August 28, 2007
Iraq and Vietnam
I realise this sounds egomaniacal, but I can’t help reading President Bush’s recent speech to American veterans as a belated reply to a column that I wrote last November. The FT’s dreaded subscription barrier may prevent you reading the whole thing, so let me summarise the basic argument:
I wrote that the parallels between the Iraq and Vietnam wars were becoming increasingly eerie. In both cases, the US went on a war for reasons that were subsequently discredited. In both cases, the administration expressed high hopes about the export of democracy - but disillusionment set in rapidly. As casualties mounted (they were much higher in Vietnam), support for the war in the US drained away.
The big question is whether the two wars will end in the same way? Will it be helicopters off the roof at the American Embassy in Baghdad in a couple of years time? And if so, what will the consequences be for America and the region?
Back in November, I wrote that the worst consequences of American failure in Vietnam were suffered by the locals - and that the same would probably be true with Iraq. America itself got off relatively lightly after Vietnam. In his recent speech, President Bush made a lot of the suffering caused in Indochina by American withdrawal - he cited the Cambodian genocide and the flood of "boat people" fleeing Vietnam. But he also argued that America itself would suffer hugely in the wake of a defeat in Iraq. He said:
If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.)
I don’t find this terribly convincing. It seems unlikely to me that defeat in Iraq would lead to a surge (that word, again) in terror in America. But I think you could argue that Iraq is in a region that is more strategically important to America than Vietnam - oil, Israel, Turkey, Iran etc - and that therefore regional instability there might eventually suck the US back into conflict. That seems to me to be the central question that the US faces as it contemplates pulling out of Iraq. But it might be an academic question, if the domestic demand to get out of Iraq gathers steam.
Bush’s speech drew an infuriated reaction from Christopher Hitchens - an advocate of the Iraq war. Hitchens is a child of the 60s and was a passionate opponent of the Vietnam war. To find the president he once defended explicitly linking Vietnam (bad) and Iraq (good) was too much for Hitchens, who lists numerous ways in which the two wars differ. His essential argument is that deposing Saddam was a moral cause, but waging war in Vietnam was not.
Maybe so. But the real point of the Vietnam-Iraq parallels lies not in the moral arguments for the two wars. The real comparison lies in the naivete of the original assumptions behind the wars, in their disastrous and bloody consequences - and, perhaps, in their aftermaths.
Welcome back Gideon.
Posted by: JP | August 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm | Report this commentYes, I read Hitch on Sunday, and I would agree with your comment that he was, ahem, a little passionate.
Shame - there are real issues here. You seem to be plotting a better line through the tundra of comparison.
Another thing to consider is the devastating effect a retreat will have on the US armed forces when they are successfully pacifying the Sunni areas; see this article http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/025vxetc.asp by an embedded Weekly Standard journalist whose point of view is close to that of Gen. Petraeus and his team.
The pacification of Anbar in cooperation with local Sunnis is being repeated elsewhere in Sunni areas and if complete could free units that can then put greater pressure on Shia militias and on the Maliki government itself so that the disenfranchisement of the Sunnis can end and real power and resource sharing can start. The view that the ’surge’ is working is not just expressed by the Weekly Standard, it is gaining traction amongst senior democrats as well http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?ex=1188532800&en=f6ed6eceb40899e2&ei=5070 - democratic Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, agrees http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=281076
When one reads this article http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198 by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling one realizes how appropriate if late the Petraeus ascension is; the new strategy implemented is much more than just a surge, it is a true counterinsurgency strategy and finally, after 4 years of suffering, both the Iraqis and the coalition forces might start to see some better times ahead.
As Mr. Powell said, you break it, you own it. The US has to fix Iraq and cannot leave because the area is far too important to be abandoned to organizations such as Al Quaeda and emboldened adventurists in Teheran. Besides, they simply have the moral obligation to help the Iraqi people and end the reign of terror they are subject to. The UK similarly has that obligation to finish what it started; it is unconscionable to blame others, retreat, and wash ones hands off it when one in fact helped start it. Fortunately Mr. Brown understands http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/28/niraq128.xml
Glad to see you back in the loop as well Gideon!
Posted by: Felix Drost | August 29th, 2007 at 7:01 am | Report this commentThe only real connection between Vietnam and Iraq is that they both represent major defeats for the United States. The defeat in Vietnam has yet to be fully assimilated and the defeat in Iraq will probably take even longer to work its way through the American psyche.
Although both wars were begun under false pretenses, Vietnam was well within the logic of the cold war and could be better compared to the Soviet Union’s intervention in Afghanistan although much less costly for the USA than the Soviet debacle. Iraq, however, is a gratuitous disaster with possibly cosmic knock on effects to the entire world system.
What really makes the war in Iraq special is that it follows no particular logic at all. Hitchens’s defense of it on “moral” grounds in disingenuous: Mesopotamia, linchpin of the Middle East, with its religious and ethnic complexity and its ocean of oil is not “Sierra Leone” and is certainly no place for judgmental meddling. The only “moral clarity” Bush needed on the issue in order to avoid disaster was probably instilled in him as a small child by his formidable mother Barbara’s stern admonition, “George, don’t play with your food!”
Posted by: David Seaton | August 29th, 2007 at 8:31 am | Report this commentI’m not sure Bush shouldmake anymore public statements. Aside of this speech linking Iraq to Vietnam - which initially this administration denied vehemently Iraq would ever become another Vietnam - Bush made also speeches (2) on the economy, basically saying it was doing very well - resulting in heavy selling on the stock market on both occasions. That seemed to indicate to the market that the white house didn’t have anyone capable of understanding economics and financial crisis.
Then this week, there’s been this intervention relating to Iran stirring things up in Iraq bla bla… Can somebody get the president to read the Economist’s recent briefing on Ian??? Hasn’t he understood that things aren’t just black and white? That the real world all of us live in is fundamentally complex, just like individual human beings are immensely complex, it’s not surprising that regions, countries, people are complex too. I genuinely believe that most people can relate to the complexity of the world as it is what they are experimenting everyday. Politicians should have the courage to try us.
Clearly Bush didn’t start the market turmoil nor is he responsible for Vietnam, but my point is that he has lost so much credibility that the majority of people seem to automatically agree with the opposite of what Bush is saying. I’m not looing forward to the next 18 months.
Posted by: AF | August 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am | Report this commentDear AF,
Dubya is an unintelligent man advised by some unscrupulous and equally incompetent ones (just read today’s editorial in the FT about the departing Mr. Gonzalez).
It is not surprising that his presidency is disintegrating around his ears and that he hasn’t got a clue how to tackle various problems from Iraq to the subprime loans crisis (also again read today’s FT on the aftermath of Katrina, two years on.)
Bush’s increasingly vile rhetoric against Iran is in the nature of a dog howling at the moon.
It is not a well-considered action, it is simply a primitive, visceral reaction to forces and processes beyond his understanding but also reflects the continuing influence of the Likudnik-Zionist lobby on Washington and their desire to use the current vacuum in US leadership to lead this huge, blind elephant to trample on another opponent of Zionistan.
America is defeated in Iraq and should leave. She should also remember that bombs do not beget democracies and supporting terrorism (as they do against Iran and as they did when they supported Bin Laden and the Taliban, et al) does not relieve terrorism.
It is true that the rest of the world has an important interest in the Middle East energy resources but what is overlooked is that the Middle Easterners have an equal interest in selling oil and gas to the rest of the world and it is not necessary to militarily invade the Middle East to get its oil ( Trade not Invade !), nor is it productive to support tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia as anybody, even the most radical regime, will need to sell oil to survive. Let people choose their governments themselves even though those might be unpalatable to the West. Given time, the government and the people will have to modify their behaviour to survive but do not forget that in many cases it is the West that needs to modify its attitudes towards the region and its people.
In conclusion, I like to think that the first lesson of the Iraq debacle for the Americans will be to leave the Middle East alone and simply trade with it rather than try to run the place and the second place will be to reject the kind of leadership that puts the interests of a foreign entity (Israel) above the interests of the American people.
If any comparison with Vietnam is to be made, then I hope that, like the aftermath of Vietnam, the US defeat in Iraq will make the Americans reticent about foreign military adventurism for a generation or more.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | August 29th, 2007 at 12:32 pm | Report this comment“Pacifist” has got it right.
He or she has got it in a nutshell:
*It is true that the rest of the world has an important interest in the Middle East energy resources but what is overlooked is that the Middle Easterners have an equal interest in selling oil and gas to the rest of the world and it is not necessary to militarily invade the Middle East to get its oil ( Trade not Invade !), nor is it productive to support tyrannical regimes like Saudi Arabia as anybody, even the most radical regime, will need to sell oil to survive. Let people choose their governments themselves even though those might be unpalatable to the West. Given time, the government and the people will have to modify their behaviour to survive but do not forget that in many cases it is the West that needs to modify its attitudes towards the region and its people. In conclusion, I like to think that the first lesson of the Iraq debacle for the Americans will be to leave the Middle East alone and simply trade with it rather than try to run the place and the second place will be to reject the kind of leadership that puts the interests of a foreign entity (Israel) above the interests of the American people.*
That’s perfect. Great post!
Posted by: David Seaton | August 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm | Report this commentAccording to Bob Woodward’s, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward) book “Plan of Attack”, in 2002 the Saudi’s were given advance, inside knowledge of the plans to invade Iraq. According to Woodward, the Saudi’s also helped the 2004 reelection of Bush by manipulating the price of oil. (Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml )
Israel, far from endorsing an attack on Iraq, strongly argued against it in feb 2002 when such US intentions became manifest and sought to focus the attention of the US on the Iranian buildup in Lebanon instead. (Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH30Ak04.html / Washington Post archives: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/105787489.html?dids=105787489:105787489&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT )
The notion that the Iraqi invasion was Israel’s bidding or in Israel’s interests is not at all in evidence and is a reversal of the truth that is evidenced by above sources. Israel is a tiny country smaller than New Jersey with 6 million inhabitants and yet, in the eyes of “those that seek to blame all the world’s ills on a single racial or social group”, it manages to be more powerful in Washington than Prince Bandar and his family connections and decisive control over world oil markets..
Maybe Israel is that powerful, but then that is not because of nefarious plotting but because the interests of the US and Israel often are very strongly aligned; the strategic importance of the US Israeli alliance is expertly described by former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold; his historical overview is well worth the read:
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam | August 31st, 2007 at 10:01 am | Report this commenthttp://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=376&PID=0&IID=1795&TTL=Understanding_the_U.S.-Israel_Alliance:_An_Israeli_Response_to_the_Walt-Mearsheimer_Claim
If Gideon Rachman means that the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are eerie in the sense of unexpected or coincidental, rather than planned, I would disagree. I was a teenager when President Eisenhower first sent US “advisors” into Vietnam in the 1950’s, after the French had suffered a humiliating defeat that led to their giving up their colony, and I grew up as the war escalated, fortunately, however, never having had to fight in that useless conflict. I see very few differences between the lies that got us into that war and kept us there for so long as 50,000
American soldiers died, while Vietnam and its neighbors were devastated by American firepower.
The excuses for entering and continuing the war were the same both then and now. Then, the line was that if we didn’t fight the Communists in Southeast Asia, we would soon be fighting them in California, followed by the claim that we were fighting for “democracy” for the Vietnamese people, even as we supported one dictator after another. Now, as Mr. Rachman points out in his September 11 column, Iraq was falsely claimed to be part of the “war on terror”, when there was no terrorist threat there before a US invasion which was solely responsible for creating the Frankenstein monster of terrorism there now. It took the Pentagon papers, which the Nixon administration fought so hard to keep secret, to show that the Vietnam war was unwinnable. Today, a much more tightly controlled media establishment makes it much harder to dispute the official line, now being put out by General Petraeus, that the war is winnable, even though most Americans realize down deep that it is not.
Now, we are bombarded with scare scenarios about what will happen if we leave Iraq: terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons; the whole region falling under Iranian influence; a humanitarian distaster (as if there were not already one now), etc., etc. But does no one remember the “domino” theory that all of Southeast Asia would go Communist if we left Vietnam? Where are the Communists today in Thailand, for example?
Instead of letting ourselves be deluded by lies about both these wars, let us look at the real reasons for them both. As Mr. Rachman makes clear in his September 11 Article, they are geopolitical in Iraq. They were no less so in Vietnam. However, having said all of the above, I have to admit that there is one big difference between the two wars: Vietnam has no oil.
Posted by: Roger Algase | September 11th, 2007 at 9:14 am | Report this commentI think your correct and I would like to add that although no two things are alike there can still be some similarities. I just saw this documentary, Sir! No Sir! Which is about the G.I. movement during Vietnam and how they made underground newspapers about what was really going on. It reminded me of the soldiers in Iraq blogging about their experiences. We can depend on the human desire to speak freely. Here’s their website, it was pretty interesting.
http://www.sirnosir.com
Posted by: Caleb Cambee | December 14th, 2007 at 12:41 am | Report this comment