... perhaps we should just agree to disagree.... I think we just have different perspectives. At any rate I appreciate your point of view.
I agree with you absolutely about the decline of professionalism but I still have to respectfully disagree about the myth of the liberal media.
Stone
It's no myth..at least not from where I sit. Try this small exercise; when you read/listen to reports pay extreme attention to the verbiage and how things are phrased. Then ask yourself what the "slant" is. I believe you will find it.
The Reaper
04-04-2005, 11:12
Here is a good one.
Most of us heard about the chimps attacking the couple at the zoo recently.
Who can tell us (without looking it up), how it was resolved?
Where was the truth reported?
TR
NousDefionsDoc
04-04-2005, 11:13
Stone
What cities are the media centers of the US?
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#how
Airbornelawyer
04-04-2005, 11:45
I cited an example on Socnet this weekend.
The New York Times ran a story on how conservative Christians were organizing in Ohio to help elect candidates more favorable to their views (although it should be noted that conservative Christians don't have a single set of "views").
On the whole, the story was relatively balanced, though the choice of topic manifested a certain bias. The major media, liberal political commentators and the Democratic party (there is overlap, but they are not synonymous) seem obsessed of late with evangelical Christian involvement in politics. The Democratic Party's concern is clear: evangelicals tend to vote Republican, so the more involved they are, the worse it is for the Democrats. Liberal political commentators, to the extent they are not also Democrats, are also concerned because evangelicals tend to not favor liberal views on many "hot-button" issues like abortion.
Ohio is an area of concern to Democrats and liberals due to its pivotal role in the 2004 election and the fact that it is traditionally viewed as a bellweather of American politics.
But as I noted, the story was more or less even-handed. Until the end. The reporter concluded with an anecdote about how Christians were apparently changing politics. A congregant of a politically active pastor was elected sheriff of Fairfield County, Ohio. "Mr. Phalen said he was encouraged by church members to run for office in 2000, when the incumbent was under investigation for corruption. Sheriff Phelan's [sic] official letterhead now reads, 'With God, all things are possible'." The single word "now" shows the reporter thought that a Christian conservatives had gotten elected and was bringing religion into the sheriff's office. I read that passage to a couple of relatively liberal New York lawyers in my office, who nodded in agreement with that implication.
Unfortunately, elementary fact-checking might have told the reporter that "With God, all things are possible" is the state motto of Ohio. :rolleyes:
Stone
What cities are the media centers of the US?
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#how
Interesting site-- though I'm not sure why they have a photo of Diane Sawyer-- she worked in one of the Nixon administrations-- I assumed she was Republican. But yea, there is some interesting analysis on there.
brownapple
04-05-2005, 07:53
When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.
The media considers the Vietnam War their victory, and will continue to use it as a comparison for every conflict they cover.
I have seen it done with Grenada, Panama, DS, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. All were compared at some point to Vietnam, none were remotely similar.
TR
BINGO!!