I’ve been working on what I hoped was a balanced and thoughtful response to my buddy Brian Linse’s unfair effort to tar everyone on the pro-war side as jingoists (yes, my accusation is overbroad, but so is his).
Then I read this in today’s New York Times and decided to chuck thoughtfulness and fairness right out he window.
Vietnam Archive Offers Parallel to War in Iraq
White House advisers convene secret sessions on the political dangers of revelations that American troops committed atrocities in the war zone, and whether the president can delicately intervene in the investigation. In the face of an increasingly unpopular war, they wonder at the impact on support at home. The best way out of the war, they agree, is propping up a new government that can attract feuding elements across a fractured foreign land.
…and my initial response was “Well, f**k, let’s just give up, then.”
Because if Iraq is Vietnam, then three things are true:
# We’re on the wrong side of a brutal and senseless war.
# We can’t possibly win it.
# And a bunch of people who got stiffies when they saw “All The President’s Men” will become truly insufferable as they live out their adolescent fantasies of Speaking Truth To Power and Bringing Down The Man while driving BMW’s and Audis and dining at Cafe Milano.
Fortunately, we can make some reasonable arguments that suggest that the first two don’t hold a lot of water.
Vietnam was a textbook war of National Liberation; Vietnam had been a colony of the Chinese and then the French for a really long time, and they wanted their own country.
Ho Chi Minh approached Harry Truman at the end of WW II and asked to become a U.S. protectorate, like the Philippines, as a way of getting out from under the French. We turned him down, and he went to war to kick out the French, and sought and received Russian and Chinese assistance to do so. The path to freedom, the Vietnamese people believed (somewhat mistakenly) led through the occupying U.S. armies.
Iraq – unless like certain professors I know of, you believe that everything is best understood through the lens of Western imperialism – is very different. The path to freedom and independence doesn’t lie in casting off foreign domination – it lies in casting off domestic tyranny.
There are arguments made that we could have won the Vietnam War, had we persisted. I’m not sure I buy them, but having read Chang’s book on Mao and the Chinese guerilla wars, I’m more convinced that guerilla wars without a conventional army are less effective than we have mythologized them to be.
There are facts on the ground that paint a picture far different than that painted in the New York Times; it’s certainly impossible for me to say – and may be impossible for anyone to say – which is true.
That’s what history looks like while it’s being made.
KING HENRY V
I tell thee truly, herald,
I know not if the day be ours or no;
For yet a many of your horsemen peer
And gallop o’er the field.
This is the big difference between Iraq and Vietnam:
Losing in Iraq turns over the oil money to Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda defeats us (again), and Iran is encouraged to nuke us.
We could AFFORD to lose in Vietnam. We can’t in Iraq (unless people are willing to lose San Diego and LA to a couple of nukes).
Vietnam was a useless proxy war; Iraq is a DIRECT confrontation between us and Al Qaeda.
The NVA leadership agreed with you ‘that guerilla wars without a conventional army are less effective than expected’. The idea was always to have a conventional army to finish the war once guerilla activities had weakened the other side enough.
All the Vietnamese, North and South, Catholic, Buddhists and others all agreed on one thing. Having the French or the Americans there wasn’t helping.
I never understood the blindness that succesive USA leaders showed when it came to understanding Vietnam.
I recall 50,000 lives were spent because we couldn’t afford to lose in Vietnam. And the attacks on anti war folks then were just as shrill. Pinkos!
But you’re right, the stakes are higher now.
Hmmmm, Al-Queda wanted us to get bogged down in an Asian land war. And Bush wanted to control all that oil. A perfect storm of interests?
I am not aware that Al Queda wanted us to get bogged down in an Asian land war or that the US is going to come away with control of Iraq’s oil. As I recall Al Queda thought we would run like in Somalia or Vietnam and I think all we are going to gain on the oil front is to pay for Iraqi oil at world market prices. I went through the Vietnam war as anti war and just could never buy that we were protecting our national interests in any clear way. As Senator Fullbright put it we made the mistake of opposing communism first instead of supporting nationalism first. We intervened on behalf of a government so corrupt that we assassinated its leader – Diem in ’62. We went into Iraq to depose someone far worse than Diem. Vietnam has lots of jungle, Iraq is dry. The only place for insurgents to hide is in the urban areas. I see US vital interests engaged in Iraq and support the idea of trying to bring better, democratic government to the middle east. That is just what we were unable to do in the cold war – support democracy. As the president put it with reference to the Middle East it failed to make us secure. The ideologically driven foreign insurgents in Iraq – no parallel in Vietnam except for Russian advisors which is a big stretch – and so unpopular that some tribal Sunnis in Anbar are siding with us hated infidels. We have 80% of the population with us and the Iraqi government (not all Shia, but some Sunnis and almost all Kurds)which is way more than we ever had in Vietnam. This is just a different war and while we should be mindful of the mistakes that were made in Vietnam this war requires new thinking from the level of grand strategy right down to tactics. Neither the anti war crowd, nor the MSM seem capable of criticizing the war on the basis of current mistakes much at all so in love are they with Vietnam redux. And they make the mistake that there will be no direct consequences for their country or themselves like Vietnam too if they bring about a back down. Yes, I heard it all before during Vietnam, but because I can see the differences in the situations I support this war wholeheartedly.
The parallel with VietNam is what is happening in the US. The Dems are villifying Bush and the war effort. They just made an attempt to set specific withdrawal timetables and are persistant in their suggestions that the Iraqi’s should do more than they are doing (losing sight of the fact that changing from 30 years of totalitarian rule does not happen overnight converting).
The dems withdew all promised support for South VietNam at a time when the Russians and Chinese had increased their support of the North four fold. The South beat off an earlier attack but were in no position to defend themselves after the Dems reneged on a US agreement to provide logistical support. At the time of the North’s last attack there were 76,000 tons of supplies sitting in a South Vietnamese harbor and the US refused to offload the supplies.
And oh yes as far as support for nationalist aims goes, wasn’t Ho already a socialist before he asked Truman for help. Additionally, latest documentation from the Russians shows that the Domino theory was not so wrong after all. The North was ready to proceed with the plan.
“Discarded Lies”:http://discardedlies.com/entry/?9307_nva_officer_iraq_not_vietnam pointed to this very interesting article in the Asia Times, “Why the Iraqi quagmire [sic] is no Vietnam.”:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK12Ak01.html
Tran Dac Loi of the Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation shares his very low opinion of the revolutionary potential of the Iraqi so-called insurgency: their narrow appeal, substandard organization, their intolerant reactionary views on race and religion (funny that the leftists over here never noticed that), and above all their total lack of a political program.
He left out their lack of reliable foreign military and diplomatic support, which Mao would have insisted on. But it’s probably not cool to quote Mao in Vietnam since their war with China.
bq. _”San Francisco in the sixties was a very special time and place to be part of. There was a fantastic universal sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look west, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high water mark — that place where the wave broke and finally rolled back.”_ Hunter Thompson, ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’ (1971)
Almost forty years later they’re still longing for the same thrill. Tragi-comic. Very lonely, I guess. Like the bride for whom her wedding day really _was_ the best day of her life.
_”Wasn’t if forty years ago — in the hills of Shiloh?”_
Are they still putting out their little newspaper? How quaint.
I will believe Iraq is Vietnam when the Vietcong flies two jumbo jets into the tallest buildings in NYC.
Iraq is exactly like Vietnam EXCEPT:
We occupy Hanoi
We captured Ho Chi Minh, whose about to go on trial.
The North Vietnamese are about to have their 3rd
democratic election.
Iraq is exactly like Vietnam NOT.
I also think that Ho Chi Min was far more competent than the jihadis, after all.
Ultra is right and wrong.
Bin Laden urged the 9/11 attacks as a way to draw the US into Afghanistan where he felt he could destroy us. Believing he had destroyed the Soviet Union there.
Regardless, if 9/11 was accomplished by bin Laden through use of a state controlled by him, imagine what he could do with Iraq under his control, and HAVING DEFEATED the US.
The essential stand-off between the Soviet Union and the United States was nuclear; that did not change with our defeat in Vietnam. That is not to say that the boat people, continued oppression by Suharto in Indonesia, repressive regimes in the Philippines, Malaysia, and elsewhere were not a reaction the perceived Vietnamese threat, nor the atrocities of Pol Pot (excused by leftists like Chomsky btw). But the essential security of the US was guaranteed by a nuclear stand-off with the Soviets (and Chinese).
Bin Laden is not the Soviet Union post-Stalin, exhausted, conservative in it’s empire building, unwilling to take tremendous losses to destroy us. Bin Laden can and WILL attack us with nuclear weapons as soon as he can, believing that GOD will help him destroy the WICKED (that’s us). He is not Western and rational the way the atheistic Soviets were.
Davod is right however. Just like Fonda, much of the Dems are openly siding with Bin Laden. The “Minutemen?” Plus of course the reactionary “it’s all for the Jews” stuff that Sheehan, McKinney, Conyers, and the rest lap up from Daily Kos and Kevin Drum (not Drum himself but his site is a nasty piece of anti-semitic statements out of Stormfront, it’s scary). The Democratic Party today resembles nothing so much as a bunch of aging ex-hippies and 1920’s Freikorps members.
The wildcard of course is another mass casualty attack in the US. We have been lucky so far but luck is not a plan.
The Democratic Party today resembles nothing so much as a bunch of aging ex-hippies and 1920’s Freikorps members.
Well, my day is made now, so amusing is this picture. Thanks, JR.
Like Florida 00′, the Dems are not walking tall. They are shucking and jiving when they should speak with strength and conviction.
Of course, Bush is such a bumbler we would rather have the Dems running the show.
Check out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fallows/what-bush-isnt-addressin_b_10621.html
For James Fallows take on events.
“Bart Hall:”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007746.php#c7
Perhaps even more to the point and 200 years old:
The French Revolution as It Appeared to Enthusiasts at Its Commencement
William Wordsworth
Oh! pleasant exercise of hope and joy!
For mighty were the auxiliars which then stood
Upon our side, we who were strong in love!
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!–Oh! times,
In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways
Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
The attraction of a country in romance!
***
Any comparison between the two is more striking for the differences it reveals than the similarities.
Here are 11 of them (and the list is by no means exhaustive:
1) In Vietnam, all four major belligerents – the United States, South Vietnam, the Viet Cong, and North Vietnam – relied heavily on draftees. In Iraq, none of the major parties to the conflict – the United States, the Iraqi Government, the insurgents, and al Qaida – use conscripts. This fact alone ensures that the war in Iraq will be dramatically different than the war in Vietnam.
Among other things, it means far fewer combatants will be involved on both sides, that the cost to both sides of putting a war fighter in the field will be much higher, that the enemy will lack the manpower to operate a supply line and logistical system similar to the manpower intensive Ho Chi Minh trail, and that commanders have to treat soldiers as capital assets rather than a “consumables” like bullets or beans.
2) Geographically, Vietnam was largely tropical jungle. Iraq is largely desert in which concealment is much more difficult. This makes it much harder for insurgents to establish secure bases in which guerrillas can rest, refit, train and stockpile supplies, and without which it is very hard to grow the insurgency to the point where it could threaten the regime.
3) South Vietnam was a largely rural society. Iraq is a largely urban one. When guerrillas attempt to establish themselves in cities they tend to find themselves in death traps, as the Viet Cong discovered during their militarily disastrous Tet Offensive and the Iraqi insurgents learned in Falluga. That’s the reason successful guerrilla warfare practitioners defer attempting to take and hold them until late in the insurgency. Unlike Vietnam, agrarian Iraq is too small both demographically and geographically to sustain a Viet Cong sized insurgency
4) South Vietnam was a poor country whose economy was largely dependent on American aid. Iraq has the world’s second or third largest oil reserves and is presently earning $60 to $90 million a day from oil exports (despite the insurgency). That alone gives the Iraqi government far more legitimacy and clout than the South Vietnamese government.
5) South Vietnam was a Buddhist country with a governing elite that was disproportionately Christian. Iraq’s government – chosen in a free election – much more closely reflects the country’s ethnicity.
6) In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong based their revolution on the principles of Mao Tse Tung. In Iraq, the American military has learned from Mao’s doctrine and is putting substantial resources into nation-building while the insurgents and al Qaida have ignored it. As a result, the insurgency has been unable to broaden its support beyond its original narrow base.
7) In Vietnam the insurgents were revolutionaries. In Iraq the insurgents are counter-revolutionaries – either the remnants of the deposed ruling class trying to shoot their way back into power or Islamic reactionaries trying to bring back the political and social norms of the Eighth Century.
8) In Vietnam, the insurgents could count on the active support of a quarter to a third of the people and the tacit support of twice that. In Iraq the insurgents are actively despised by about 80 percent of the population (the Shiites and the Kurds).
9) In Vietnam, precision guided munitions were introduced only late in the conflict. In Iraq, precision guided munitions were employed from the out-set by both sides. Ours are guided by lasers, TV, infrared and satellites. Theirs are guided by martyrs. However, the difference isn’t the means of guidance but the fact that we use ours to minimize civilian casualties while they use theirs to maximize them.
10) In Vietnam the insurgents could draw on the resources of a neighboring and ethnically similar state (North Vietnam) that was totally mobilized for war, and Cold War considerations protected that state from invasion. No such comparable neighbor exists in the case of Iraq, nor can any neighboring state run the risk – either in terms of its own internal stability or of American retaliation – of becoming one.
11) In Vietnam we had the option of walking away from the war when it became too burdensome, because the enemy was prepared to stop fighting us if we left. In contrast, al Qaida and its sustainers view the fighting in Iraq as just a phase in an existential struggle with western civilization. Declaring victory and going home is not an option in Iraq, because the enemy gets a vote.
-30-
As for the Vietnam Iraq comparison?
I believe it is QUITE applicable.
When this Nation endures a Catastrophic Event it undergoes a Paradigm shift, which if taken at the cusp can lead political figures to power.
Pearl Harbour was such an event and the Leaders coming out of that conflict rode it to Political Power for a generation.
Vietnam in itself was such an event and the Peace Warriors rode IT to Political Power for a Generation.
9/11 is the Catastrophic Event of our present generation and like those before them the present Old Guard, does not see it as such and are trying, as has been tried before to do what has “worked” for them for the last generation.
Iraq IS the Vietnam of the 21st Century.
I believe the Electorate is undergoing a Change of State, and things should get very interesting in the near future.
Yes Iraq is the 21st Century Vietnam, but not in the sense that the Newest Old Guard realizes. It is a new Paradigm shift in America’s Psyche.
Like their Fathers before them they have not seen the
Winds of Change, they continue to wave the Bloody Shirt of Vietnam, not realizing that is now THEY who are the Old Guard hanging on to the Tiller of the Reactionary Past.
And Like those they replaced they will be replaced.
History does repeat itself.
“Iraq the 21st Century Vietnam?”:http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1052133
“The Paradigm Precipice”:http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1062967
Dan:
Fascinating comment. You trump the prior post, which focuses on tactical differences, completely.
I note the big three times when US soil has been attacked, The Civil War, WW II, and 9-11, the presidents have responded with a) suspension of habeas corpus b) interning Japanese Americans c) torture/”disappearing”/and suspension of all rights for people accused of terrorism.