Vietnam analogy won’t work for Iraq

Thirty years ago, in the wake of the Vietnam War, historian James Clay Thompson warned: the primary lesson learned was that the United States should never again go to war in a former French colony located on the other side of the globe, in a land with a tropical climate, against an insurgent force supported by a sympathetic communist regime in a contiguous state.. Thompson acknowledged the lesson’s limited applicability.

Pennsylvania Democratic Representative John Murtha, a decorated Marine who served in Vietnam, recently dubbed the American effort in Iraq “a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion” and called for a rapid U.S. military withdrawal. Representative Murtha is among many from my generation drawing analogies between Vietnam and the fighting in Iraq.

In late 1971, I returned from Indochina perplexed by my experiences. Over the next 15 years I wrote a volume in the Air Force’s official history of that conflict, completed a doctorate in military history and then penned two additional books on the war. I also taught courses on the Vietnam War at the Air War College and several civilian universities.

While I appreciate lessons history provides, with no disrespect to nineteenth century philosopher Georges Santayana, the past does not repeat itself.

Nevertheless, there are only two ways to approach the future: faith and the study of history.

The former, based on things unproven, issues from beliefs and opinions usually flowing subjectively from religious or ideological convictions.

History, while open to interpretation, relies on facts, however subject to interpretation those may be.

For instance, how the Viet Cong and their North Vietnamese allies defeated the United States remains a matter of historical controversy. Fact is, however, on April 29, 1975, North Vietnamese forces raised a Viet Cong flag over the Presidential Palace in what is today Ho Chi Minh City.

Four years into the global struggle against al Qaeda and its supporters, U.S.-led forces have planted democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite barbarous attacks by insurgents and terrorists infiltrated from Iran and Syria, the Iraqis held two elections and ratified a liberal constitution. Polemically-driven carping aside, the U.S. is winning this war.

Nevertheless, Vietnam specters linger for good reasons. With a tip of the hat to Santayana, the current administration’s strategic goals entering this war were as poorly-defined as those of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in Vietnam.

This goes beyond analogies between the Gulf of Tonkin incidents of August 1964 and whether or not President Bush lied about intelligence, “fixed” dubious intelligence to support the case for invading Iraq, or simply acted on bad information.

The more egregious mistake was that the administration failed to make a strategically clear case for war.

Without clear strategic objectives, the military cannot devise a coherent strategy. Poorly defined strategies cannot be redeemed by firepower or heroic sacrifices.

In Vietnam, that was the ultimate reason U.S. policy failed. America’s will evaporated because there were no coherent and clearly established strategic goals to which the public could respond until President Richard M. Nixon provided three limited objectives in 1969: withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of his first term in office, turning primary responsibility for the prosecution of the war back to the South Vietnamese, a process labeled “Vietnamization,” and the return of American prisoners of war.

While the U.S. accomplished only two of those goals, the subsequent fall of South Vietnam testifies to failure of Vietnamization.

However poorly defined, the strategic goal in Vietnam was the preservation of an independent and democratic Republic of Vietnam. Great nations do not go to war so they can retreat and get back their POWs.

While the Nixon administration succeeded in the withdrawal part of its strategy and in bringing the POWs home, U.S. forces withdrew before the South Vietnamese were adequately prepared to persevere against a determined foe.

The Vietnam War was a side-show in a larger struggle between the East and West. Likewise, Iraq is a theater in a larger global struggle with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the nations that support them, primarily Iran and Syria.

In Vietnam, Hanoi and the Viet Cong pursued the limited strategic objective of compelling the withdrawal of U.S. forces so they could then unite Vietnam under a single totalitarian socialist regime.

Today’s enemy seeks U.S. withdrawal as a first step toward establishing radical Islamic regimes throughout the Middle East.

What follows will be a global struggle of unprecedented horror, made more horrible by an enemy likely armed with and willing to employ weapons of mass destruction.

While the consequences of losing in Vietnam were comparatively small, the cost of losing in this war could be catastrophic. More is at stake than the future of Iraq. And the American response must rise above partisan bickering.

Winning the war?

Submitted by rjhatl on Tue, 11/29/2005 - 10:52pm.

If your only argument standard of "winning the war" is that we were able to push democratic governments on these countries, then yes, we're winning. In the short term. I think we're losing in the long term. What happens when we leave? Afghanistan isn't stable, even now. Kabul and its immediate areas are somewhat secure, but the rest of the country is practically out of the control of the Kabul government. What about Iraq? We took out the horrific leader of a country that was only able to be held together under a horriffic leader and now it's unravelling. Were there elections? Sure. Do Iraqis want stability? Absolutely. But when we're no longer there supporting the government, I bet dollars to donuts that the whole thing unravels. The chaos we've allowed to happen there has opened the door to terrorist insurgencies who've set up shop.

Note that I said "allowed to happen". Whether you're for or against what we did in Iraq, I don't think anyone can make a good arguement that the aftermath of the invasion has been handled properly. It's clear that we didn't have a plan of how to handle our victory. It's clear that we weren't prepared to reconstruct. To this day, we're unable to control Iraq's borders. I was against invading Iraq- they were nothing but a silly distraction from the fight against al Qaeda. But I firmly believe in the "you break it, you bought it" rule- we invaded, so it's our responsibility to put things right. That's going to take lots and lots of money and people. So far our government has been unwilling to devote either to the cause, with Rumsfeld insisting that we don't need more troops or money and that things are going swimmingly. I'm against pulling out, but I'm starting to wonder if the damage we're doing by doing a half-a**ed job there is worse than the damage pulling out would cause.

In short, if you put limits on your requirements for "success" and only look at short term results then sure, we could be very successful there. But if you look at the big picture and think about what the future will bring- no, I don't think we've been successful at all. I think we're just spending lots of money and lives in a futile attempt to keep the top on a boiling tea kettle.

login to post comments

Is the news media accurately reporting the war?

Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Wed, 11/30/2005 - 7:00am.

Like it or not, unless you are there on the ground all the information we get about the war is filtered and packaged and slanted by what former CBS news executive Brenard Goldberg states in his books "Bias" and "Arrogance" by a media with an agenda to influence and not just report.

Can you back up your statement that "Afghanistan isn't stable, even now" and "but the rest of the country is practically out of the control of the Kabul government"?

A pretty low opinion of Iraqis there: "a country that was only able to be held together under a horriffic leader and now it's unravelling." I guess the dact that the Iraqi Army is more involved, Saddam is on trial and they have a Constituion tells me that it is not unravelling.

You state: "The chaos we've allowed to happen there has opened the door to terrorist insurgencies who've set up shop." In my opinion, we have chased them out of Afghanistan and now have these evil zealots in one place rather than cooking up more 9/11s in madrases in Saudi Arabis, Syria or Pakistan. Yje best defense is a good offenxe. Do you really think they would just be going about their normal lives and not kidnappping Americans or bombing embassies in other countries if they were not in Iraq?

I challenge your statement that " It's clear that we didn't have a plan" After 30 years in the military I can tell you that the enemy never gets to read the plan and they have a vote in what happens in a war! Baathists are fighting for their evil lives and to get back power.

By your way of thinking the US should have quit fighting WWII in 1943!

login to post comments