Mick Hartley

Politics and Culture

recent posts

email me

Not Vietnam

Charles Krauthammer on why Iraq isn’t Vietnam:

For all the Vietnam nostalgia at the Washington march, things are different today. In Vietnam it could never be plausibly argued that Ho Chi Minh was training commandos to bring down skyscrapers in New York. Today, however, Americans know that this is precisely what our jihadist enemies have pledged to do.

Moreover, Vietnam offered a seeming middle way between immediate withdrawal on the one hand and staying the course on the other: negotiations, which in the end did take place. Today there is no one to negotiate with, no middle ground, not even an apparent plausible compromise. The only choices are to succeed in establishing a self-sufficient, democratic Iraq or to call an abject retreat that not only gives Iraq over to the tender mercies of people who specialize in blowing up innocents but also makes it a base of operations for worldwide jihad.

The very fact that Cindy Sheehan and her WWP comrades are so enthusiastic for the latter outcome tells you how difficult it will be to turn widespread discontent about the war into a mainstream antiwar movement.

Posted in

One response to “Not Vietnam”

  1. DA Avatar
    DA

    You wrote: “The only choices are to succeed in establishing a self-sufficient, democratic Iraq …”
    That “choice” is non-existant.
    The concept of war as a way to “establish” anything is flawed. “War” doesn’t “establish” anything. “War” is meant to destroy. To annihilate.
    To apply the concept of war to a goal other than total annihilation, is to use the wrong tool for the job.
    The parallel to Vietnam is clear. Politicians tried applying war in a limited fashion to create an opportunity for a democratic Vietnam. Wrong tool for the job. Net result was failure to acheive the stated goal. We’re probably closer to converting Vietnam to a democracy today, through economic and social means than we ever came close to with bombs and bullets. And, NONE of the threats of the storied domino-effect ever came to pass. It was a lie, just as politicians lied about WMDs and the like more recently.
    Same result will occur with Iraq. Most of the planet is likely aware that the U.S. has the capacity to annihilate any enemy in the world. But all our conventional bulllets and bombs cannot grow a democracy, unless we intend to simply and totally annihilate every human being who is not receptive to our form of gov’t, as our way of “establishing” one.
    Looked at a map of the region? Just like Vietnam was surrounded by nations opposed to democracy, so too is Iraq. Are we prepared to annihilate Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia? Or, shall we expend a decade or more, and another 60,000+/- young American lives to RE-teach ignorant politicians yet again, that there is no such thing as fighting a “war” to “establish”, or build, or even to simply defend. Because “war” is about destruction … complete and total destruction … annihilation.
    Rums-failed and company got it wrong. Sure, America can force a democracy in / on Iraq. The only “choice” we have to make is what price are we willing to pay to get it done. Obviously, millionaire politicians, who never have to fight themselves, or send THEIR children, are willing to committ bullets and bombs and young American lives to impossible tasks.
    In Iraq our enemies do not have to defeat us in order to win. But, if we are to truly win our goal, we must first annihilate all of them … and “them” includes Syrians, Iranians, Saudi’s, Pakies, etc, etc, etc. BushCo is not risking world war for a democracy in Iraq. BushCo is risking it for access to the last of the oil. To believe otherwise is to be as stupid as politicians would like you to be.
    Politicians sent us to Vietnam to be killed for nothing. They are doing it again, today, in Iraq. The parallels are many, and they are real, and they are true.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to DA Cancel reply