Obama’s Iraq Speech: Never Used the Word VICTORY! by Former Author | Feb 27, 2009 | Uncategorized | 37 comments Posted by Former Author on 27 February, 2009 at 3:36 pm. 37 comments already! [DELETED BY AUTHOR] 37 Comments rachel on February 27, 2009 at 5:30 pm The only Victory he is interested in is in his War on Capitalism. And so far, with his army in charge, he is winning. And we are all losing. Waiting for God’s intervention on this one, because the weak-kneed Republicans in office don’t seem to be up to the task of standing up to THE ONE. Reply USMCdaughter1 on February 27, 2009 at 5:58 pm It doesn’t surprise me. That’s why several pro troop organizations have gotten together and said, enough is enough. These men and women deserve better. On Saturday, June 13th in Washington DC there will be a parade and rally to celebrate our Victory in Iraq. If you all would like more details, let me know. Reply Frank Warner on February 27, 2009 at 6:09 pm He also never said the word democracy. Reply Aye on February 27, 2009 at 6:14 pm He never said “liberty”. He never said “enemy”. He said “freedom” ONCE. That one time was in relation to our freedom here in the US. Hey, remember this? This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed… when the roar of the crowd fades away… when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot… what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger… take more of your money… give you more orders from Washington… and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy… our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight… he wants to forfeit. Reply blast on February 27, 2009 at 6:20 pm mikeA: The closest Obama got to recognizing the extraordinary accomplishment of our military was when he said: “We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible”. No thanks to President Bush for his leadership. Obama only mentions Bush when he needs a scapegoat for his own failures. Our military was victorious over the Iraqi Armed Forces… Victory was declared by President Bush… years ago, what happened since was a collapse of post war security. So why would he declare victory again at this point? Once our combat forces have been removed and the country is stable, that would be a measure of victory of the post war era. Honestly, I don’t know if once our forces leave if Iraq will be stable. On praising President Bush… why would he praise the former president? Obama did not believe in the war, and history has shown us Iraq did not pose the threat that Bush had believed at the time of the war. So should Pres Obama say, “thanks President Bush for initiating a war I did not believe was necessary and that history has shown was not necessary?” I for one liked his speech. We did do the job, our hard work provided Iraqi’s an opportunity for a free government, which was not our responsibility, but we did it. We have been the most generous nation on earth for that one. Reply Frank Warner on February 27, 2009 at 6:45 pm Saddam did pose a threat the Iraqi people. He had tortured, oppressed, killed and starved them by the hundreds of thousands. U.N. Resolution 688 required, as part of the 1991 cease-fire terms, that he end his repression of the Iraqi people. He never ended his repression. Obama’s failure to confront fascism is no excuse for his stubborn refusal now to acknowledge our troops have achieved a great victory, replacing a totalitarian police state with a free democracy. Reply Mike's America on February 27, 2009 at 6:46 pm @blast: “I for one liked his speech.” Again, no surprise. Reply USMCdaughter1 on February 27, 2009 at 7:15 pm Blast, I have to ask and I’m sure you’ll forgive my ignorance here. Just because victory was declared once, why should it not be declared again? Why shouldn’t these men and women who as you put it yourself, did the job, did the hard work….why shouldn’t they come home to a heroes welcome by a proud and grateful nation that is more than happy to acknowledge their accomplishments and sacrifices? Why is it about left wing politics? And why can’t the left just simply honor the very people who give them the right to live in freedom? The time has come where the immaturity of the mantra “Bush Bush Bush” is over. Mr. Bush is not the President any more. So what excuse can really hold water now? Since we can’t separate the politics, let me ask you…why can’t the man who lives in the House of the People say the words (thanks Aye for reminding us) LIBERTY – FREEDOM – VICTORY? Will he choke on them? I think so. I think his image of what is American and ours are diametrically opposed and will be until the last patriot breathes his or her last breath. Reply Frank Warner on February 27, 2009 at 7:46 pm Victory was not declared in May 1, 2003. What was declared was the end of “major combat operations.” That declaration was premature, unless “major combat operations” referred only to the mission of ousting Saddam Hussein. Bush also said on that day that the war was not over: “We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We’re helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. “The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. “The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.” Reply MataHarley on February 27, 2009 at 8:03 pm blast#5: what Obama *should* have said was that, against overwhelming odds and opposition by both enemies of and in Iraq, and here in the halls of Congress (including my own bad self…), the US military has succeeded in advancing Iraqis to the point that they are ready to start assuming control over their own destiny. Victory comes to those who did not give up in the face of adversity. Ain’t likely, tho…. This new POTUS would have pulled them out and left Iraq to fall because he, like Reid, believed it couldn’t be done. The war was lost. But, of course, as the SOFA implicitly states, the US may have to re’escalate if necessary. As stated in Article 27 (1): 1. In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat. Obama won’t be likely to be friendly to this. But the SOFA binds him. To get out of the SOFA and the obligation for aid, he’d have to give them a year’s notice. Reply oh h3LL no on February 27, 2009 at 10:21 pm I was watching the news coverage of this. When BHO was introduced NOT ONE soldier cheared or clapped. There were a few pols that we clapping. When BHO was delivering his speach, he stopped a few times to get a response. There were none. When he announced the date of the withdrawl, there was a soldier right behind him who’s eyebrows just FLEW of his forehead! I laughed so hard. I felt that the troops were not jiving him. They looked very stoic. But then I thought naaah they are probably under orders to keep quiet. Well, that was thrown out the window when BHO announced that he was raising military payroll. They sure cheared for that! FF to after 3:10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4tnk4OS5f4 Reply GaffaUK on February 28, 2009 at 1:00 am Obama was against the war and if he did mention victory no doubt many of you here would criticize him for that. I’ve been reading the book Cobra II recently. Makes interesting reading. Rumsfeld continually wanted to, and was instrumental in, reducing the invasion force and the amount of troops needed after the invasion to ensure stability. Bush wasn’t interested in peace-keeping or nation building – he had disdain for Balkans style nation building that Clinton got involved in. Millions spent on technology but little intelligence on the ground. Underestimating the Fedayeen and guerilla tactics. Seems Rice and Powell were often sidelined. Windows of opportunity missed when there was too much focus of getting Baath members removed, dissolving the army which led thousands without pay – swelling the ranks of the insurgents, presumption of uprisings and local Iraqi support that rarely happened, little planning for post war, presumption that other countries would deal mainly with post-war Iraq etc etc. The thing that did work was the surge – which should of happened long time ago. By trying to go to war initially on the cheap – with outlandish presumptions that was factored in – this ended up costing far more in the long run in money and lives. Ironically if WMDs were such a threat and was a primary reason for going in – then the US force didn’t have enough soldiers to check out all the alleged sites nor secure the borders. Thankfully Rumsfeld got the push. Shame Franks didn’t stand up to him. All respect to McKiernan and all those under him. Few, if any, above McKiernan come out particularly well in the book. Seems like British in World War I – Lions led by Donkeys. Fortunately Saddam underestimated the US and made a whole host of miscalculations. He didn’t think they would attack and if they did he thought he could win. Reply Mike's America on February 28, 2009 at 7:22 am @GaffaUK: Cobra II written by Michael R. Gordon, The New York Times’s chief military correspondent, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general and former military correspondent for The Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/books/28nayl.html Hmmm… both authors work for the New York Times. And the NYTimes has been supportive of our invasion in Iraq or leading the defeatist retreat? I can’t recall which. Please refresh my memory Gaffa. You might want to consider the source before you present such crap as authoritative. Reply GaffaUK on February 28, 2009 at 7:33 am lol – so because you don’t agree with the editorial taken by the paper you therefore dismiss all views and facts as related by journalists who work for that paper? And if journalist worked for a media outlet that you approved of and supported wholeheartedly the Iraq War – then would that make their reporting that much more valid? Come on Mike – you know better than that. So which media outlet is ‘authorative’ – Fox News, Rush Limbaugh? So do what bits do you believe are untrue Mike from Cobra II? Reply Mike's America on February 28, 2009 at 7:44 am @GaffaUK: I’m sure there are many parts of the book which are interesting and informative. NY Times people aren’t bad writers, they are just BIASED writers. from the NYTimes review: Here the authors explain how the administration of President George W. Bush drove the nation to war in Iraq, and how decisions made before the invasion and immediately following Mr. Hussein’s ouster precipitated the vicious insurgency now wracking that country. It makes for unsettling reading. In richly detailed, almost dispassionate prose, the authors present a damning indictment of the Bush administration’s national security team. Like any of us haven’t heard just that sort of crap before? Note to Gaffa: It doesn’t make it true just because it’s in a book. P.S. I’m not going to redebate the Iraq war for the 1000th time here. So don’t even start. Reply Missy on February 28, 2009 at 8:36 am Dancing down memory lane doing the Obamabiden two-step: Reply OLDPUPPYMAX on February 28, 2009 at 8:43 am “We” did this and “we” did that? What do you mean “we” Kimo Sabe? You were a typical leftist nay-sayer, pronouncing the war lost and Iraq in hopeless disarray. You opposed the surge and the war itself. And now, of course, you claim credit for the success. Typical, Hussein. Typical. Reply Aye on February 28, 2009 at 8:51 am @OLDPUPPYMAX: I picked up on that use of the word “WE” too. Creative wordsmithing to say the least. Reply Mike's America on February 28, 2009 at 9:01 am @Missy: Excellent video Missy! It’s amazing how quickly the Sheeple who voted for Obama and Biden forget what how they said the surge wouldn’t work as Obama now admits it did. @OLDPUPPYMAX: I predicted long ago that the masters of delusion would try and claim credit for BUSH’S VICTORY. Reply John ryan on February 28, 2009 at 11:09 am Victory ?? even Gen Petraeus said he would NEVER declare victory there. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm Reply Frank Warner on February 28, 2009 at 11:25 am Since everyone from John McCain to Barack Obama agrees our American GIs have succeeded in Iraq, and will have everything fairly well secured by the end of August next year, it’s time for a Washington, D.C., Iraq Victory Parade, Aug. 28, 2010. Invite all Iraq war veterans. Salute the liberators! Reply SpideyTerry on February 28, 2009 at 11:37 am I guess this means Obama is really French. Remember a line from Homer in The Simpsons: “Victory? We’re French! We don’t even have a word for it!” Seriously, once again Obama proves how full of it he is. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an unlikable politician in my lifetime, and I believe there have been some doozies in my short time on this planet.. Reply GaffaUK on February 28, 2009 at 1:29 pm @Mike Of course it doesn’t make it true if it’s in a book – but again you are playing the man and not the ball. What I find interesting is people often debate the reasons for going to war but not how the war itself and how it’s aftermath was conducted. Again which writers and commentators on the war aren’t biased? As you would say – grow a brain…. And what is crap Mike? * Do you believe that Rumsfeld didn’t influence the troop number sand that enough troops were sent to secure the WMD sites and too enough troops were placed to stablise the country? *Do you believe Bush was originally interested in stablising the country, that he realistically believed that the troops would be needed for many years and that he had a solid plan for rebuilding it? * Do you believe there was enough decent intelligence on the ground? * Do you believe that the invasion planners accurately planned for guerilla tactics by the Fadayeen and that they didn’t mainly concentrate on expecting standard combat with the Republican Guard? * Do you believe that Rice and Powell were never sidelined? * Do believe that removing all Baath members and dissolving the army was a smart move and didn’t help to swell the ranks of the insurgents? * Do you believe there was no presumtion of uprisings of local Iraqi people or having other countries take over stablising the country after the war factored into war? * Do you believe the surge happened at the right time and that it wouldn’t of made a difference if the troops had the right numbers to begin with? Of course – Generals may never get enough troops as they want – but the doctrine of Rumsfeld in keeping troop levels so low is staggering. And hindsight is a powerful thing and all wars there are mistakes but the fundamental mistakes are again staggering which I reckon unnecessarily dragged out the insurgency and cost US, UK and Iraqi lives. I’m sure the approaching 1 trillion cost of the war could of been better spent. Try reading it Mike – and if you have any recommendations of an authorative and unbiased account of the war then please recommend… Reply blast on February 28, 2009 at 2:01 pm USMCdaughter1: I have to ask and I’m sure you’ll forgive my ignorance here. Just because victory was declared once, why should it not be declared again? Why shouldn’t these men and women who as you put it yourself, did the job, did the hard work….why shouldn’t they come home to a heroes welcome by a proud and grateful nation that is more than happy to acknowledge their accomplishments and sacrifices? I totally am for honoring and welcoming our service members home, and for acknowledging all of the accomplishments and sacrifices. If you read my comment I said we were Victorious in defeating Saddam’s Armies. The post war problems have been quelled for now and once our troops leave… lets have a big parade in all of the cities around the country, create a national holiday for a celebration, and remembrance. USMCdaughter1: LIBERTY – FREEDOM – VICTORY? Will he choke on them? I think his image of what is American and ours are diametrically opposed and will be until the last patriot breathes his or her last breath. ummm… Our founding fathers had diametrically opposed senses on many issues. I don’t accept your notion of a patriot as it seems too simplistic. The President honored the Marines by coming to speak to them personally, by his actions as well as his words. Words alone are empty. We saw how words took care of our fallen warriors at Walter Reed, and provided vests, and mine resistant vehicles instead of thin skinned humvees. Honestly when you toss around words like Liberty, Freedom and Victory it lessens them. Liberty and freedom is not guaranteed in Iraq and Victory… well, we proved we could kick their ass. Was it worth it though? Could we afford it? Was it necessary? There are more than yes and no answers for each of those questions, and different positions from many forms of patriots. You don’t know me or my service, yet you sit in judgment with little facts to make the judgment. Things are not black and white for every topic. The Iraq war even among veterans has different views on whether or not it was “needed.” Was it patriotic to go to war unprepared, especially when we controlled the actual time for invasion? Reply Mike's America on February 28, 2009 at 3:40 pm @GaffaUK: As I said, I’m not interested in redebating the Iraq war for the UMPTEENTH time. As for reading assignments, I’d be happy to give you a list. Reply Paul Couturier - OIF Veteran on February 28, 2009 at 5:34 pm Mike said “One wonders how the lefties who insisted Obama would get us out of Iraq in 16 months after taking office are feeling today?” Probably feeling betrayed 😀 What the hell were they expecting; did they REALLY think their messiah was going to keep his promises????? These anti-military extremists will fall for ANY fairy tale that comes down the pike! Reply GaffaUK on March 2, 2009 at 6:33 pm Well at least Nixon kept his promise and pulled out of Vietnam Reply Mike's America on March 2, 2009 at 6:45 pm @GaffaUK: And we would have won in Vietnam too if the Dems hadn’t forced a total withdrawal after Nixon resigned. Reply GaffaUK on March 2, 2009 at 7:10 pm Don’t you have to be there to win? Withdrawing most of the troops and hoping the South Vietnamese will somehow win after all those years was a bit of pipe dream. And changing Congress in 1974 shows the weakness of the US system when you have a President of one party and a Congress dominated by other. Reply Mike's America on March 2, 2009 at 7:50 pm @GaffaUK: More historical revisionism… How convenient. Reply USMCdaughter1 on March 2, 2009 at 8:23 pm @GaffeUK …. think you need to read some of your history. Or at least the facts of history. We did not lose in Vietnam just like we did not lose in Iraq. http://www.vhcma.org/fact.html Reply Frank Warner on March 2, 2009 at 8:32 pm What we won in Vietnam is the Hanoi Communist dictators’ 1973 promise, in writing, that they would allow free elections and other democratic freedoms in South Vietnam. Unfortunately, the Communists have not yet allowed those elections. What we won in Iraq was a fairly respectable democracy. Of course, each democracy has to test itself. Eventually, if Iraq can handle a series of elections that peacefully change power at the top three times, it will have arrived in the community of liberal democracies. The same is true in Vietnam. A few democratically decided power changes would be healthy. Reply GaffaUK on March 3, 2009 at 1:03 am @UMSCdaughter1 lol – yep it was a great victory for the US just like Dunkirk wasn’t a defeat for Britain. You sure kicked the communists butts and freed that country from communism. Every nation has it’s victories and defeats but trying to do a poor make over job to smooth over wounded nation pride doesn’t cut it. Certainly Iraq was a victory as the US and its allies defeated Saddam and his regime. And as a Liberal, despite my misgivings over the validity over the war and its reasons – it was a clear win. And I’m glad Saddam was defeated. Reply GaffaUK on March 3, 2009 at 1:09 am @Frank You don’t lose over 58,000 men just for a communist promise and call that a win. When do communists and dictators ever keep their promises? That’s about as valuable as the piece of paper Chamberlain brought back Munich after gaining a promise from Hitler. Reply USMCdaughter1 on March 4, 2009 at 6:27 pm @ Frank #21 – The event is already happening on June 13, 2009 in Washington DC @Blast #24 – And I could say the same of you. Until you know don’t assume. @ Gaffe #29 & 33 – Think you need to learn AMERICAN history: We do not live in Viet Nam, Viet Nam lives in us. Vietnam Facts vs. Fiction. The most notable fact is that 2.7 million Americans actually served in the Vietnam Theater of war. In the last census nearly 14 million Americans claimed they served in Vietnam. Four out of five are lying. I wonder why. Vietnam Facts vs. Fiction For over 30 years I….like many Vietnam veterans….seldom spoke of Vietnam, except with other veterans, when training soldiers, and in public speeches. These past five years I have joined the hundreds of thousands who believe it is high time the truth be told about the Vietnam War and the people who served there. It’s time the American people learn that the United States military did not lose the War, and that a surprisingly high number of people who claim to have served there, in fact, DID NOT. As Americans support the men and women involved in the War on Terrorism, the mainstream media are once again working tirelessly to undermine their efforts and force a psychological loss or stalemate for the United States. We cannot stand by and let the media do to today’s warriors what they did to us 35 years ago. Below are some assembled facts most readers will find interesting. It isn’t a long read, but it will….I guarantee….teach you some things you did not know about the Vietnam War and those who served, fought, or died there. Please share it with those with whom you communicate. –Capt. Marshal Hanson, U.S.N.R (Ret..) –Capt. Scott Beaton Statistical Source Vietnam War Facts: Facts, Statistics, Fake Warrior Numbers, and Myths Dispelled 9,087,000 (Million) military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975. 2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam Veterans represented 9.7% of their generation. 240 men were awarded the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War 1. The first man to die in Vietnam was James Davis, in 1958. He was with the 509th Radio Research Station. Davis Station in Saigon was named for him. 2. 58,148 were killed in Vietnam 3. 75,000 were severely disabled. 4. 23,214 were 100% disabled. 5. 5,283 lost limbs. 6. 1,081 sustained multiple amputations. 7. Of those killed, 61% were younger than 21. 8. 11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old. 9. Of those killed, 17,539 were married. 10. Average age of men killed: 23.1 years. 11. Five men killed in Vietnam were only 16 years old. 12. The oldest man killed was 62 years old. 13. As of January 15, 2004, there are 1,875 Americans still unaccounted for from the Vietnam War. 14. 97% of Vietnam Veterans were honorably discharged. 15. 91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served. 16. 74% say they would serve again, even knowing the outcome. 17. Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than the same non-vet age groups. 18. Vietnam veterans’ personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent. 19. 87% of Americans hold Vietnam Veterans in high esteem. 20. There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non-Vietnam Veterans of the same age group (Source: Veterans Administration Study) 21. Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison – only one-half of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes. 22. 85% of Vietnam Veterans made successful transitions to civilian life. 23. Interesting Census Stats and “Been There” Wanabees. 1,713,823 of those who served in Vietnam were still alive as of August, 1995 (census figures). During that same Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country was 9,492,958. 24. As of the current Census taken during August, 2000, the surviving U.S. Vietnam Veteran population estimate is 1,002,511. This is hard to believe, losing nearly 711,000 between ’95 and ’00. That’s 390 per day. 24. During this Census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE Vietnam vets are not. 25. The Department of Defense Vietnam War Service Index officially provided by The War Library originally reported with errors that 2,709,918 U.S. Military personnel as having served in-country. Corrections and confirmations to this error in the index resulted in the addition of 358 U.S. military personnel confirmed to have served in Vietnam but not originally listed by the Department of Defense. (All names are currently on file and accessible 24/7/365). Common Myths Dispelled: #1. Myth: Common Belief is that most Vietnam veterans were drafted. Fact: 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. Approximately 70% of those killed in Vietnam were volunteers. #2. Myth: The media have reported that suicides among Vietnam veterans range from 50,000 to 100,000 – 6 to 11 times the non-Vietnam veteran population. Fact: Mortality studies show that 9,000 is a better estimate. “The CDC Vietnam Experience Study Mortality Assessment showed that during the first 5 years after discharge, deaths from suicide were 1.7 times more likely among Vietnam veterans than non-Vietnam veterans. After that initial post-service period, Vietnam veterans were no more likely to die from suicide than non-Vietnam veterans. In fact, after the 5-year post-service period, the rate of suicides is less in the Vietnam veterans’ group. #3.Myth: Common belief is that a disproportionate number of blacks were killed in the Vietnam War. Fact: 86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. Sociologists Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, in their recently published book “All That We Can Be,” said they analyzed the claim that blacks were used like cannon fodder during Vietnam “and can report definitely that this charge is untrue. Black fatalities amounted to 12 percent of all Americans killed in Southeast Asia, a figure proportional to the number of blacks in the U.S. population at the time and slightly lower than the proportion of blacks in the Army at the close of the war.” #4 Myth: Common belief is that the war was fought largely by the poor and uneducated. Fact: Servicemen who went to Vietnam from well-to-do areas had a slightly elevated risk of dying because they were more likely to be pilots or infantry officers. Vietnam Veterans were the best educated forces our nation had ever sent into combat. 79% had a high school education or better. Here are statistics from the Combat Area Casualty File (CACF) as of November 1993. The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (The Wall): Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action) Deaths Average Age Total: 58,148, 23.11 years Enlisted: 50,274, 22.37 years Officers: 6,598, 28.43 years Warrants: 1,276, 24.73 years E1 525, 20.34 years 11B MOS: 18,465, 22.55 years. #5 Myth: The common belief is the average age of an infantryman fighting in Vietnam was 19. Fact: Assuming KIAs accurately represented age groups serving in Vietnam, the average age of an infantryman (MOS 11B) serving in Vietnam to be 19 years old is a myth, it is actually 22. None of the enlisted grades have an average age of less than 20. The average man who fought in World War II was 26 years of age. #6 Myth: The Common belief is that the domino theory was proved false. Fact: The domino theory was accurate. The ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America’s commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism. #7 Myth: The common belief is that the fighting in Vietnam was not as intense as in World War II. Fact: The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter. One out of every 10 Americans who served in Vietnam was a casualty. 58,148 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.7 million who served. Although the percent that died is similar to other wars, amputations or crippling wounds were 300 percent higher than in World War II….75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled. MEDEVAC helicopters flew nearly 500,000 missions. Over 900,000 patients were airlifted (nearly half were American). The average time lapse between wounding to hospitalization was less than one hour. As a result, less than one percent of all Americans wounded, who survived the first 24 hours, died. The helicopter provided unprecedented mobility. Without the helicopter it would have taken three times as many troops to secure the 800 mile border with Cambodia and Laos (the politicians thought the Geneva Conventions of 1954 and the Geneva Accords or 1962 would secure the border). #8 Myth: Kim Phuc, the little nine year old Vietnamese girl running naked from the napalm strike near Trang Bang on 8 June 1972……shown a million times on American television….was burned by Americans bombing Trang Bang. Fact: No American had involvement in this incident near Trang Bang that burned Phan Thi Kim Phuc. The planes doing the bombing near the village were VNAF (Vietnam Air Force) and were being flown by Vietnamese pilots in support of South Vietnamese troops on the ground. The Vietnamese pilot who dropped the napalm in error is currently living in the United States. Even the AP photographer, Nick Ut, who took the picture, was Vietnamese. The incident in the photo took place on the second day of a three day battle between the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) who occupied the village of Trang Bang and the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam ) who were trying to force the NVA out of the village. Recent reports in the news media that an American commander ordered the air strike that burned Kim Phuc are incorrect. There were no Americans involved in any capacity. “We (Americans) had nothing to do with controlling VNAF,” according to Lieutenant General (Ret) James F. Hollingsworth, the Commanding General of TRAC at that time. Also, it has been incorrectly reported that two of Kim Phuc’s brothers were killed in this incident. They were Kim’s cousins not her brothers. #9 Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam. Fact: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. General Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a major military defeat for the VC and NVA. FACT: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID. Read on…….. The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. FACT: How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. * It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides’ forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. *The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. *There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia ) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. *Thanks for the perceived loss and the countless assassinations and torture visited upon Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians goes mainly to the American media and their undying support-by-misrepresentation of the anti-War movement in the United States. *As with much of the Vietnam War, the news media misreported and misinterpreted the 1968 Tet Offensive. It was reported as an overwhelming success for the Communist forces and a decided defeat for the U.S. forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite initial victories by the Communists forces, the Tet Offensive resulted in a major defeat of those forces. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the designer of the Tet Offensive, is considered by some as ranking with Wellington, Grant, Lee and MacArthur as a great commander. Still, militarily, the Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts. It resulted in the death of some 45,000 NVA troops and the complete, if not total destruction of the Viet Cong elements in South Vietnam. The Organization of the Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered. The Tet Offensive succeeded on only one front and that was the News front and the political arena. This was another example in the Vietnam War of an inaccuracy becoming the perceived truth. However, inaccurately reported, the News Media made the Tet Offensive famous. Please give all credit and research to: Capt. Marshal Hanson, U.S.N..R (Ret.) Capt. Scott Beaton, Statistical Source Reply Frank Warner on March 4, 2009 at 7:39 pm What’s happening June 13? Reply GaffaUK on March 5, 2009 at 1:36 am @UMSCdaughter I’m sure most of those facts are true – but I certainly dispute Myth#9 #9 Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam. Fact: The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. General Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a major military defeat for the VC and NVA. FACT: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID. Read on…….. The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. FACT: How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. How do you lose a war? By signing a flimsy agreement and running away. The war was fought to stop the Communists from taking over Vietnam. The US failed in it’s objectives military and diplomatic terms. It didn’t defeat the Viet Cong. The South Vietnamese felt betrayed by the US. And when the so called peace treaty – which was very vague – inevitably fell apart – the US didn’t return. So the war was lost by the French, the US, and the South Vietnamese. I no doubt that the US soldiers who fought were brave and that the US won battles, and the finger can be pointed in many directions (the leadership, anti-war protestors etc) but overall at the end of the day – the US lost. Why delude yourself of that fact? If South Vietnamese were capable of fighting the communists then why did the US intervene in the first place? However the US did win the Cold War. Reply Trackbacks/Pingbacks Democrat = Socialist - What Obama Didn’t Say To Camp Lejeune Marines Today... Speaking to U.S. Marines, many of whom fought in Iraq, he…Click to Edit – SaveCancelDelete Submit a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment * Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.