VIET NAM? IRAQ? WHAT"S THE DIFFERENCE?
Whatever else can be said of Americans, we have short memories. If we had longer memories we would not be conducting a war in Iraq. Indeed, we would remember the tragedy (and the absolute stupidity) of Viet Nam (a conflict which involved American troops between 1963 and 1975), and we would bail out of Iraq as fast as possible.
Our involvement in Viet Nam began when the late president John F. Kennedy agreed to send a "few" military advisors to South Viet Nam in an effort to assist its regime to prevent the Viet Cong, and its allies in North Viet Nam, from converting a pseudo democracy in to a full blown communist country. That the two Viet Nams, formerly Indo China, had been one country prior to its partitioning was less important (to the opponents of communism)than the desire of Vietnamese citizens to effect reunification. That the real dynamics of Viet Nam were a smoldering civil war (with only a modicum of concern for which kind of government might evolve in its afertermath) was ignored when faced with the possibility that the so-called "Domino Theory" might, in Viet Nam, come to fruition. And when, after the aggressive activities in the Gulf of Tonkin, in the summer of 1965, Lyndon Johnson decided to up the military ante to full American involvement, it was only a matter of months before a complement of 500,000 of our Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force were clogging the streets of almost every city in South Viet Nam. And when the dying commenced, it did so in earnest. America would ultimately sacrifice fifty-thousand of its finest, and the Vietnamese would lose more than ten times that many.
And when it was all over South Viet Nam was merged with North Viet Nam, a bland communist regime was in charge, Indo Chinese brothers and sisters were reunited, and a vast majority of Americans were left wondering why such a conflict (which could not be called a war because war had never been officially declared)had been necessary. And, in the final analysis, most people agreed that it had not been necessary; that our involvement had been most ill-advised, that our losses of men and materiel (and money) were unconscionable, and that we had gained absolutely nothing during our twelve years of active military involvement in southeast Asia.
Interestingly, the conclusion of our engagement in Viet Nam was not the result of a military outcome. We had not won; they had not lost. They had not won, and we had lost only to the extent that we had accomplished nothing by being there. But the end came not because of a political or military result. We got out of Viet Nam because the voice of the American people was finally heard by the administration of president Gerald Ford. He got us out, even if he did not completely agree with the naysayers. He got us out because it was politically sage to respond to the majority. And the majority of Americans were more than fed-up. And votes hinged on who did what. And Gerald Ford aspired to a full term of his own. And staying the course in Viet Nam was not the way to assure victory. He lost anyway (to then governor Jimmy Carter), but probably nowhere near as badly as he would have had he elected to continue the conflict.
Sound familiar? Advance the clock almost thirty years, account for our brief memory, and observe our involvement in Iraq. And note, as historians often do, that history repeats itself; especially when the outcome is negative.
There are a few differences this time. Ike, JFK and even LBJ, were probably ingenuous in their concerns that the potential fall of South Viet Nam could be perilous to the future of Asia, and by extension to the U.S. Obviously they were wrong, but at least we can believe that they didn't know it. But George W. Bush did know that invading Iraq was unrelated to his so-called "war on terrorism", he knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (even as he loudly ranted that he did), and he was very well aware that whatever transpired in Iraq, it offered no discernible threat to the United States, or to any of its allies. Saddam could not even accurately direct his few Scuds to Israel. And Bush knew it. But he pulled the trigger anyway, and now, three years later, more than 3000 Americans have died in Iraq, countless Iraqis have succumbed, a functional coalition government is still not in place, and Bush continues to insist that our presence there is proper and necessary.
The differences between Viet Nam and Iraq are more a matter of dishonesty than anything else. We have a president who has consistently lied to us (not to mention himself), and the consequence is unnecessarily dead Americans, Iraqis, and coaltion forces; a rapid decline in American popularity world-wide, and the loss of our credibility in almost every corner of the globe.
Someday history may insist that Bush account for this business; he may have to answer the question as to whether it was worth it. And to answer in the affirmative he will have to lie again. The Senate impeached Bill Clinton because he lied about an affair with a White House intern. Perhaps it is time to consider the impeachment of someone who deserves it.
Garrett500
Our involvement in Viet Nam began when the late president John F. Kennedy agreed to send a "few" military advisors to South Viet Nam in an effort to assist its regime to prevent the Viet Cong, and its allies in North Viet Nam, from converting a pseudo democracy in to a full blown communist country. That the two Viet Nams, formerly Indo China, had been one country prior to its partitioning was less important (to the opponents of communism)than the desire of Vietnamese citizens to effect reunification. That the real dynamics of Viet Nam were a smoldering civil war (with only a modicum of concern for which kind of government might evolve in its afertermath) was ignored when faced with the possibility that the so-called "Domino Theory" might, in Viet Nam, come to fruition. And when, after the aggressive activities in the Gulf of Tonkin, in the summer of 1965, Lyndon Johnson decided to up the military ante to full American involvement, it was only a matter of months before a complement of 500,000 of our Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force were clogging the streets of almost every city in South Viet Nam. And when the dying commenced, it did so in earnest. America would ultimately sacrifice fifty-thousand of its finest, and the Vietnamese would lose more than ten times that many.
And when it was all over South Viet Nam was merged with North Viet Nam, a bland communist regime was in charge, Indo Chinese brothers and sisters were reunited, and a vast majority of Americans were left wondering why such a conflict (which could not be called a war because war had never been officially declared)had been necessary. And, in the final analysis, most people agreed that it had not been necessary; that our involvement had been most ill-advised, that our losses of men and materiel (and money) were unconscionable, and that we had gained absolutely nothing during our twelve years of active military involvement in southeast Asia.
Interestingly, the conclusion of our engagement in Viet Nam was not the result of a military outcome. We had not won; they had not lost. They had not won, and we had lost only to the extent that we had accomplished nothing by being there. But the end came not because of a political or military result. We got out of Viet Nam because the voice of the American people was finally heard by the administration of president Gerald Ford. He got us out, even if he did not completely agree with the naysayers. He got us out because it was politically sage to respond to the majority. And the majority of Americans were more than fed-up. And votes hinged on who did what. And Gerald Ford aspired to a full term of his own. And staying the course in Viet Nam was not the way to assure victory. He lost anyway (to then governor Jimmy Carter), but probably nowhere near as badly as he would have had he elected to continue the conflict.
Sound familiar? Advance the clock almost thirty years, account for our brief memory, and observe our involvement in Iraq. And note, as historians often do, that history repeats itself; especially when the outcome is negative.
There are a few differences this time. Ike, JFK and even LBJ, were probably ingenuous in their concerns that the potential fall of South Viet Nam could be perilous to the future of Asia, and by extension to the U.S. Obviously they were wrong, but at least we can believe that they didn't know it. But George W. Bush did know that invading Iraq was unrelated to his so-called "war on terrorism", he knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (even as he loudly ranted that he did), and he was very well aware that whatever transpired in Iraq, it offered no discernible threat to the United States, or to any of its allies. Saddam could not even accurately direct his few Scuds to Israel. And Bush knew it. But he pulled the trigger anyway, and now, three years later, more than 3000 Americans have died in Iraq, countless Iraqis have succumbed, a functional coalition government is still not in place, and Bush continues to insist that our presence there is proper and necessary.
The differences between Viet Nam and Iraq are more a matter of dishonesty than anything else. We have a president who has consistently lied to us (not to mention himself), and the consequence is unnecessarily dead Americans, Iraqis, and coaltion forces; a rapid decline in American popularity world-wide, and the loss of our credibility in almost every corner of the globe.
Someday history may insist that Bush account for this business; he may have to answer the question as to whether it was worth it. And to answer in the affirmative he will have to lie again. The Senate impeached Bill Clinton because he lied about an affair with a White House intern. Perhaps it is time to consider the impeachment of someone who deserves it.
Garrett500
posted by Garrett W at 3:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home