L.A. Times Ties Iraq to Vietnam
There’s nothing subtle about the L.A. Times‘s latest attempt to tie Iraq to Vietnam. It is titled Iraq strategy takes page from Vietnam playbook. It discusses Iraq, and Vietnam . . . and how Iraq is like Vietnam . . . and how Vietnam was like Iraq.
UPDATE: Commenters note one angle that the paper shows little interest in: the lesson of Vietnam that there are serious consequences when America walks away from an unpopular war and leaves a vulnerable civilian population in the lurch.
But who wants to hear about that parallel?
And?
The claims made in that article seem to be well-supported by the evidence provided and also rather non-controversial.
Contemplating the similarities between the two wars is a valuable thought exercise. As the current war has gone so badly, it would be nice if some of the insights one can draw from Vietnam could be leveraged to help solve our Iraq problem.
Had the civilian leadership responsible for getting us into Iraq and keeping us there been maintaining familiarity with the Vietnam story, we might have avoided some of the worst of the Iraq problems we’ve faced. Vietnam certainly provided valuable lessons about the effectiveness of guerrilla fighters and the difficulty of creating and supporting a new government in the midst of war. Let’s face it: the Maliki government was stillborn and its ongoing operation has proven to be little more than a tragic joke.
The Liberal Avenger (c93dac) — 11/24/2006 @ 2:42 amIf war supporters can wax eloquently about the Iraq being similar to WWII, then war detractors can use the Viet Nam war as a model.
Personally, I think both analogies are wrong. The Iraq war is far more analagous to the Athenian efforts in Sicily during the Peloponnesian War. We went in boldly and did well initiallly, but because of our ignorance of the local situation, etc. we are now getting our asses kicked.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/24/2006 @ 2:59 amThe WW2 comparisons always strike me as being very odd – great stretches of the imagination.
Here’s an interesting thought…
What would a war between the Third Reich and the “Islamofascists” look like?
The Liberal Avenger (c93dac) — 11/24/2006 @ 3:05 amMy point was that you can fiddle with history and make just about any current situation analagous to some past event, period, etc.
Now the reason that we see the Viet Nam and WWII analogies so much is rather obvious: those are the two wars that are part of the landscape of general public historical memory. They are our models for public discourse on the matter. Of course there are lots of potential alternative models – like the invasion of Sicily by the Athenians, like the Roman invasion of Parthia, etc. – but they just aren’t part of public memory. So only history and classics geeks like myself talk about them. đ
*Dont get me wrong; I think that it is important to talk about history; but one should avoid drawing too tight of parallels. Now I haven’t read the article in question, so I can’t say what sort comparisons the author has drawn. In this discussion I am merely writing about the overall use of history, not its specific use in this instance.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/24/2006 @ 3:45 amBTW, if you want to really go hog wild, there is a whole bunch of work on public memory – one of the best out there is the (multi-volume) work edited by Pierre Nora (its an anthology in other words) on France and its public memory.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/24/2006 @ 3:50 amOh, and just for geekery sake, note that I am referring to Crassus’ invasion of Parthia; Trajan was somewhat more successful (though only temporarily).
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/24/2006 @ 3:55 amLA asked:
It would probably look a lot like the Warsaw Ghetto; the Nazis would simply declare all of the inhabitants the enemy and do their best to kill them all.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/24/2006 @ 4:42 amIt seems that comparisons usually made between Vietnam and Iraq are superficial comparisons of the tactics used to fight an asymmetrical war which will always have similarities. Whether an asymmetrical war can be âwonâ really depends on the geo-political chess game being played out in the region and underlying tribal and religious animosities among the warring parties. Clearly the underlying issues in Vietnam and Iraq have little in common
Robert Brown (cc3bf7) — 11/24/2006 @ 7:37 amA more useful piece would compare how Iraq is like Israels occupation of lebanon. And also how it parallels the terrorist regimes we set up in central america.
actus (10527e) — 11/24/2006 @ 8:41 amA more useful piece would compare how contemplating abandoning good-willed Iraqis to the terrorists & their “progressive” apologists is like the shameful abandonment of South Vietnam. And also how the “progressives” would be similarly proud of the betrayal. Make political careers of it, in fact.
Cordially…
Rick (048868) — 11/24/2006 @ 11:35 amI do agree that there is a ‘you broke it you buy it’ angle. We owe the iraqis quite a bit for what we’ve done to hteir country. I suppose billions of dollars and a few dead soldiers a day is the new price of being america. Thanks, bush administration.
actus (10527e) — 11/24/2006 @ 12:58 pmWe owe the iraqis quite a bit for what weâve done to hteir country
You mean Iraq was a kite-flying idyll before 3/2003? Riiiiiiiiiight. And we’re not fight Islamoterrorists, there, either. Ain’t no military front against Al Quaeda. Nosirree.
If you’re worried about billions of dollars (what’s a little more wastage compared w/federal education & social spending?), maybe we should just steal Iraq’s oil, like we’ve been accused of doing already.
I’m quite prepared for my nickel-a-gallon gas, the sooner the better.
Cordially…
Rick (048868) — 11/24/2006 @ 1:30 pmOh. It most certainly wasn’t.
haha. I was told this thing would pay for itself. Now you try to bring it up again. aw man.
actus (10527e) — 11/24/2006 @ 2:22 pmIf Iraqis can keep their nascent representative rebublic and become a nation more closely resembling Morraco or Turkey, rather than Egypt or Syria, then “the thing” pays for itself.
Kind of a test of Islamic araby: fucked up in-bread mores, or maybe not?
Cordially…
Rick (785992) — 11/24/2006 @ 4:55 pmAre you not glad we did,nt have these liberal journalists during WW II? HEADLINE WE CANT WEIN THIS WAR LETS NEGOTIATE
krazy kagu (10add8) — 11/24/2006 @ 6:40 pmPerhaps the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, in the war theaters themselves, isn’t so apt; I’m sure we could spend a lot of bandwidth discussing that notion.
But there does appear to be a pretty big similarity with how the American people have reacted to the two wars: initial strong support, because they were both noble causes and the right thing to do, followed by dwindling support because the wars were neither quickly won nor was there a really clear idea of what winning really meant.
Dana (e7aa47) — 11/25/2006 @ 4:53 amkrazy kagu,
Edward R. Murrow was what many would describe as a liberal, and he delivered daily reports from London braving the “Blitz” with the rest of London. That is before the U.S. was even involved in the war.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/25/2006 @ 7:10 amActus said: I do agree that there is a âyou broke it you buy itâ angle. We owe the iraqis quite a bit for what weâve done to hteir country. I suppose billions of dollars and a few dead soldiers a day is the new price of being america. Thanks, bush administration.
Wonderfully naive statement, as if the history of Iraq under Hussein never happened. For the first time in a couple of generations people in that country have a chance, however slight it might appear at this point in time, to live in a free country. At least they understand it as many of their countrymen have attempted to stand up equal to the task.
Too bad too many of us don’t think it’s worth it…
Paul (c3d5bb) — 11/25/2006 @ 10:16 amPaul,
Apparently the majority of Iraqis think that within a year’s time the U.S. should be gone: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003410658
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/25/2006 @ 10:42 amI learned from treating veterans that it was wrong to leave VN as we did. This article actually broaches that point and one could come away from it as being cautionary not to make, as a country, the same emotional, snap judgment we did before. In the same paper, Clint Eastwood says he found that the Japanese now don’t know of the 21,000 of their soldiers killed in Iwo Jima; after the trauma of the war just learned ‘war bad,’ in context of the above, allowing for the possibility that if one faces a ‘good foe’ like the US that might not be bad idea but, for us, that might not be responsible.
Michael (3a33c4) — 11/25/2006 @ 9:14 pm” HEADLINE WE CANT WEIN THIS WAR LETS NEGOTIATE”
-krazy kagu
It’s too bad kagu doesn’t have the balls to stick around and watch people pick apart his insipid bullshit by explaining the difference between uniformed and non-uniformed combatants.
“But there does appear to be a pretty big similarity with how the American people have reacted to the two wars: initial strong support, because they were both noble causes and the right thing to do, followed by dwindling support because the wars were neither quickly won nor was there a really clear idea of what winning really meant.”
-Dana
You forgot to mention the fact that the American people were lied into both wars, and that the “dwindling support” was more a symptom of the realization of that reality than a lack of conviction.
And Rick, I ask this with all sincerity: What the hell does “in-bread” mean? Is that a pun or something?
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:23 am