Letters to the Editor
cabdriver
Published Letters: 342 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Iraq/Vietnam
[Read the article: What John McCain didn't learn in Vietnam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm open to hearing an ongoing historical debate about all aspects of modern Vietnamese history, the involvement of outside nations, and the war. I've read more than one history of the American military effort in Vietnam that seeks to call into question many of what have become the most widely accepted tenets about the war. I have no problems with honest attempts at historical re-assessment, per se.
But I question the relevance of a historical review of the Vietnam conflict that seeks to bring those insights into play regarding the present situation in Iraq, in any but the most general sense (for example, insights that make note of the principle of "home field advantage", which is common to both conflicts.)
It's imperative to keep in mind that there are actually very few specific analogies to be drawn between the course of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
In South Vietnam, there was a pre-existing friendly political regime playing host to the U.S. diplomatic and military missions. A large fraction of the population had cordial familiarity with various attributes of Western culture that could provide common ground- the French language and the religion of Roman Catholicism, for instance. There was only one armed adversary for the US and RVN to contend with- the Viet Minh, supported by Ho's regime in the North. We were welcomed in by the official political regime, we didn't simply invade, promptly overturn a sitting government, clear the slate, and replace it with a political arrangement that accorded with American preferences. A pre-existing state of armed conflict against an armed resistance seeking to overthrow the "friendly" national government was already ongoing. The amount of direct American military involvement began at a very low-key level, and remained that way for several years. Even after the American military presence had grown to several hundred thousand troops, at no point did any RVN government, or faction of the official government, ever even hint that the US armed effort had overstayed its welcome.
Questions of the legitimacy of the succession of various RVN regimes or the level of popular support for the American presence aside, that much is clear.
None of the above historical conditions- NONE of them- apply to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq in the years since then- which was, and is, driven almost exclusively from outside, by the directives of U.S. president George W. Bush and his minions.
(This is a re-post of an earlier letter of mine on the same topic. Apologies for the repeat, but I think that folks should beware of being drawn into unproductive historical debates with McCain supporters on the long-past Vietnam conflict, as if re-heating a history debate on that event should have any relevance either in determining U.S. policy in the Middle East of the 21st century, or in choosing the next president.
I hope that Iraq War critics have the basic strategic sense to recall the military maxim "is that really the hill you want to fight on?" Because it seems to me that Bushite Republicans these days would welcome the distraction of getting bogged down in the old debates over Vietnam- they'd rather dispute any terrain other than the Here and Now.)
-
@publius26
[Read the article: What John McCain didn't learn in Vietnam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]McCain and others argued that we were not fighting the war correctly, we continued using incorrect tactics to manage the war. Thankfully, the Bush administration finally gave in and issued the troop surge and change in tactics that is finally winning the war in Iraq for us.
The locals haven't been defeated. They're just re-loading.
They live there, we don't.