Tuesday, April 06, 2004

CNN.com - Coalition battling al-Sadr supporters in Najaf - Apr 6, 2004
I could have cited any number of articles to make this point, but I chose this one for no particular reason, so don't feel a need to click through.

All of the major news outlets are describing this "massive insurrection" against coalition forces.
They also like to make comparisons to Vietnam on a regular basis. So, allow me to take this a step further.
The Tet Offensive of 1968 was seen in Vietnam as the turning point of the war, i.e. when America started losing. American support eroded, we started talking about pulling out, and Vietnamization, etc.
In retrospect, historians have discovered that the Tet Offensive was a farce. We did not lose a lot of ground or troops in comparison with the VC losses, and we could easily have counter-attacked. This retrospective analysis usually concludes that such a counter-attack would have been fatal to the VC. You see, they had expended every last ounce of effort they had in the Offensive. By our stalling, getting scared, letting it get to us, we gave them enough time to build back up, and the Offensive turned into a success from what should have been a failure.

Let's look at this week as the Tet Offensive. Let's view it as their desperation, trying everything they can. They got 12 soldiers, according to this article. How many have we taken in retaliation? I'd bet a lot more. Have we lost ground? Of course not--we control the whole country. So, let's turn back and destroy the resistance. Let's save the Iraqi people from the minority who want to destroy them.

UPDATE [4/6/2004]: I beat them to it (via InstaPundit): Useful Fools: Beware the Tet Syndrome! Granted, they say it better than I do, but still, maybe I actually said something with some value.

UPDATE [4/7/2004]: This column (via InstaPundit) claims to contradict the Tet theory, but seems, in my mind, to simply misunderstand what the Tet theory says, and ends up backing it up instead.

No comments: