Half-informed, Half-baked political commentary from yours truly
My father, who I used to consider a staunch Republican, has become convinced that the Bush administration will go down as one of the worst in the history of this country. I'm not so sure of that myself - 30 years ago, most people would have said that about Nixon, but by the time Nixon died in 1994, commentators were already pointing out what many people regard as more positive aspects of his presidency. Even the most unpopular presidents will probably be judged more favorably at some point in the future, because in the United States at least, people tend to remember the achievements of political leaders longer than their scandals and disasters. I doubt that Bush will be remembered as one of the great presidents, but I think it's still too early to say if he will be permanently consigned to the disaster category.
The comparison with Nixon brings me to the subject of comparing the war in Iraq to the war in Vietnam. Comparisons between the two are common and often overblown. For one thing, the total number of Americans deployed to Iraq and the total number of casualties are both considerably smaller than Vietnam. Vietnam was really a combination of a guerrilla war and a conventional war, with the guerrilla forces getting an almost constant steady stream of new soldiers and weapons, whereas Iraq is a more purely anti-guerrilla war. Iraqi insurgents certainly get help from several outside sources, but it is on a much smaller scale than in Vietnam. The entire political and military and cultural situation in Iraq is really so different from Vietnam that sometimes it seems silly to compare them at all.
I still think, though, that there are enough similarities between the two that comparisons are inevitable. In both cases, the armed forces of the United States got involved in a large-scale struggle against forces using guerrilla tactics and strategy, either by coming to the aid of an existing ally or by overthrowing a hostile government and attempting to replace it with a friendly one. In both cases, the guerrilla forces were much stronger and more effective than most of the political and military leaders in the United States expected. In both cases, the United States military found itself deploying more ground forces for a much longer period than they had originally anticipated or planned for. In Vietnam, the draft was used to keep new soldiers coming, while in Iraq the military has had to resort to sending soldiers in regular and national guard units back again and again for repeated tours of duty. In both cases, the war proved to be very divisive at home and created greater hostility toward the US in many countries overseas, including traditionally friendly and neutral countries. The final outcome of the war is one area where the two wars can not yet be compared, because one of them is still ongoing and with the outcome in doubt.
The opposition to the war in Iraq in the United States, while quite substantial, has been muted compared to Vietnam. I think one of the greatest reasons for this is the lack of a draft. The prospect of being drafted into an open-ended war gave millions of young American men and their families and friends a direct, personal reason to oppose Vietnam. In the case of Iraq, the percentage of the population that is directly involved, or might become directly involved, is a lot smaller. In one sense, this is good for the military, because an all-volunteer military is almost certainly going to have far fewer extremely disgruntled members who reduce its effectiveness and discipline - by the later part of the Vietnam war, discipline in the US Army in particular was probably at its worst level in the past century at least. On the other hand, the smaller percentage of Americans who have volunteered to serve in the military have had to carry a heavier burden, as have their families and close friends. This in itself is a tragedy, and I think it might become the source of great resentment which might have a future effect on politics and culture in the United States.
Even taking into account the lack of a direct personal stake in the war on the part of so many Americans, it still seems to me that the support for a really strong anti-war position - an uncompromising "get us out NOW!" - is much lower than in the later years of the Vietnam war. As unpopular as the war is, most people seem to hesitate at the idea of withdrawing. I think that one of the reasons for this has to do with a "lesson of Vietnam" that I rarely hear people bring up - the lesson of what happened after the United States withdrew from Vietnam.
By the early 1970s, when the US began reducing its military forces in Vietnam until ground troops were virtually gone by 1973, the idea that American involvement was the problem rather than the solution in Vietnam, and indeed in the rest of southeast Asia, had become widely accepted not only by the anti-war movement per se but also by the majority of the news media, the American political elite, and the public as a whole. It stood to reason that if the United States was the main cause of the problems in Southeast Asia, then things would improve if the United States left the region. This is not what happened, however. What happened was that South Vietnam was completely conquered by North Vietnam, accompanied by widespread persecution of anyone considered anti-Communist or connected with the former South Vietnamese regime. This persecution led to mass imprisonment, execution, and a massive flood of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from their homeland and seeking asylum in the United States and other countries. The bloodshed in Vietnam, however, paled by comparison to what happened in Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge succeeded in killing more than a million people and virtually depopulating Cambodia's cities and large towns in a relatively short time. Before long, the Khmer Rouge were attacked and defeated by the Vietnamese communists, who occupied Cambodia. In 1979, communist Vietnam fought a brief war against the communist People's Republic of China. And we should not forget Laos, where another communist government took power and created another flood of refugees who were looking for a better alternative than death and slave labor.
One thing that definitely did not happen in southeast Asia after the United States military left was a sudden outbreak of peace, justice, and better lives for the average person. I believe that this lesson has been absorbed at some level by many Americans. It can be summed up as "Just because we helped to create a mess doesn't mean that it will go away if we leave. In fact, it might get much worse."
My theory is that people who have taken this lesson from Vietnam are now convinced that things in Iraq, and possibly in the entire Middle East, will not improve if the United States leaves Iraq. In fact, if the experience in southeast Asia is any lesson to go by, they could easily get worse, both for many of the people actually living there and for the interests of the United States. I think that it is this belief, which is by no means an unfounded one, that helps make millions of Americans reluctant to contemplate a military withdrawal from Iraq.
The comparison with Nixon brings me to the subject of comparing the war in Iraq to the war in Vietnam. Comparisons between the two are common and often overblown. For one thing, the total number of Americans deployed to Iraq and the total number of casualties are both considerably smaller than Vietnam. Vietnam was really a combination of a guerrilla war and a conventional war, with the guerrilla forces getting an almost constant steady stream of new soldiers and weapons, whereas Iraq is a more purely anti-guerrilla war. Iraqi insurgents certainly get help from several outside sources, but it is on a much smaller scale than in Vietnam. The entire political and military and cultural situation in Iraq is really so different from Vietnam that sometimes it seems silly to compare them at all.
I still think, though, that there are enough similarities between the two that comparisons are inevitable. In both cases, the armed forces of the United States got involved in a large-scale struggle against forces using guerrilla tactics and strategy, either by coming to the aid of an existing ally or by overthrowing a hostile government and attempting to replace it with a friendly one. In both cases, the guerrilla forces were much stronger and more effective than most of the political and military leaders in the United States expected. In both cases, the United States military found itself deploying more ground forces for a much longer period than they had originally anticipated or planned for. In Vietnam, the draft was used to keep new soldiers coming, while in Iraq the military has had to resort to sending soldiers in regular and national guard units back again and again for repeated tours of duty. In both cases, the war proved to be very divisive at home and created greater hostility toward the US in many countries overseas, including traditionally friendly and neutral countries. The final outcome of the war is one area where the two wars can not yet be compared, because one of them is still ongoing and with the outcome in doubt.
The opposition to the war in Iraq in the United States, while quite substantial, has been muted compared to Vietnam. I think one of the greatest reasons for this is the lack of a draft. The prospect of being drafted into an open-ended war gave millions of young American men and their families and friends a direct, personal reason to oppose Vietnam. In the case of Iraq, the percentage of the population that is directly involved, or might become directly involved, is a lot smaller. In one sense, this is good for the military, because an all-volunteer military is almost certainly going to have far fewer extremely disgruntled members who reduce its effectiveness and discipline - by the later part of the Vietnam war, discipline in the US Army in particular was probably at its worst level in the past century at least. On the other hand, the smaller percentage of Americans who have volunteered to serve in the military have had to carry a heavier burden, as have their families and close friends. This in itself is a tragedy, and I think it might become the source of great resentment which might have a future effect on politics and culture in the United States.
Even taking into account the lack of a direct personal stake in the war on the part of so many Americans, it still seems to me that the support for a really strong anti-war position - an uncompromising "get us out NOW!" - is much lower than in the later years of the Vietnam war. As unpopular as the war is, most people seem to hesitate at the idea of withdrawing. I think that one of the reasons for this has to do with a "lesson of Vietnam" that I rarely hear people bring up - the lesson of what happened after the United States withdrew from Vietnam.
By the early 1970s, when the US began reducing its military forces in Vietnam until ground troops were virtually gone by 1973, the idea that American involvement was the problem rather than the solution in Vietnam, and indeed in the rest of southeast Asia, had become widely accepted not only by the anti-war movement per se but also by the majority of the news media, the American political elite, and the public as a whole. It stood to reason that if the United States was the main cause of the problems in Southeast Asia, then things would improve if the United States left the region. This is not what happened, however. What happened was that South Vietnam was completely conquered by North Vietnam, accompanied by widespread persecution of anyone considered anti-Communist or connected with the former South Vietnamese regime. This persecution led to mass imprisonment, execution, and a massive flood of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from their homeland and seeking asylum in the United States and other countries. The bloodshed in Vietnam, however, paled by comparison to what happened in Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge succeeded in killing more than a million people and virtually depopulating Cambodia's cities and large towns in a relatively short time. Before long, the Khmer Rouge were attacked and defeated by the Vietnamese communists, who occupied Cambodia. In 1979, communist Vietnam fought a brief war against the communist People's Republic of China. And we should not forget Laos, where another communist government took power and created another flood of refugees who were looking for a better alternative than death and slave labor.
One thing that definitely did not happen in southeast Asia after the United States military left was a sudden outbreak of peace, justice, and better lives for the average person. I believe that this lesson has been absorbed at some level by many Americans. It can be summed up as "Just because we helped to create a mess doesn't mean that it will go away if we leave. In fact, it might get much worse."
My theory is that people who have taken this lesson from Vietnam are now convinced that things in Iraq, and possibly in the entire Middle East, will not improve if the United States leaves Iraq. In fact, if the experience in southeast Asia is any lesson to go by, they could easily get worse, both for many of the people actually living there and for the interests of the United States. I think that it is this belief, which is by no means an unfounded one, that helps make millions of Americans reluctant to contemplate a military withdrawal from Iraq.