“Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam” is tossed around more frequently in the media, on message boards, and in political science classes across the country as the war in Iraq stretches out into another military money pit for the United States. With a new president on the way in ’08, Iraq is on top of the campaign agenda for all of the candidates. And the candidates are going to need to say more than, “I promise to get us out of Iraq,” like Hillary Clinton has been heard from NPR sound bites that tend to follow Bush’s “stay the course” bit. What the serious candidates need to look at is why a growing majority of Americans are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and more importantly what the U.S., as a nation, can take from its defeat in Vietnam and how its policy in Iraq can be shaped from those learned lessons.
In Vietnam, U.S. troops could barely find the Vietcong and when they did it was too late. The V.C. burrowed a tunnel system that allowed them to ambush American forces (the Americans may of well worn red jackets and marched in lines). In Iraq, finding the enemy would be great, but first the enemy needs to be defined. Americans are constantly being bombarded by stories about U.S. soldiers killing “x” amount of insurgents. “Insurgents” range from the leftovers of Saddam’s private army to children throwing rocks at hummers. Even the biggest and most advanced military in the world cannot defeat an enemy when they don’t know who the enemy is. For that reason alone, it is impossible to attain a victory in Iraq, and yet, most people still need convincing.
Anytime a people have to defend not only their land but their culture, they are nearly impossible to defeat. During the American Revolution, the future United States was up against the most powerful army and colonial force in the world and won. During World War II, with their backs to the wall, the Russians held off Nazi Germany in Stalingrad to essentially end the war. From the 1930’s to the 1970’s, the Vietnamese held off the Japanese during their “expansion” before World War II, they also held off Frances’ two attempts to colonize Vietnam in the 40’s and 50’s, and then the United States attempt to stop the possible spread of communism in the 60’s and 70’s. These small powers can hold off the fore mentioned military juggernauts for one main reason: they were defending their homeland. The Iraqis appear to be the next David as the goliath America can’t find a way to maintain any sort of peace in Iraq, but even when it comes to peace, the right wing media has perverted it into “defeatism”.
Defeatism is apparently when a country’s people stop supporting a war and even the greatest of armies can’t win because bureaucrats worried about their elected jobs won’t let them win. To many, defeatism is going to destroy the United States’ military might (this is extremely pushed when the term is linked to a possible war-ending democrat in office in ’08). But contrary to AM radio, admitting defeat is not a mistake when there is no other option. In Vietnam, Lyndon B. Johnson, escalated military involvement and financial support for the war to avoid an embarrassing U.S. loss. Nixon did the same for nearly two years before wisely realizing that the only thing that America was going to achieve in Vietnam was piles of body bags. In that case, admitting defeat should have happened earlier to save hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides of the parallel. Since it appears that the Bush Administration cannot admit defeat, the next president – republican or democrat – is going to have to for the sake of humanity. The sad part about pulling out if Iraq compared to leaving Vietnam is that the Vietnamese already wanted to be communist and an extremely high majority wanted Ho Chi Minh as their Prime Minister; whereas in Iraq, a civil war will take place and Iraqi death tolls will continue to pile up. Which brings me to my last point: do not mess around in other people’s civil wars.
Just about every modern, successful country has been through a civil war. Civil wars are bloody and only half of the country is happy in the end, but as time goes on, the decision that comes out of the civil war tends to work. The U.S. needs to let Iraq figure this out on their own, just as the U.S. did for itself 150 years ago (okay, the French helped, but they weren’t an occupying power like the U.S. is in Iraq). For America to play referee at the expense of the American taxpayer – and more importantly, American lives – will go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the United States’ history. And the administration that refuses to pull out will have, at best, a tainted record in the history books.
