Is Iraq Vietnam?
In a recent TV interview Pres. Bush was asked if the situation of the US in Iraq today resembles the situation in Vietnam in the 1970s, and he agreed that in some respects it does. This is an amazing admission coming from a President who has maintained and presumably will continue to maintain a hard-line position on Iraq. No doubt the stakes are high but he does not intend to "cut and run."
But, is there really any comparison between these two situations? Of course, Iraq is not Vietnam, and there are many differences. But, is it "a Vietnam," metaphorically speaking, is it a "war" that cannot be won, a situation where the continued and increasing cost of US lives and treasure eventually cause a turnaround in US public opinion to the extent that continued US presence is untenable.
The answer to this question is not yet known, but one can see the gradual turning away of the American public from the commitment made to "rescue" Iraq and change it into a model democracy. The realization has dawned in America that this is never going to happen. In a sense the illusion of a clear victory and then an easy peace has disillusioned Americans with the unpleasant business of the continued slog of reality and insurrection. The fundamental violent schisms that are common in the Middle East have thwarted the idealism of American illusions, just as they did in Vietnam.
But, Iraq objectively is not Vietnam. The sheer scale of the conflict is a degree of magnitude smaller. In Vietnam over 50,000 Americans lost their lives, in Iraq that number stands at less than 3,000! In Vietnam at its height there were ca. 650,000 American troops there, while in Iraq it is ca. 120,000! In Vietnam the fight was against the Communist enemy of North Vietnam, while in Iraq it is against...whom? There are a mixture of assailants, former pro-Saddam regime elements, the Iraqi Sunni militias, the Iraqi Shi'ite militias (notably that of Muktadah al Sadr), the Iranians and al Qaeda terrorists. And they are all killing Iraqis with abandon, as well as American troops. The toll today was over 40 Iraqis and 9 US servicemen killed. As much as anything else it was the daily toll of American deaths that lead to the anti-war demonstrations that were a feature of the 70's and the eventual decision to quit Vietnam.
Its not that the American public is fickle, its more that they get bored after a certain period of time seeing the same old news, seeing their men being killed and not winning. Perhaps they are right, this is getting predictable, so "let's get out from between these crazy Arabs and let them kill each other instead. Let's face it, they don't want us there and we don't want to be there, so let's call it a victory and get the damn out of that quagmire." Well, that's the "Vietnam syndrome" talking, as well as a lot of Democrats. It would be so nice if it were that easy. But, the big bad wolf isn't going to go away. Maybe if we huff and puff enough, they won't notice us sneaking off and they'll get back to their traditional roles, which is killing each other. Now that's what I call a good strategy.
But to be realistic, the US should retain a military presence in the region to thwart the possibility of an Iranian - Iraqi Shia merger and the hosting of terrorist centers and training camps there, much as there was in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Its a no-win situation for the US, but they should try to salvage what is in their own best interests.
But, is there really any comparison between these two situations? Of course, Iraq is not Vietnam, and there are many differences. But, is it "a Vietnam," metaphorically speaking, is it a "war" that cannot be won, a situation where the continued and increasing cost of US lives and treasure eventually cause a turnaround in US public opinion to the extent that continued US presence is untenable.
The answer to this question is not yet known, but one can see the gradual turning away of the American public from the commitment made to "rescue" Iraq and change it into a model democracy. The realization has dawned in America that this is never going to happen. In a sense the illusion of a clear victory and then an easy peace has disillusioned Americans with the unpleasant business of the continued slog of reality and insurrection. The fundamental violent schisms that are common in the Middle East have thwarted the idealism of American illusions, just as they did in Vietnam.
But, Iraq objectively is not Vietnam. The sheer scale of the conflict is a degree of magnitude smaller. In Vietnam over 50,000 Americans lost their lives, in Iraq that number stands at less than 3,000! In Vietnam at its height there were ca. 650,000 American troops there, while in Iraq it is ca. 120,000! In Vietnam the fight was against the Communist enemy of North Vietnam, while in Iraq it is against...whom? There are a mixture of assailants, former pro-Saddam regime elements, the Iraqi Sunni militias, the Iraqi Shi'ite militias (notably that of Muktadah al Sadr), the Iranians and al Qaeda terrorists. And they are all killing Iraqis with abandon, as well as American troops. The toll today was over 40 Iraqis and 9 US servicemen killed. As much as anything else it was the daily toll of American deaths that lead to the anti-war demonstrations that were a feature of the 70's and the eventual decision to quit Vietnam.
Its not that the American public is fickle, its more that they get bored after a certain period of time seeing the same old news, seeing their men being killed and not winning. Perhaps they are right, this is getting predictable, so "let's get out from between these crazy Arabs and let them kill each other instead. Let's face it, they don't want us there and we don't want to be there, so let's call it a victory and get the damn out of that quagmire." Well, that's the "Vietnam syndrome" talking, as well as a lot of Democrats. It would be so nice if it were that easy. But, the big bad wolf isn't going to go away. Maybe if we huff and puff enough, they won't notice us sneaking off and they'll get back to their traditional roles, which is killing each other. Now that's what I call a good strategy.
But to be realistic, the US should retain a military presence in the region to thwart the possibility of an Iranian - Iraqi Shia merger and the hosting of terrorist centers and training camps there, much as there was in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Its a no-win situation for the US, but they should try to salvage what is in their own best interests.
posted by Jack Cohen at 8:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home