Saturday, May 19, 2007

Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Vietnam SyndromeThe consequences of U.S. defeat in Iraq would be much greater than they were in Vietnam.As the war in Iraq drags on into its fifth year, comparisons to the Vietnam War grow more frequent and persuasive. There are some parallels, as there are to all wars, but key differences between Vietnam and Iraq also deserve noting.

As in Vietnam, the United States faces an enemy that cannot be distinguished from the civilian population. A preliminary hearing for Marines charged with killing 24 civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha recalls the U.S. massacre at My Lai.As in Vietnam, the United States is fighting a war that can't be decisively won because a determined, seemingly inexhaustible enemy would rather die than cease killing.In Iraq, the United States again is allied to a democratic government that cannot successfully defend itself, no matter how much aid it receives. As it did following the Vietnam War, the United States might wind up having to resettle hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who took our side in the war but would risk being murdered if they remained in their country after U.S. withdrawal.Similar to President Lyndon Johnson's experience, President Bush lost popular American support for the war as U.S. casualties mounted. Like Johnson, Bush is unwilling to withdraw. Repeating the 1960s, it will take a change in leadership to end U.S. combat involvement in Iraq.

In Vietnam, the United States faced a united, determined enemy: communist North Vietnam and its Viet Cong allies. In Iraq, U.S. troops battle a multifaceted enemy: Saddam loyalists, Shiite militias and imported terrorists with ties to al-Qaida. These enemies can hardly be identified, much less decisively defeated or negotiated with.In Vietnam, the United States spent hundreds of billions of dollars, suffered 400,000 casualties and inflicted more than 1 million. In Iraq, the financial cost is almost as high, but U.S. casualties number in the thousands. Iraqi combat and civilian deaths are difficult to calculate but probably exceed 100,000.The most telling difference between the war in Iraq and the one in Vietnam is the most dangerous. When the United States could not prevail in Vietnam, it withdrew, with little consequence to U.S. strategic interests or the regional balance of power. U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could result in another rogue regime bent on anti-Western terrorism and aggression. Alternatively, civil war resulting in complete anarchy and a failed state would offer global terrorists another base from which to operate with impunity.

In some ways, Americans might come to wish the war in Iraq were more like the Vietnam War, not less.

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

1 comment:

United We Lay said...

22 comments:
Saur♥Kraut said...
Very good analysis. Thanks for sharing it. Stop by today... you'll be VERY interested in what I've found: I'm sure of it!

8:17 AM
United We Lay said...
Will do! This war is scaring the hell out of me. I think we're starting to build up troops on the Iran border and a gulf of Tonkien like event is in the works.

8:20 AM
Laura said...
"a determined, seemingly inexhaustible enemy would rather die than cease killing."

Exactly - most wars nowadays are what are called wars of attrition - the goals are to kill off the enemy as effectively as possible. This is different than wars over borders or land.

8:56 AM
undergroundlogician said...
The more the reason not to cut and run.

9:33 AM
TomCat said...
That's a pretty good analysis, United. A couple disagreements:

In Iraq, the United States again is allied to a democratic government that cannot successfully defend itself, no matter how much aid it receives.
The governments in Vietnam under Diem and Ky were dictatorships. Thieu was "elected" but he ran with his opposition in jail. The Maliki government was elected but resembles a Shiite theocracy more than a democratic republic, and it has no real power.

U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could result in another rogue regime bent on anti-Western terrorism and aggression. Alternatively, civil war resulting in complete anarchy and a failed state would offer global terrorists another base from which to operate with impunity.
This argument is a false flag. First, Al Qaeda has places from which to operate in Africa and Asia. They done need Iraq as a base of operations. Second, there are at most 10,000 Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq. They are there only because we're there. They are Sunnis of the Wahabi sect. They would be crushed by the Shia militia were the civil war there to escalate.

This is a war Bush has already lost. The only way to avoid a descent into chaos is through a diplomatic solution in which Bush's cronies don't control the oil. The ChickenHawk Charge (surge) is already DOA.

1:57 PM
Laura said...
UL: I understand the feeling many have about having a certain amount of time, effort, lives, blood, and money (and lets not forget ideology) invested in this war - but there's no way to win a war of attrition against an enemy that has no identity other than "insurgent". We keep creating more enemies as we fight - thus it will be a never ending war. I actually think it's more akin to the Soviets in Afghanistan than it is Vietnam now.

6:54 AM
daveawayfromhome said...
Laura - regarding "a certain amount of time, effort, lives, blood, and money (and lets not forget ideology) invested in this war"; see this Ted Rall cartoon.

8:06 AM
Saur♥Kraut said...
Daveawayfromhome, Wow, what a cartoon! Sad, but true. Of course I still believe we should simply have bombed the heck outta them and then left.

8:32 AM
undergroundlogician said...
Laura:

What's the solution? Retreat? Do you really think the problem is going to go away if we pull out?

Sure, you can blame whatever consequences of pulling out of Iraq on the Bush administration, which is a tired political maneuver, much like driving in circles in a parking lot. But these problems will not go away. A nuclear Iran is a real posibility, which will make things extremely difficult in the Middle East. You can blame that on Bush also (either he didn't act or he should have acted; I'm hearing both arguments). But blaming Bush doesn't make nuclear Iran go away.

So if Democrats want to do something useful, they need to get out of the parking lot, shed this Bush Derangement Syndrome that has made their party inconsequential in this war on terror and offer some real solutions. This will take considerable soul-searching to face the ugly fact: they have become the lapdogs of the Marxist/Stalinist left. Blame Bush certainly gets Bush's poll numbers down, but it isn't useful in fighting the type of enemy UWL accurately describes; "Blame Bush" will not get them into the White House because they have no effective strategy that resonates with the American people.

I'm all for using good strategies; we need all the help we can get. The Dems have relegated themselves to irrelevance. The American people need them to drive the moral high road for a change. However, this requires the Dems to acknowledge the existence of morals. We're tired of watching them drive in circles.

Note: I use the term "Dems" in general, and I'm and certain their are quite a few Repubs who need a kick in the ass as well. Irrelevance has no party lines.

4:21 PM
United We Lay said...
So you can use the term "Dems' in general but I can't use the word "Christian" in general.

7:15 PM
undergroundlogician said...
UWL:

As to generalizations, you know how it works. Just don't locate the exceptions and make it the norm.

So, if you say that most Christians are flawed people, I would agree with you. If you have had bad experiences with pushy fundamentalists, so have I. As a matter of fact, there are fundies who think Catholics are idolators and will burn in hell. And, sadly, there are a lot of 'em that think that way.

As to Democrats, as a party, they are being swayed by the marxist left. As individual members, I'm sure, almost positive there are excellent role models and examples. In general, as a party, I am concerned for them.

9:44 PM
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
*cough*

Hold on to your hats cuz I'm with UL!

Leaving Iraq is a very bad idea indeed and although the war was started for illegal and fraudlent reasons at least it wasn't the idea that 'not one domino shall fall'.

Stay there, commit to the cause, ask for help from the world and do the right thing.

4:49 AM
Saur♥Kraut said...
UWL, The last part of my trilogy on Durant ends today.

8:22 AM
United We Lay said...
UL,
In my experience, the way I describe Christians IS the norm.

8:57 AM
undergroundlogician said...
Daniel:

Hey pal! I knew you would come through. Just keep taking those antacids every three to four hours. The nausea does eventually go away.

9:47 AM
undergroundlogician said...
UWL:

It is the norm...FOR YOU! You forgot to include the ever present disclaimer that relativists use. I do recall that you prize people's opinions. Well, you have an opinion. That is it.

Don't like it when relativism bites you instead, eh?

9:49 AM
United We Lay said...
Did I not say, "IN MY EXPERIENCE"?

10:24 AM
daveawayfromhome said...
"they have become the lapdogs of the Marxist/Stalinist left."

Hoo-boy, there's an oldie but a goodie! Democrats are no more Marxist than my mother (a Depression-era Methodist Farm Girl). Calling for universal health care, getting out of an unwinnable war, and asking the very wealthy to put something back into the system that made their wealth possible is hardly a characteristic of the Red Menace.

Come on, UL, get with the program! Democrats as Communists is sooo old school. Democrats are now god-less baby-killers, or spineless pussies who are handing the country over the Islamofascists, or tax-and-spend enablers (as opposed to the dont-tax-and-spend Republicans). Did I miss any?

Daniel, I'm going to agree with you also (double-gasp; one from UL) but with one caveat: America hasnt got the cojones to do it right, neither Democrats nor Republicans. We made a godawful mess there, and as poor disgraced Collin Powell said once, "you break it, you buy it".
What's needed is a lot more troops (solvable only by a draft), a lot more money (read: higher taxes), and material sacrifices on the part of Americans (for instance, gasoline rationing, to lessen our dependance on the oil that's gotten us into this decades-long mess). That's not going to happen though, so we can limp along until we finally give up, or we can leave today and pledge massive amounts of humanitarian aid for whoever gets stuck cleaning up our mess.

11:45 AM
undergroundlogician said...
UWL:

Yes, you did! Which makes my point anyway: your "norm" is based only on your opinion. Your relativism cannot allow you to move beyond that.

11:20 PM
Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...
UL: I don't do drugs and I still think you're a religious bigot with a utterly backward and unrealistic worldview.


Dave: I agree with you, some time ago I wrote a series of posts on the American empire and one of my crux arguements was the lack of willingness in the American people to back the concept, they back the bluster but never follow through to the level required.

Japan and Germany took a very long time to fix but the US had the balls then to stick it.

7:28 AM
United We Lay said...
Daniel,
That is why I try not to respond to him, but sometimes I can't help myself.

7:34 AM
daveawayfromhome said...
the American people still had a sense of community spirit and sacrifice back then. Republicans represent the spirit, now: Greed is good, I'm not paying 'til everybody pays (including those who cannot), what's in it for me?, some people are more equal than others, you dont deserve anything but I do, and I want it noooow!

We've become a nation filled with spoiled rich kids; run by the worst of them, who've allied with the meanest and wackiest 25%.

For UL's sake, let me say that I said "Republicans", not conservatives. Conservatives I respect, and they provide a valuable balance to liberal craziness (though where the fulcrum goes varies). I also respect the average Christian, of whom I know a lot. But the crowd running the Republican Party do not represent the Nation, and yet they warp policy to their own agenda simply through money, media clout, and being a really, really sqeaky wheel.