RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.

Countrymen,

Tactically, US operations in Iraq differ typologically from those in Vietnam, in and of themselves and with respect to the force conducting them. The US Army today is nothing like what it was in the 1960s-70s. Nor does it fight as it did then. From doctrine to structure to shooting, our Army in Vietnam and our Army in the Middle East today are incomparable.

Wars are not won in the past. Thinking Iraq is Vietnam is akin to thinking horsed cavalry are a match for panzer divisions or line-of-battle charges for machine guns. It just is not facing facts.

Carping comparison of the Middle East today to Vietnam yesterday is babbling in ignorance.

The decisive strategic difference between these two conflicts is that whereas during operations in Vietnam attack on the source of trouble, the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent Communist China, was not on the table, today, attack on the source of trouble, ayatollah-run Iran and to a lesser but growing extent Communist China, is. And not only in this country but in Europe and elsewhere as well.

And well it should be.

Just as the reason for US engagement in Vietnam was the existence of the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent China — and specifically the activity inhering in that existence — so also the reason for US engagement in the Middle East is the existence of ayatollah-run Iran — specifically, again, the activity inhering in that existence. The error in Vietnam — as in Korea — was not finishing the job when finishing it was at hand. That was a widely-shared political and diplomatic decision, not a military failing or decision.

Thankfully, there is wide unanimity now with respect to finishing the job in the Middle East by removing the cause of trouble. Also the source of the problem now is less puissant than was the source of the problem in the 1960s and 1970s. It can be said, therefore, that the job in the Middle East today is less difficult than was the job in Vietnam three decades ago. A smaller enemy and a larger resolve to destroy him are decisive and novel conditions.

Iraq, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern and South Asian nations are strategic bases for that effort.

Update 1: Here an opportunity opens: Russia abandoning Assad.

Update 2: Some Anti-Colonial Globalists (note the oxymoron) have figured out a new map of the Middle East.

Update 3: A Middle East overview, mostly tactical but some strategic, at StrategyPage, dated 09OCT15

Update 4: Mosul: Turkey’s Fulda Gap

Update 5: The Fraud Thinks His Syria Strategy Is Right — And Folks Just Don’t Get It

Update 6: Thierry Meyssan: Which target after Syria?

Update 7: Laurent Murawiec: Taking Saudi Out Of Arabia

AMDG – VICTORY