We’ve been told by Bush and his Republican sycophants that we can only lose in Iraq if we withdraw. This inane talking point accomplishes two things—it provides cover for the daily disastrous news from Iraq and it defines withdrawal as defeat. But Bush goes even further when he claims that this was the lesson we learned from Vietnam. On this, the 35th anniversary of the signing of the draft of the Paris Peace Accords with Vietnam, the history of that period has never been more relevant.
Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.
Given his statements with regard to the matter, I’d like to get a sense from President Bush what victory in Vietnam would have looked like. The idea behind our military involvement in Vietnam was the "Domino Theory"; if communism was allowed to take root in Vietnam, it would spread to all of Southeast Asia and from there the rest of the world.[1] So presumably, a successful war in Vietnam would have prevented the implementation of a communist economic policy in that country. So in concept, the Vietnam War was a military conflict about political ideology.
But isn’t what we really want in any foreign nation a stable, pro-American government? Our leaders often mouth platitudes about spreading democracy, but when it comes right down to it our foreign policy is based more upon what’s in the best interests of the United States than what’s in the best interests of people in other nations. (I don’t disagree that this should be the policy of our leaders; however I believe that the destinies of everyone inhabiting this planet are intrinsically linked, so what’s in the best interests of other people is often also in the best interests of the U.S. We aren’t playing a zero sum game and I believe it is possible for everyone to win.) So if a nation has a pro-American[2] dictator, rather than a democracy that is less pro-American, or even actively anti-American, then it is U.S. policy to support the dictator.[3] The ideology is truly less important than the business interests.[4]
Given these guidelines, it seems that what we really wanted for Vietnam is a stable government that permits us access to their natural resources and markets. The actual form of government they put in place is less important than how that government deals with the United States on an economic level.
(Was communism the true evil, or was the "evil" of the Soviet Union the fact that they didn’t offer a market for U.S. made goods, permit U.S. corporations to exploit their natural resources or provide them with a workforce of cheap labor for manufacturing? Because when it comes right down to it, communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive. One is an economic system while the other is a political system. Likewise capitalism and democracy do not necessarily go hand in hand. In fact, given the questionable results from our own elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004 along with the readily apparent corrupting influence on politics and policy of massive corporate spending, it could be argued that capitalism is just as harmful to democracy as communism. The trick is how the relationship between the political and economic systems is structured.[5])
But with regard to Vietnam—that nation is now a trade partner of the United States. We import their goods and raw materials and export ours to them. Vietnam is not a destabilizing force in Southeast Asia and represents no military threat to any other nation in that region (or the rest of the world for that matter). So given our relationship in this regard, what possible outcome from the Vietnam War could have been a significant preference to the current situation? For the welfare of the citizens of this country, the only interest is a nation that is not a military threat or a destabilizing force.[6] Vietnam is neither. And our poor trade relationship with Vietnam in the years following the war was due to the trade embargo we placed on that nation. A case of sour grapes, if you will.
So what is it? What grand utopia would we have created in Vietnam if only we had stayed a few more decades and thrown tens of thousands more young Americans into a meat grinder?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] I never understood this argument. Economic policy is not like a plague; it does not spread on its own. People have to choose to implement it or have it thrust upon them. It seems to me that the Domino Theory comes from a place of uncertainty regarding the merits of democracy and capitalism. If communism is truly such a dreadful economic policy, then it would fail on its own (which it has) and it would not be desirable to the masses. Vietnam was not a military threat to its neighbors. It is unlikely that communism would spread from Vietnam unless it was viewed as a success and benefited the Vietnamese people.
[2] Pro-American almost always means pro-American business. Access to natural resources and markets is what our government has most zealously tried to protect through its foreign policy over the past century or so.
[3] See Iran, Shah. The subsequent revolution and implementation of an Islamic theocracy hostile to the U.S. left the U.S. in much worse shape than it was before the Shah was installed in a U.S.-backed coup.
[4] It’s almost always the case that money trumps ideology. Rupert Murdoch, militant capitalist, ignored any anti-communist views he has in order to do business with China. Likewise Google, a fairly progressive company in many respects, conceded to China’s demands that they permit censorship and restrict internet access for the public in exchange for access to that market.
[5] Given its tangential nature this discussion will be saved for a later diary.
[6] There are humanitarian concerns that are likely to find majority support in this country and in general, it is my opinion that a nation with an extremely poor human rights record is per se unstable. However in the strict sense, the interests of American citizens are protected vis-à-vis Vietnam as long as that nation poses no military or economic threat to the U.S. Moreover, it’s difficult to conceive a situation where humanitarian concerns justify all out warfare in a particular nation. It’s a guarantee that U.S. military action in Vietnam did nothing to improve the human rights situation there.