Kevin Drum is silly as well.
He mirrors Sami Ramadani’s argument in the Guardian that the results of the election Sunday are meaningless, because they reflect a similar election in Vietnam in 1967.On September 4 1967 the New York Times published an upbeat story on presidential elections held by the South Vietnamese puppet regime at the height of the Vietnam war. Under the heading “US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror”, the paper reported that the Americans had been “surprised and heartened” by the size of the turnout “despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting”. A successful election, it went on, “has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam”. The echoes of this weekend’s propaganda about Iraq’s elections are so close as to be uncanny.
Hitchens does a pretty good job of demolishing the Iraq-is-Vietnam notion:
To begin with, Vietnam had been undergoing a protracted struggle for independence since before World War II and had sustained this struggle militarily and politically against the French empire, the Japanese empire, and then after 1945 the French empire again. By 1954, at the epic battle of Dien Bien Phu, the forces of Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Giap had effectively decided matters on the battlefield, and President Eisenhower himself had conceded that Ho would have won any possible all-Vietnamese election. The distortions of the Cold War led the United States to take over where French colonialism had left off, to assist in partitioning the country, and to undertake a war that had already been lost.
He goes on, and you should read it.
But the place where Iraq is most like Vietnam is in the fevered memories of the leftists my age and older, who recall their triumpunt day as the one when LBJ announced that “I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”
Let’s make it simple.
Vietnam was, in orgin, a true anticolonial war. The Vietnamese had been colonized for centuries, and wanted to be free. They approached us to help them gain their independance from the French, and offered alliance. We turned them down, and they turned to the Russians.
Morally, there in no comparison.
Militarily, there is no comparison.
Politically, the comparison is maintained by my generation, and by the journalists and hangers-on who hope to relive the heady days of the March on Washington.
The fact that the end product was the Weather Underground appears to have escaped their recollection.
Kevin knows better, and has the self-awareness to waffle at the end of the post. I can only wonder what he was thinking when he wrote this; I hope he stops by and explains.
Actually I thought Kevin said that he was offering the articles as nothing but a counterpoint, possibly meaning nothing.
I do think this election is meaningful on several levels. One: it was thrilling to see all those people going out to vote in the face of the teror campaign.
Two it is a relief to me that they chose the United Arab group and renouced the Alawi group because it means they are not going to allow Bush to dictate their foreign policy or keep bases in their country. Al-Sistani is the real hero of the story. Bush has failed to create a client state in Iraq. I am very happy for them.
What part of “I know, I know, this doesn’t mean Iraq is Vietnam.” do you need explained to you?
Apparantly the actual blogs of WOC.NET have become as inane and idiotic as the comments section.
Sad indeed unarmed liberal.
The Iraqi’s had been subjecated by a ruthless ruler for decades, and wanted to be free. We approached them to help them gain their free from Saddam, and offered alliance. They started their uprissing (1974, 1991)and seemed to win but at that moment we reneged and seemed to like Baathist more, and they turned to others for help. After that(2003) we started the colonial war to conquer Iraq which started out well but strangely without the help from the Iraqi’s, even when they could help like in Basra . We even made reports about their uprising but they stayed quiet and the welcoming flowers were surprisingly missed. The Iraqi’s fought even back, though it was firery it was without hart because they could not stand their leader so Iraq was conquered in weeks. But then came the occupation which would lead to the land of milk and honey and US bases al around. We planned to stay for years and wing all the unimportant stuff (like the watersupply for the major cities) but then the summer came and the Iraqi’s seemed to want to decide for themself, they even wanted elections, the ungratefull. Didn’t they know we know best.
Then their leader said that they should hold demostrations and they were big and we knew it would be very hard to defeat them, besides it looks bad when you start masacraing the people you claim to be liberating. But we got them to wait. And by using all our smarts we got them to wait some more and more. One and a half year in total and it is doubtfull we could have made it a day longer. But in that time we became to be known as murdering, boy raping thiefs and we are wondering if we made the troubles so big that they can’t life without us.
We will know in a very short time
more to the point: didn’t our side win the Vietnamese election cause i doubt that will happen in this one.
Lily —
Saddam’s regime was an open sore, inherently unstable (as was the man himself) and extremely hostile to us.
ANY regime that focuses on Iraq’s own interests instead of Saddam’s adventures is an improvement.
Afghanistan, poor and remote from the United States, is an object lesson of the risks of poor, failed states with hostile intent to the US, and no patron power to restrain them from idiotic adventures against us.
I wouldn’t be so trite and condescending if I were you. There are clear differences, obviously, between Vietnam and Iraq.
But there are some very disturbing similarities, too. Modern Iraqi nationalism was founded on the 1920 rebellion against Britain: it was the first thing that united Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd. It was put down at Churchill’s order, by the RAF using poison gas and machine guns. Even then, nationalist Arabs nursed a memory of the rebellion, and the Brits would have to intervene periodically, most notably in 1941 against a pro-German coup. That last would also have failed if Rommel had made it past El Alamein. But he didn’t.
The Baath party wasn’t quite the same thing as the Vietnamese Communist Party, but there are a lot of echoes. The Baath were secular, socialist revolutionaries (co-founded by Arab Christians who hoped to provide a counterpoint to Islamic identity — for obvious reasons). They were conspiratorial. They looked to the USSR because the USSR wasn’t colonizing their lands, and the UK (and later, sort of, the USA) was. They played up notions of Arab nationalism and anti-colonialism.
And back to Vietnam: let’s not pretend that the USA just stepped in during 1955 and helped the plucky South Vietnamese form an anti-Ho government. By 1952 the US was paying for 80% of France’s war effort in Vietnam! Look at pictures of Dien Bien Phu, or the like: the French are driving Jeeps, wearing GI kit, and toting M-1s. That is no accident. The “French” air units in Indochina were almost all American-crewed by 1952. Dien Bien Phu was an operation encouraged by Washington.
stickler –
Wow. I never knew that I supported the anticolonial effort by the US in Vietnam; I must have missed that part. I’m fully aware of the history of the U.S. and French there; my ex-father in law was a colonel in the French forces there during the retreat, and we had a number of interesting discussions about it.
But the comparison you draw is ludicrous.
The Vietnamese a) were highly motivated by a nationalist desire to first and foremost get the colonial powers out; b) were supported by the only other superpower in the area; c) had an insurgency which first legally controlled half the country and second had widespread and deep support within the other half.
a) isn’t true in Iraq, all polls say they want first and foremost to get a functioning civil society back;
b) isn’t true in Iraq; and
c) isn’t true in Iraq either.
It’s a silly comparison unless you’re talking about domestic US politics.
A.L.
Well, Mr. Armed Liberal, I’m not sure what to say.
Wow. I never knew that I supported the anticolonial effort by the US in Vietnam; I must have missed that part.
Yeah, you must have. Pick up any textbook on Vietnam. I’d recommend Gabriel Kolko (leftist), Guenter Lewy (defender of American honor), or best of all somebody recent like Gerard DeGroot (who I use in class).
It’s not some kind of open secret that the Frogs got us to support their little post-1946 mission, is it? They whispered in Truman’s ear that Ho was a Communist. It worked. So well that Eisenhower upped our support.
You know, the Brits did the same thing after Mossadegh nationalized Shell Oil’s fields in the south of Persia. We were so convinced (by the threat of COMMUNISM!!!) we helped oust him and replace him with the Shah. See _All the Shah’s Men_. (By the way the CIA station chief in Teheran 1953 was Quentin Roosevelt, Teddy’s son. No shit!)
a) isn’t true in Iraq, all polls say they want first and foremost to get a functioning civil society back;
Who’s “they?” Former Baathists? Officers in the former Army? Sunni jihadists? Shiites who want to run the country? Or, maybe, Christians excluded from the vote because the Kurds want Nineveh without complications?
Perhaps you might clarify your comment.
Yeah, I played the Iraq/Vietnam anaolgy game with a friend the other day.
Friend: So you see that Iraq is like Vietnam. Even more now after the election.
Me: So the elections in Iraq, are like the elections in South Vietnam?
F: Yeah
M: So Iraq is like South Vietnam, the US/Coalition military is like the US military in Vietnam and the Iraqi insurgency is like the North Vietnamese?
F: Yeah
M: And the Soviet and Chinese allies of the North Vietnamese are like the Iranian and Syrian allies of the insurgency?
F: Well I don’t know that the Syrians and Iranians are all that involved, but sorta like that.
M: And the base of operations of the North Vietnamese, North vietnam, is like what exactly?
F: Well the Iraqi insurgents have their bases in places like Fallujah.
M: But the US never cleanswept North Vietnam like they did Fallujah.
F: Still, even after the Fallujah invasion the insurgents have bases.
M: So its not quite the same since the enemy doesn’t have the same sizable defensible territory?
F: Not the same but similar.
M: And the American public is affected similarly by the novel images of war on their TV screens?
F: Well it’s not novel now, but most are very disturbed by what they see.
M: And the allies of the enemy are such that they can barely be confronted?
F: No, its actually made worse by threats towards the Iraqi insurgent’s allies.
M: So all things being equal, except the enemy’s lack of stable base, unthreatened allies, and public perception, it’s the same?
F: Yeah
M: But don’t those things make a considerable difference? Not even including differences in cultural and political history, sheer numbers and basic terrain, supplies, civilian attitude, and firepower capability?
F: These things might matter, but the similarities are still there.
M: Sure, but US soldiers fighting, killing, and dying can be found in every war we’ve ever fought.
F: Yeah but in a foreign land with a local enemy that won’t quit defending their home, that’s the main similarity.
M: So it’s not the details that you find similar, it’s just that you don’t think the US should ever project it’s power beyond its borders.
F: Basically, they’re the same in the overall abstract, despite the differing details.
M: Okay then, next round’s yours.
stickler:
I’d say I hate to be pedantic.
But I’d be lying.
So I will be pedantic, and stomp on this meme: *The RAF did not use poison gas in Iraq.*
It was called for by some commanders, advocated by Churchill, but never actually used.
(ref. Lawrence James, _The Rise and Fall of the British Empire_, p.400)
The shells and bombs required were unavailable, and the revolt was abating before production could be considered.
stickler:
re. _”Who’s “they?” …Perhaps you might clarify your comment.”_
I’m sure Armed Liberal can stick up for himself, but really, this is a pretty common usage of the word.
We in the UK say “the Yanks, they voted for George Bush”.
Doesn’t mean we think every American voted for George Bush. It’s just people haven’t got the time, just can’t be bothered, to give precise numbers or percentages each time we mention any damn election.
If you like, we could be required to recite the precise number from every last constituency each time we talk about an election.
Bit boring, though.
Stickler, it was Kermit, not Quentin Roosevelt.
Iraq is not Vietnam, but it is not different enough.
Iraq looks like Algeria if you really want to make a comparison except the French were much stronger and the Arabs were much weaker than the conflict parties in Iraq.
For those who compare Iraq with Vietnam the main problem is who is our ally in Iraq? I don’t think we have one?
Hashahahahahahaaa! A, you kill me….
Here’s a hint: the fact that you see Iraq in unitary terms, instead of tribal and ethnic terms, is the biggest gap in your analysis. And analogies.
Iraq is more unified than Algeria was. The US/UK has betrayed most of the parties multipole times in the past and who you should support depends on two things: Who is the boss now and who is the boss in the (not to distant) future. And my cristal ball says that anti-American forces will rule in five years time so now you should hedge your bets by only supporting the Americans very lightly plus do some cowardly resistence work.
Armed Liberal said:
“The Vietnamese a) were highly motivated by a nationalist desire to first and foremost get the colonial powers out”
Isn’t that the professed aim of not only the Iraqi insurgent groups but many of the political parties, as well?
” b) were supported by the only other superpower in the area.”
There are no foreign jihadis in the country, tacitly and sometimes explicitly supported by countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia?
“c) had an insurgency which first legally controlled half the country and second had widespread and deep support within the other half.”
I’ll grant you this point. The Kurds only controlled 1/3 of the country, and are not necessarily very popular with the rest. Still, two out of three means more alike than not, to me.
Iraq and Vietnam are different because of geography and culture.
The way the US has fought each conflict is remarkably similar.
Quite. There’s no oil in Vietnam.
melior –
“Yes there is”:http://www.energybulletin.net/2838.html . Vietnam is the third-largest producer in SE Asia, and has recently made offshore substantial discoveries – sheesh.
A.L.
Someone above asked if this time, our side wouldn’t win. Well, corporate America will win, according to this guy (on the Sistani list)…
“On Dec. 22, 2004, Iraqi Finance Minister Abdel Mahdi told a handful of reporters and industry insiders at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that Iraq wants to issue a new oil law that would open Iraq’s national oil company to private foreign investment. As Mahdi explained: ‘So I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies.'”
Another thing to consider is that even though Iraqis don’t have decades of anti-Colonial struggle under their belts, between Kuwait and Iran, they definitely do have SOME war experience.
I wrote something else here (that I considered brilliant) but them my browser crashed (first time) and now I forget.
I don’t know if you will call the struggle against the Ottoman empire anti-colonial but how would you call that what happen between the two world wars?
Also never trust a man who says things you want to hear. Especially if he wants something from you.