Iraq Is Not Vietnam

[Sanslines]

Iraq Is Not Vietnam

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday, November 19, 2006

During the very week when America finally got down to a real debate over Iraq, President Bush went to... Vietnam.

The symbolism is astonishing. Here was a president who avoided serving in Vietnam by joining the Texas Air National Guard, now flying to an international summit in Hanoi. And his visit occurred right after a U.S. election that turned on whether Iraq has become a quagmire like Vietnam.

And there was Bush chatting up Vietnamese communists about free trade, 31 years after our exit from Saigon. Remember how that debacle sparked dire predictions that the neighboring countries would fall, like dominoes, to communism? Of course, those predictions never came true.

So I'm not surprised to be getting reader e-mail that asks whether the "doomsday predictions of what might happen if we withdraw from Iraq" aren't exaggerated. "I remember the same was said about Vietnam if we abandoned it to the communists," wrote one reader, "and look at our relationship now... " A fair enough point. But are the two cases really similar?
Let me start by saying Iraq is no Vietnam. The complex Iraqi situation makes the Vietnam war look simple. And I believe the consequences of a swift U.S. withdrawal would be far, far worse than the repercussions of Vietnam.

Why so? The nature of the violence in the two countries is very different. In Vietnam, the struggle was fought by a nationalist movement (with communist ideology) fighting to drive out U.S. forces.

In Iraq, the most vicious violence reflects an internal power struggle between minority Sunni Muslims who were allied with Saddam Hussein and the long-persecuted majority of Iraqi Shiite Muslims.

Hard-line members of this Sunni minority - including senior members of Saddam's Baath party and religious fanatics - began to instigate chaos right after the invasion. They hoped to scare the Iraqi people into restoring a Sunni dictator. Sunni jihadis deliberately sought to provoke a civil war with Shiites, bombing their markets and mosques.

Had the Bush team sent more troops to Iraq for the postwar, as requested by then-Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki, the worst violence could have been prevented; most U.S. troops would probably be home now. But Shinseki was roughly rebuffed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Just last week, Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Shinseki was right."
Shiites refrained from revenge until last February, when the bombing of a holy shrine shattered their restraint. Iraq is now mired in a cycle of sectarian killing.

So, instead of facing a coherent nationalist movement, U.S. troops are stuck in the middle of a sectarian war. The mirage of creating Iraqi democracy is shattered.

The U.S.-trained Iraqi military is divided by ethnicity and religion and has no unified government to fight for. The Iraqi police is penetrated by Shiite religious militias and death squads. Many Iraqis already yearn for the return of a strongman.

In such circumstances it is tempting to call for a speedy U.S. exit. Some thoughtful Bush critics argue that a quick withdrawal couldn't cause worse violence than Iraq now faces.

But unlike Vietnam, there is no strong nationalist movement in Iraq waiting to take over. That means that once a U.S. military exit is scheduled, sectarian killing will explode as Sunnis and Shiites fight to the death.

Even worse, this struggle is likely to be protracted and bloody. In Lebanon, a civil war between religious sects in the 1970s and '80s lasted for 15 years.
Unlike Vietnam, the continuing Iraq war would be likely to spill over into much of the region, sucking in Iraq's neighbors. Shiite Iran would help Iraqi Shiites, and Arab Sunni leaders would feel obliged to help Iraqi Sunnis. Iraq's neighbors would fight their battles over the bloody corpse of a shattered country.

The most vicious militias, run by Sunni jihadis, would take control of chunks of Iraq. Their fiefs would serve as training fields for radical Arabs Islamists who seek to overthrow moderate rulers.

Also, unlike Vietnam - a small country in a less important region - the spillover from Iraq would affect a strategically vital region that produces oil and Islamist terrorists.

And finally, unlike Vietnam, the many Iraqis who worked with the Americans would not be sent to re-education camps, nor could they easily flee the country. Many thousands would probably be slaughtered, and their deaths would further blot America's tattered honor.

These reasons - both strategic and moral - make me resist calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in the near term. We must first exhaust every effort to find a way to stabilize the country - and persuade Iraq's neighbors to contribute. We owe Iraqis - and ourselves - that much.

[Sanslines]

Iraq Is Not Vietnam

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday, November 19, 2006

During the very week when America finally got down to a real debate over Iraq, President Bush went to... Vietnam.

The symbolism is astonishing. Here was a president who avoided serving in Vietnam by joining the Texas Air National Guard, now flying to an international summit in Hanoi. And his visit occurred right after a U.S. election that turned on whether Iraq has become a quagmire like Vietnam.

And there was Bush chatting up Vietnamese communists about free trade, 31 years after our exit from Saigon. Remember how that debacle sparked dire predictions that the neighboring countries would fall, like dominoes, to communism? Of course, those predictions never came true.

So I'm not surprised to be getting reader e-mail that asks whether the "doomsday predictions of what might happen if we withdraw from Iraq" aren't exaggerated. "I remember the same was said about Vietnam if we abandoned it to the communists," wrote one reader, "and look at our relationship now... " A fair enough point. But are the two cases really similar?
Let me start by saying Iraq is no Vietnam. The complex Iraqi situation makes the Vietnam war look simple. And I believe the consequences of a swift U.S. withdrawal would be far, far worse than the repercussions of Vietnam.

Why so? The nature of the violence in the two countries is very different. In Vietnam, the struggle was fought by a nationalist movement (with communist ideology) fighting to drive out U.S. forces.

In Iraq, the most vicious violence reflects an internal power struggle between minority Sunni Muslims who were allied with Saddam Hussein and the long-persecuted majority of Iraqi Shiite Muslims.

Hard-line members of this Sunni minority - including senior members of Saddam's Baath party and religious fanatics - began to instigate chaos right after the invasion. They hoped to scare the Iraqi people into restoring a Sunni dictator. Sunni jihadis deliberately sought to provoke a civil war with Shiites, bombing their markets and mosques.

Had the Bush team sent more troops to Iraq for the postwar, as requested by then-Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki, the worst violence could have been prevented; most U.S. troops would probably be home now. But Shinseki was roughly rebuffed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Just last week, Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Shinseki was right."
Shiites refrained from revenge until last February, when the bombing of a holy shrine shattered their restraint. Iraq is now mired in a cycle of sectarian killing.

So, instead of facing a coherent nationalist movement, U.S. troops are stuck in the middle of a sectarian war. The mirage of creating Iraqi democracy is shattered.

The U.S.-trained Iraqi military is divided by ethnicity and religion and has no unified government to fight for. The Iraqi police is penetrated by Shiite religious militias and death squads. Many Iraqis already yearn for the return of a strongman.

In such circumstances it is tempting to call for a speedy U.S. exit. Some thoughtful Bush critics argue that a quick withdrawal couldn't cause worse violence than Iraq now faces.

But unlike Vietnam, there is no strong nationalist movement in Iraq waiting to take over. That means that once a U.S. military exit is scheduled, sectarian killing will explode as Sunnis and Shiites fight to the death.

Even worse, this struggle is likely to be protracted and bloody. In Lebanon, a civil war between religious sects in the 1970s and '80s lasted for 15 years.
Unlike Vietnam, the continuing Iraq war would be likely to spill over into much of the region, sucking in Iraq's neighbors. Shiite Iran would help Iraqi Shiites, and Arab Sunni leaders would feel obliged to help Iraqi Sunnis. Iraq's neighbors would fight their battles over the bloody corpse of a shattered country.

The most vicious militias, run by Sunni jihadis, would take control of chunks of Iraq. Their fiefs would serve as training fields for radical Arabs Islamists who seek to overthrow moderate rulers.

Also, unlike Vietnam - a small country in a less important region - the spillover from Iraq would affect a strategically vital region that produces oil and Islamist terrorists.

And finally, unlike Vietnam, the many Iraqis who worked with the Americans would not be sent to re-education camps, nor could they easily flee the country. Many thousands would probably be slaughtered, and their deaths would further blot America's tattered honor.

These reasons - both strategic and moral - make me resist calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in the near term. We must first exhaust every effort to find a way to stabilize the country - and persuade Iraq's neighbors to contribute. We owe Iraqis - and ourselves - that much.

[hm0504]

Thanks for posting that.

But the question remains what can the U.S. do in Iraq; I've long argued, for years, that the U.S. would need a million or more troops in Iraq to stabilize it in order to allow it to rebuild and so on.

Is the U.S. ready to do that, and spend a few trillion dollars as well? On something that may or may not work?

[Conor B]

Yes, Iraq is not Vietnam. In Vietnam all the citizens saw themselves as vietnmese and wished for one government for all.

And unlike Iraq, the eventual winner of the Vietnam war (Ho Chi Min) first asked us to help him. But we were of course oriented toward the perrogatives of the french rather than toward the yearnings of a people who wished to overthrow a European colonial government. We do forget where we came from, don't we? (Please see "A Bright Shining Lie")

[hm0504]

I think there is some over-simplification here. There were also the issues of North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese and also Communism.

Indeed, one could say Iraq is like Vietnam in that there is a host of complexity not easily handled by a foreign country that thinks it can just go in militarily and easily remake the place in its own image. Though I suppose Vietnam was never thought of as being "easy" whereas Iraq was by the White House (contrary to those who actually read its history).

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think there is some over-simplification here. There were also the issues of North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese and also Communism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you and think that this article tends to downplay that at the time Vietnam was a very complex and difficult situation in a different way and at a different time. The numerous protests and riots in the USA during Vietnam were also not mentioned in this article. Times have changed and I don't think that we will see riots like we did during Vietnam in the near future (if ever again).

[kphoger]

iraq is not vietnam. for one thing, it's a drier climate.

seriously, though..... i see many similarities between the iraq invasion and the bay of pigs invasion in cuba.

[hm0504]

Kissinger: Military win in Iraq now Impossible:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq_kissinger

Thanks to Bush, the West has pretty much lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- does this bother anyone?

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Kissinger: Military win in Iraq now Impossible:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq_kissinger

Thanks to Bush, the West has pretty much lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- does this bother anyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We actually don't hear much about Afghanistan compared to Iraq. Not really sure what the future plan for Afghanistan is?

[naturalmanwa]

How long does it take for any nation to use military force to keep peace between groups in a country with serious religous differences? Especially when the majority in that country and those within a neighboring country are of the same belief? Seems like a big waste of time and money and human life to me.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
Kissinger: Military win in Iraq now Impossible:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq_kissinger

Thanks to Bush, the West has pretty much lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- does this bother anyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We actually don't hear much about Afghanistan compared to Iraq. Not really sure what the future plan for Afghanistan is? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I've often said, I find it stunning and terrifying that the situation in Afghanistan, which was invaded because it provided the most palpable support to the 9/11 attackers, is today irrelevant to apparently the vast majority of Americans. Kind of like if, after 1945, the Nazis got back into power a few years later in Germany and America and the West didn't even think that situation to even be newsworthy.

[nacktman]

Iraq is not Vietnam!
You ain't whistling Dixie there!

Been to both - Iraq is worse and I don't mean because of the hot, dry climate either!

As Albinus points out the real place we should be concentrating on and getting out of quickly as well is Afghanistan instead of personal vendettas and blood for oil.

[usmc1]

Pace recently said of Iraq, "No, we're not winning, but we're not losing".

Today, during hearings, Secretary of Defense appointee, Gates, concurred when asked if he agreed with Pace.

WTF, this is supposed to be the war to determine the destiny of western civilization and we're not winning and we're not losing? I don't think we get to call it a draw here guys!

I guess, since they're younger than I, these dip-sh*ts and wusses grew up playing T-Ball where nobody wins and nobody loses and its OK.

Too bad they didn't learn the real game the way I did at Water-Tower playground; someone always wins and someone always loses. And if Lefty Keller was on your team and you lost, you were likely to catch a thumpin' if it was your fault that you lost.

I guess today you would say that Lefty came from a dysfunctional setting. But, I'll tell you this, by the 7th grade the dude would reach State Street up over the right field wall, and nobody..I mean NOBODY! crossed home plate intact if he set up to block it.

I wish I could find Ole Lefty, he knew the difference between winning and losing and he for certain knew if you weren't winning then you sure as hell must be losing. I'd put him in charge of the deal, and you can bet that someone would be catching a for sure thumpin' about now!

[hm0504]

I agree with you about the "L" word.

On the plus side, in one morning Gates has expressed more truth and intelligence than Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have over the last four years -- not that that's at all hard to do but it is sure refreshing to hear from the potentially next DoD Secretary. What do you think? Are we going to see some real changes in Iraq policy?

[hm0504]

Out of curiousity, did senior White House officials ever use the word "losing" or "lost" with respect to Vietnam?

[usmc1]

If Bush were smart (ahem) and if he had any advisors with walking around sense (ahem) he would read the Iraq Study Group Report, embrace its findings and recommendations, claim credit for its formulation and act accordingly.

Here, in downloadable PDF format is the report in its entirety. Only 145 pages, but very readable and enlightening.


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/061206_...udy_group_report.pdf (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/061206_iraq_study_group_report.pdf)

And in the interest of Fair & Balanced, here is the Neo-Con influenced right-wing media response which signals why that dry-drunk sociopathic lunatic Bush and his coven of river trolls, gnawing rats, mendicants and deep forest hobgoblins will continue to dance around the bonfire.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1566668,00.html?cnn=yes

[S.M.A.]

Of course Iraq isn't Vietnam; they're not even on the same continent, are they? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

But seriously- I've been hearing these comparisions from the moment things were going awry over there, which was around June or July 2003. Whether it's fair or not should be left up to your view on the war.

Stuart http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif

[kphoger]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kind of like if, after 1945, the Nazis got back into power a few years later in Germany and America and the West didn't even think that situation to even be newsworthy.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
actually, the nazis get quite a few votes in germany. a german foreign exchange student who lived with us one year thought it was stupid to study history. when we suggested that it might be good to learn from past mistakes, and thereby prevent the nazis from ruling germany again, he brushed it off as impossible. "people would never do that." yearh, right....

[hm0504]

"Incoming House intelligence chief botches easy intel quiz"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite."

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon.

Stein's column about Reyes' answers was published on CQ's Web site Friday evening.

In an interview with CNN, Stein said he was "amazed" by Reyes' lack of what he considers basic information about two of the major terrorists organizations.

"If you're the baseball commissioner and you don't know the difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox, you don't know baseball," Stein said. "You're not going to have the respect of the people you work with."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More here:
http://edition.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kphoger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Kind of like if, after 1945, the Nazis got back into power a few years later in Germany and America and the West didn't even think that situation to even be newsworthy.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
actually, the nazis get quite a few votes in germany. a german foreign exchange student who lived with us one year thought it was stupid to study history. when we suggested that it might be good to learn from past mistakes, and thereby prevent the nazis from ruling germany again, he brushed it off as impossible. "people would never do that." yearh, right.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what is the reaction of America to the resurgence of the Taleban in southern Afghanistan?

[kphoger]

well, if my own experience is worth anything, i would say most people either never hear about it, or they don't care about it.

on the other hand, it might be that americans just aren't as concerned about the taliban now as they were right after 9/11. we were all pretty paranoid back then, and the pendulum has started to swing the other way. maybe it has swung too far, but...... aaahhh, who am i kidding? the real answer is that we get bored with any story after a few months.

"the taliban??? dude, that was SO four years ago!"

okay, i'm getting cynical. hand me my lithium, honey.