“Iraqi Prime Minister Lambastes U.S.,” read the headline in Wednesday afternoon’s online edition of the Washington Post. Nouri al-Maliki was “lashing out” at U.S. policymakers for suggesting they might be working on a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Mr. Maliki said such timetables were the product of stateside Republican electioneering and had nothing to do with reality on the ground in Iraq. He might be right; a story posted earlier Wednesday quoted Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq. Gen. Westmorl, er, Casey, in a nod toward the White House, said he could foresee U.S. forces withdrawing on a 12-18 month timeline, but nodding toward Baghdad, said that he might request more soldiers be deployed to Iraq in the meantime.
Another story in the Post said there’s a petition circulating in the military, asking Congress to support a “prompt withdrawal” of all troops from Iraq. At the top of the front page of Monday’s New York Times was a story labeled “Military Analysis.” The headline read, “To Stand or Fall in Baghdad” and the subhead said, “For American Commanders, This Is It: Securing the Capital Is the Key to Their Mission.”
Three and a half years and 140,000 American troops into this war and we have stories about how we cannot control the capital city. Three and a half years into World War II, we were accepting Germany’s surrender. “We’ll have this thing fixed soon, but for now we might need more troops” is Vietnam talk.
We’ve all heard the quagmire comparisons, but the more one thinks about the similarities, the more depressing the analogy becomes. Vietnam had been a festering foreign policy sore for 19 years when the Johnson administration concocted the bogus “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” as an excuse to escalate hostilities. Iraq had been a festering sore for 13 years when the Bush administration concocted the bogus “Weapons of Mass Destruction” threat as an excuse to escalate hostilities.
Vietnam had Ngo Dinh Diem, a tyrant, although the Johnson people called him a patriot. Iraq has Ahmed Chalabi, a would-be tyrant (the only pitfall we seem to have avoided so far), although the Bush people called him a patriot.
Vietnam had Communists; Iraq has terrorists. We said we fought Communists in Vietnam so we wouldn’t have to fight them at home; it was called the “Domino Theory.” We say we’re fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them at home; it’s called the “Global War on Terror.”
Vietnamese forces attacked U.S. troops on the Vietnamese Tet holiday; the attacks were tactically unsuccessful, but convinced Americans that the war was unwinnable. Iraqi forces stepped up attacked on U.S. troops during the recent Muslim holy month of Ramadan, inflicting the heaviest losses in two years and inspiring commentators and politicians from across the spectrum to admit this war is unwinnable.
In the Vietnam era, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ran COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program), aimed at limiting the Constitutional rights of Americans who disagreed with the war. In the Iraq era, we have the Department of Homeland Security monitoring our phone calls, our bank records and a host of other intrusions we won’t know about for another decade.
During the Vietnam war, we had to endure nightly broadcasts of grisly images of dead and wounded soldiers. During the Iraq war, we have to endure nightly broadcasts of grisly images of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.
There is a difference, however, between these wars and it makes the Vietnam war seem luxurious compared to today’s war: Vietnam was an ideological war. Vietnam was a stupid war, a needless war, but it was fought in the larger context of the Cold War of capitalism versus Communism.
Iraq is a stupid war and needless, too, but it is not and never was about ideology. Iraq was invaded and occupied to ensure continued access to the oil beneath its sand. It is fought in the larger context of The Resource Wars, which will continue to be fought over oil. Soon we’ll be fighting over water.
The Luxury of Vietnam
“Iraqi Prime Minister Lambastes U.S.,” read the headline in Wednesday afternoon’s online edition of the Washington Post. Nouri al-Maliki was “lashing out” at U.S. policymakers for suggesting they might be working on a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Mr. Maliki said such timetables were the product of stateside Republican electioneering and had nothing to do with reality on the ground in Iraq. He might be right; a story posted earlier Wednesday quoted Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq. Gen. Westmorl, er, Casey, in a nod toward the White House, said he could foresee U.S. forces withdrawing on a 12-18 month timeline, but nodding toward Baghdad, said that he might request more soldiers be deployed to Iraq in the meantime.
Another story in the Post said there’s a petition circulating in the military, asking Congress to support a “prompt withdrawal” of all troops from Iraq. At the top of the front page of Monday’s New York Times was a story labeled “Military Analysis.” The headline read, “To Stand or Fall in Baghdad” and the subhead said, “For American Commanders, This Is It: Securing the Capital Is the Key to Their Mission.”
Three and a half years and 140,000 American troops into this war and we have stories about how we cannot control the capital city. Three and a half years into World War II, we were accepting Germany’s surrender. “We’ll have this thing fixed soon, but for now we might need more troops” is Vietnam talk.
We’ve all heard the quagmire comparisons, but the more one thinks about the similarities, the more depressing the analogy becomes. Vietnam had been a festering foreign policy sore for 19 years when the Johnson administration concocted the bogus “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” as an excuse to escalate hostilities. Iraq had been a festering sore for 13 years when the Bush administration concocted the bogus “Weapons of Mass Destruction” threat as an excuse to escalate hostilities.
Vietnam had Ngo Dinh Diem, a tyrant, although the Johnson people called him a patriot. Iraq has Ahmed Chalabi, a would-be tyrant (the only pitfall we seem to have avoided so far), although the Bush people called him a patriot.
Vietnam had Communists; Iraq has terrorists. We said we fought Communists in Vietnam so we wouldn’t have to fight them at home; it was called the “Domino Theory.” We say we’re fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them at home; it’s called the “Global War on Terror.”
Vietnamese forces attacked U.S. troops on the Vietnamese Tet holiday; the attacks were tactically unsuccessful, but convinced Americans that the war was unwinnable. Iraqi forces stepped up attacked on U.S. troops during the recent Muslim holy month of Ramadan, inflicting the heaviest losses in two years and inspiring commentators and politicians from across the spectrum to admit this war is unwinnable.
In the Vietnam era, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ran COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program), aimed at limiting the Constitutional rights of Americans who disagreed with the war. In the Iraq era, we have the Department of Homeland Security monitoring our phone calls, our bank records and a host of other intrusions we won’t know about for another decade.
During the Vietnam war, we had to endure nightly broadcasts of grisly images of dead and wounded soldiers. During the Iraq war, we have to endure nightly broadcasts of grisly images of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.
There is a difference, however, between these wars and it makes the Vietnam war seem luxurious compared to today’s war: Vietnam was an ideological war. Vietnam was a stupid war, a needless war, but it was fought in the larger context of the Cold War of capitalism versus Communism.
Iraq is a stupid war and needless, too, but it is not and never was about ideology. Iraq was invaded and occupied to ensure continued access to the oil beneath its sand. It is fought in the larger context of The Resource Wars, which will continue to be fought over oil. Soon we’ll be fighting over water.
© Mark Floegel, 2006