Balkinization: Why Iraq is Worse than Vietnam

Why Iraq is Worse than Vietnam

Sandy Levinson

"Henry," responding to my previous posting, writes that "there are no senators like Al Gore Sr. or Fulbright now, but the gutless Democrats are called "liberals." (For those of you too young to remember, Gore and Fulbright opposed the war in Vietnam in terms that no Democratic senator dares do today with respect to Iraq.)"

I'm not filled with admiration for contemporary Democrats, but don't we have to concede that Iraq is altogether more difficult than Vietnam? I was adamantly opposed to the Vietnam War; for better or worse, I had no compunctions about advocating an American defeat. Like many people of the time, including Gore and Fulbright, I thought we had no business being in Vietnam, that justice might well be on the side of the North Vietnamese (a view I would be more hesitant to affirm these days), and, in any event, that the costs of unilateral withdrawal would be relatively modest, save for the reputations of those who got us into the war in the first place.

I was opposed to the American invasion, but does that opposition really generate a given position for the future. I know of now serious person who is "rooting" for the insurgency in a way that many of us (again I feel a need to add "for better or worse") were either rooting for the Viet Cong or, at the least, were genuinely indifferent about a Viet Cong-North Vietnamese victory. The people leading the insurgency are, I have little doubt, truly terrible and promise nothing but further misery for the people of Iraq should they prevail. The Shi'ites most likely to come to power are little better than the Taliban, as Frank Rich argues in today's Times. The Sunnis who are willing to kill and maim innocent men, women, and children can hardly be viewed in heroic terms.

This does not mean we have to "stay the course." I am increasingly persuaded that Rep. Murtha is right after all and that withdrawal is the best of several terrible options. But there is a reason that no one in either party has genuinely been able to develop a coherent policy. The only thing one can be confident of is that the present Administration is led by a group of dishonest mountebanks unable to admit the magnitude of their incompetence. Justified rage does not, alas, constitute a policy that we can really rally around. I'm old enough to have taken place in marches in New York and Washington calling for unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam. Some of the marchers, wisely or not, flew the Viet Cong flag. Even if I were willing to march in behalf of unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, I would be appalled beyond belief to accept as a legitimate fellow marcher anyone waving the flag of any of the insurgent groups, including, for that matter, Iran (even if I certainly oppose the Administration's threats of military force against that country).

Just as there are some who yearn for the relative simplicity of the Cold War, one might even yearn, in a perverse way, for the clarity of the Vietnam War. So the problem with current Democratic leaders cannot be reduced to lack of guts. Even were there no crass domestic political considerations, it would still be difficult to figure out exactly what the US should do now.

Posted 10:54 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

Great post.

# posted by

humblelawstudent : 11:34 PM

I know what the U.S should do: send 1/3 of our troops home now; send another 1/3 back into Afghanistan, to shore up that country, and contain the Taliban; and keep the remaining 1/3 in Northern Iraq, to insulate and nourish the Kurds (Iraq’s going to be partitioned, one way or another, and the Kurds are out best hope to maintain stability in the region).

This is a variation of what Murtha suggested. Let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out between them, pull back out of sight, but close enough to quickly send troops back there, in case Iran gets frisky, and tries to step into the civil war on the Shiite side.

This course of action would also be a face-saver for Bush: he could say we didn’t cut and run, we merely re-deployed. It would be good for the Democrats (if they step up and push for it). It would be good for the armed forces (less soldiers stressed out in harms’ way; the quicker they will recuperate, and the sooner we will have a robust fighting force in place).

# posted by

Jack Drinker : 12:58 AM

One of the problems is that the Bush administration has compleatly hijacked our langage.

We have not been "at War" since May or June 2003. We are in an occupation. The war was brilliantly executed and lasted about a month. The occupation has been botched beyond belief.

The neocons want it both ways.. they want to stiffle decent by being at war, but they dont declare war because that complicates things for them. This has worked out really well for them and almost noone critisizes their mastery of orwellian techniques.

Bush loves being the "war president" He started calling himself that shortly after 9-11 and he says it with a gleam in his eye. But it is just another lie in order to stiffle decent and give him more power.

Vietnam was more of a real war. Still undeclared but there was a real governement on the other sides of the lines.

I dont know if you remember, but it was unfashionable in "hawkish" circles to call vietnam a war. One way to rattle the establishment was to call it a war. That didnt become popular until later. It was a "police action" as was Korea.

What if you brought back a founding father... say Jefferson and tried to explain current events to him. You tell him we are in the 3rd year of a war in Iraq. He would ask who is the leader of this Iraq and how many troops do they have. He would be dumbfounded that we are still "at war" with a country with a leader thats been on trial for a year and which has had no army in the field for 3 years.

He woud be dumbfounded. I know I am....

(BTW.. later I would have to explain how last week our senitors comprimised with the president to allow officially sanctioned torture. I am pretty sure his head would explode at that point.)

# posted by

WinterBear TrueHeart : 1:03 AM

Iran is not North Vietnam. The government is less popular. The level of education of the populace is much higher. I'd pick Iran over Israel in a flash. not in defense of the government but in preference for the possibilities of the culture: politically, and socially.

It's not about flag waving one way or the other- that's for old men and teenagers- it's about an intelligent understanding of the culture as a whole, of the possibilities and dangers. People took Ho Chi Minh seriously, but not Viet Nam.

I take Iran very seriously.

# posted by

D. Ghirlandaio : 2:45 AM

"the costs of unilateral withdrawal would be relatively modest"

Makes me wonder what you consider "costs", and whose costs you think worth considering.

# posted by

Brett : 6:56 AM

brett, i may be wrong, but your post seems to insinuate that you are referring to prof. levinson's view of the iraq conflict. if so, please read the post again. it seems to me that the quoted phrase, "the cost of unilateral withdrawal would be modest" refers not to his present thoughts about iraq, but his thoughts in hindsight about vietnam.

# posted by

phg : 7:23 AM

I think the Iraq situation requires re-thinking our entire Middle East policy, not just our policy in Iraq. If someone made me President tomorrow (hah!), I'd go to the French and say "I want your help in negotiating our way out of this. Here's what I have in mind:

1. Divide Iraq into 3 regions: Kurd, Sunni, Shiite.

2. The Kurdish region becomes an independent nation with Kirkuk or Mosul as its capital.

3. The Sunni area would be annexed and incorporated into Jordan, preferably; by Syria if that's not possible.

4. The Shiite area would be absorbed by Iran. In return, Iran would cede to the Kurds the Kurdish areas of Iran adjacent to the new Kurdistan. Iran would also agree to abide by all IAEA requirements with respect to its nuclear program.

5. Anyone in any of the three regions, plus Kurds in Turkey, would have one year in which to leave voluntarily. The government of the area which they are leaving would pay those emigrating for any immovable property. This would be subject to arbitration by, say, the Algerians."

That's the basic outline; there could be lots of maneuvering in the details. One obvious objection is the need to deal with the current government of Iran. It may be desirable to proceed with the first 3 elements and delay implementing the 4th until someone sane takes over in Iran. OTOH, this may be a Nixon/China situation in Iran -- only the nutball can do the deal under their domestic politics.

I think I get the prize for the most radical proposal. Uh, what was the prize again?

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:30 AM

But an independent Kurdistan will be at war with Turkey. How that will turn out, what with Turkey being our ally via NATO and thus theoretically able to summon our assistance against our Kurdish friends, I daren't guess.

There are 4 reasons why I don't think this will happen:

1. Turkey will want Kurdistan as a buffer against Iran.

2. Kurdistan will need an outlet for its oil. Turkey is the easiest and most obvious candidate.

3. The Kurds in Turkey are the source of much of the friction. They will have a pretty strong incentive to leave, thereby removing that friction.

4. A Turkish occupation of Kurdistan would create the same insurgency problems we have, plus it would incur the opposition of Iran and Jordan/Syria.

I think Iraqi Sunnistan will merge -- if at all -- with Syria (which is governed by another Baathist regime) and not with Jordan.

I think you're right. It's worth trying the other way first, though.

# posted by

Mark Field : 8:20 PM

3. The Kurds in Turkey are the source of much of the friction. They will have a pretty strong incentive to leave, thereby removing that friction.

The numbers of Turkish Kurds, and the scale of the area in which their population is concentrated (southeastern Turkey) don't encourage me to believe many would leave, or that the friction would be removed.

# posted by

Nell : 9:12 PM

The numbers of Turkish Kurds, and the scale of the area in which their population is concentrated (southeastern Turkey) don't encourage me to believe many would leave, or that the friction would be removed.

Very true. However, I left out a 5th point above:

5. Kurdistan will be very vulnerable between Turkey and Iran. It will need to be careful to play off one against the other. That will minimize Kurdistan's incentive to encourage ethnic Kurds in Turkey, especially after they are offered the chance to leave.

# posted by

Mark Field : 10:01 PM

TC, you're right about the current situation. I think, though, that an actual, independent Kurdistan would change the way both sides see their interests.

As a part of Iraq, Kurdistan lacks the real interest in itself as a nation state which it would gain with independence. Right now it feels protected by the US from Iran and somewhat insulated from reprisals from Turkey. My plan would remove both of these "securities" and thus make the Kurds more cautious (assuming they're rational).

In addition, as I said, there would be a strong incentive for the Kurds in Turkey to leave. In practical effect, failure to leave means that they are subject to the Turkish government without recourse. Kurdistan could hardly accomplish much against Turkey, so would have to proceed very carefully in the event of claims of mistreatment against ethnic Kurds. Hopefully, as well, the Turks will appreciate the advantages of Kurdistan as a buffer against the new Iran and will reduce their oppression.

Frankly, I think Turkey is bluffing in its threats to invade. It would face a difficult fight and strong international and Iranian resistance. It can't occupy the region -- that's too big for it to swallow.

It may take some time, but I think the new facts will move both sides to a recognition that they do have common interests. And from the US perspective, disputes like this just aren't that significant, so our own Realpolitik can allow us to declare a plague on both their houses if need be. Since my real interest is getting the US out of a morass, that's a cynical response I'm willing to make.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:33 AM

TC, I certainly wouldn't claim to be an expert on the subject. However, there are some recent books you might find helpful:

David McDowell, A Modern History of the Kurds

Denise Natali, The Kurds and the State

Hope that helps.

# posted by

Mark Field : 8:51 PM