[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 18911-18912]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 COMPARISON AND HISTORY TEACH US A LOT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RALPH M. HALL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 11, 2007

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Congressional 
Record a thoughtful comparison of U.S. military strategy in Vietnam and 
present-day military operations in Iraq written by Jerry Hogan, a 
retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who lives in Heath, TX, in the Fourth 
Congressional District. I urge my colleagues to review and reflect upon 
this as Congress faces critical decisions in the upcoming months on 
funding the war on terror.

                 Comparison and History Teach us a Lot

                            (By Jerry Hogan)

       Sometimes it is important that we look at what we have done 
     in the past to make sure we don't make the same mistakes 
     again.
       In 1950, believe it or not, the United States established a 
     military assistance and advisory group in Vietnam to advise 
     the French puppet government on strategy and train Vietnamese 
     soldiers. This started America's longest war that did not end 
     until April of 1975 with the infamous ``Fall of Saigon'' that 
     we saw in our living rooms thanks to the modern miracle of 
     television. For the almost three million of us who served in 
     that war, those pictures on our TV sets burned holes through 
     our heads as we saw first hand what we had done to a country 
     and its people as we abandoned them without finishing the job 
     we helped start.
       Unfortunately there are many similarities between the U.S. 
     involvement in Vietnam and our current involvement in Iraq. 
     While we had advisors in Vietnam starting in 1950, our real 
     combat role that saw the buildup of our forces go from 16,000 
     to 553,000, did not start until after the Gulf of Tonkin 
     incident where, on August 2, 1964, one of our Naval ships was 
     attacked by torpedo boats along North Vietnam's coast. Two 
     days later, another ``attack'' occurred in about the same 
     place against two more of our ships. These ``attacks'' led to 
     retaliatory air strikes on our part and caused Congress to 
     approve the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave the 
     president power to conduct military operations in Southeast 
     Asia without declaring war. Later it was determined that the 
     second ``attack'' was questionable which caused many people 
     to say we entered this conflict under false pretenses. Sound 
     anything like how we got into Iraq according to the opponents 
     of that war?
       The Vietnam War is viewed by many historians as a Cold War 
     conflict between the United States, its allies, and the 
     Republic of Vietnam on one side, and the Soviet Union, its 
     allies, the People's Republic of China, and the Democratic 
     Republic of Vietnam on the other. Many others, particularly 
     the vocal opponents to the U.S. involvement in this war, 
     viewed the conflict as a civil war between communist and non 
     communist Vietnamese factions.
       Today, the War in Iraq is viewed as a battleground between 
     the US, its allies, and the Republic of Iraq versus the 
     Islamist Jihadis and their allies, Syria and Iran, in the 
     International War on Terrorism. Exchange the words 
     ``communist and non communist'' with ``Sunni and Shiite'' and 
     you hear the same arguments today about this war being just a 
     civil war between two opposing religious factions in Iraq. 
     Isn't it amazing how

[[Page 18912]]

     history seems to repeat itself with us Americans?
       While actual U.S. combat operations did not start in 
     Vietnam until 1964, U.S. forces assumed full responsibility 
     for training the South Vietnamese Army in 1956 and President 
     Kennedy increased our troop strength from 500 to over 16,000 
     when he took office. In his inaugural address, he made that 
     famous pledge we know so well: ``the U.S. will pay any price, 
     bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, 
     oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success 
     of liberty.'' Remember what President Bush continues to say 
     about our support for Afghanistan and Iraq as they held their 
     elections and voted for a democratic form of government and 
     how we would stand with them in their desire for a free and 
     elected democracy? Sounds like two of our presidents so 
     heavily involved with two separate unpopular wars had the 
     same views!
       During the Vietnam War, the U.S. had a Draft for supplying 
     personnel needed in the military. President Johnson refused 
     to mobilize the Reserve units during the war as he feared a 
     political backlash. This led to larger draft call ups and the 
     extension of some tours of duty. It also put a heavy strain 
     on U.S. forces committed to other parts of the world. While 
     the military today is an all-volunteer force, the same 
     problems face the services today; tour extensions in Iraq for 
     the Soldiers and Marines, equipment shortages, limited 
     capabilities in other areas of the world, repeated tours of 
     duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continued pressure on 
     families of the service men and women. Again, you might think 
     we learned from previous mistakes.
       In January of 1968, the forces of North Vietnam launched 
     the surprise ``Tet Offensive'' in hopes of sparking a 
     national uprising. While the military objectives were not 
     achieved, the U.S. public was shocked and confused over the 
     war as General Westmoreland, the commander in Vietnam, had 
     just predicted ''the end comes into view.'' The American 
     media, which had been largely supportive of the 
     administration, turned on President Johnson for what had 
     become an increasing credibility gap. His approval ratings 
     dropped from 48% to 36%; he declined to run for re-election; 
     and the public's support for the war started a rapid decline. 
     Any of this sound like something you may have heard recently?
       In December, 1974, the Congress passed the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to 
     the South Vietnamese government. The act went on to restrict 
     the number of U.S. military personnel allowed in Vietnam to 
     ``no more than 4000 within six months of enactment and 3000 
     within one year.'' By April of 1975 only four months after 
     the cutoff of funds and the removal of essentially all U.S. 
     forces, the Republic of Vietnam fell to the victors from the 
     North.
       During the Vietnam War, over 250,000 South Vietnamese 
     military were killed and about 1.2 million were wounded. It 
     is estimated that somewhere between two and five million 
     Vietnamese civilians were killed. 58,000 Americans lost their 
     life while 153,000 were wounded. In Iraq today, about 3,500 
     Americans have been killed and about 18,000 have been 
     wounded. Close to 350 U.S. personnel have been killed in 
     Afghanistan. Statistics on Iraqi and Afghanistan's military 
     and civilian casualties are not available but estimates show 
     they are high as well.
       So what does this all mean today? Clearly there are two 
     opposing views as to what should happen in Iraq. The 
     President has been consistent in his view that we are 
     fighting an International War on Terrorism and that freedom 
     and democracy need help in the Middle East. Iraq is a 
     fledgling democracy trying to establish itself after decades 
     of dictatorship and after being made a main battleground by 
     the worldwide Jihadist forces. Strong religious and political 
     forces, both within and outside Iraq, are making the process 
     of democracy very difficult. A military solution will not 
     solve the problems in Iraq; it must be a political solution 
     with a military component. Political will, as much as 
     military might, is a decisive factor in this outcome.
       The second view being expressed daily by some of our 
     elected officials in Washington calls for a timetable for 
     withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. In my considered 
     military view, this outlandish stupid course of action takes 
     us right back to the days of Vietnam and is nothing more than 
     a political proposal that leads us once again to watching the 
     ``Fall of Saigon'' in our living rooms, but this time it will 
     be the ``Fall of Baghdad.'' I really don't want to go through 
     that again . . . and I hope you don't either. Let your 
     elected officials know how you feel.

                          ____________________