Iraq is not Vietnam

That's what the Iraq hawks keep telling us, anyway.  You know what?  They're right.

The truth is, the Vietnam War was different from the Iraq War in many important respects, not least of which was the fact that the Vietnam War actually made a certain amount of sense.  After all, the point of the Vietnam War was to fight Communism, and there were actually Communists in Vietnam.

Follow me below the fold as I create a precise 1960s analog to Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

The year is 1965.  For reasons that seem good to them, LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Robert MacNamara, and McGeorge Bundy all start pushing the idea that Spain's fascist dictator, Francisco Franco, is secretly allied to the Viet Cong.  The American people are warned in apocalyptic terms that Franco is planning to attack the United States, and that the threat he poses is so terrible and so imminent that the only thing to do is invade Spain and overthrow him.  The American people (and the U.N. General Assembly) are further assured that there is credible evidence linking Franco to the Viet Cong, and to the Tonkin Gulf incident, but that the evidence is top secret so nobody is allowed to see it.  A subservient media does not question this claim.

Anybody who questions the idea of Franco being in cahoots with the V.C., or wonders whether invading Spain will actually do anything to further the War on Communism, is denounced as soft on Communism, unAmerican, and unpatriotic.

So, the United States invades Spain, topples Franco, and sets up a mindbogglingly corrupt and incompetent occupation government.  An anti-American insurgency starts up and quickly gains strength, and the Soviets, sensing an opportunity, start supplying covert aid to the insurgents.  LBJ insists that Spain is "the central front in the War on Communism", and there can be no talk of withdrawing.  Meanwhile, elections are held, resulting in a puppet Spanish government dominated by Basque separatists, Catalan separatists, and anti-American religious fanatics.

Three and a half years into the occupation, Spain is in the midst of a bloody civil war, with the American troops caught in the middle.  As public opinion turns strongly against the Spanish War, LBJ and his followers ratchet up the rhetoric, denouncing their critics as defeatists who want the Communists to beat America.

And that's where we are.  The analogy isn't exact, of course, because the election cycles are out of synch, and LBJ would be getting most of his criticism from within his own party and most of his support from the opposition party.  But the larger point is clear: Iraq is not Vietnam; Iraq is far, far stupider that Vietnam could ever have been.

•  I'm gonna risk repeating a prior post:

  James P. Pfiffner
  Parallels between the United States’ interventions in Vietnam and Iraq

  Despite crucial differences in geography, climate, history, culture, ethnicity, religion, politics, and international context; there remain disturbing parallels between the United States’ interventions in Vietnam and in Iraq. Some of these parallels are listed below.

  1. Both wars seen as noble causes and each justified as part of a much broader war

  2. Misleading statements about the reasons for intervention

  3. Understatement of costs and avoidance of budgetary transparency

  4. Indigenous opposition views U.S. intervention as a legacy of their colonial past

  5. Initial U.S. lack of appreciation of the effectiveness and tenacity of the enemy.

  6. Initial U.S. misperception of the nature of the war: counterinsurgency

  7. Once U.S. troops are committed, U.S. international credibility said to be at stake

  8. Official U.S. optimism about the outcome despite deteriorating situation on the ground

  9. Lack of a sufficiently legitimate indigenous government

  10. Lack of credible indigenous military capacity

  11. Broad international condemnation of U.S. actions

  Most important difference:

  The Vietnamese just wanted the U.S. to leave.

  Radical Muslims want to use Iraq to fuel and legitimate a holy war against the U.S.

  by MajorFlaw on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 06:05:11 AM PDT

  •  Both wars were stupid ...

    but the most important difference is that Vietnam was not located in a strategically important and unstable region. Iraq, however, is in an extremely important and unstable region of the world. This is why things there will probably get even worse if the U.S. pulls all of its troops out.

    by John Driscoll on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 06:31:33 AM PDT

  •  Agree, except for the last statement

    The Muslims want us to leave, just like the Vietnamese did.

    The Vietnamese wanted us to leave just like they wanted the French colonialists, the Japanese occupation forces during WWII, and the Chinese who occupied their country for centuries to leave.

    Maybe it has something to do with a desire for self-determination.

    by truong son traveler on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 06:39:17 AM PDT

  •  Methinks you are both right

    The parallels are indeed sickening to those of us who experienced the gut-wrenching and helpless  sensations associated with the Nam debacle and mistakenly believed that America would not commit such folly again in our lifetimes.  But as the diarist suggests, there are major differences with respect to the means by which we initiated our involvement in the two conflicts.  In Vietnam, we jumped into the middle of a conflict already in progress, with the intention of "helping" one side - unfortunately, a side with serious legitimacy deficiencies that grew painfully obvious as events progressed.  Only with escalation did the war become our war.  In Iraq, we deliberately started the hostilities at a time and place of our own choosing, nevertheless sowing the seeds of our own failure before firing the first shot.  Now we are a weaker country - less powerful, more divided internally, and less trusted and respected in the world.

    by tomhodukavich on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 09:49:01 PM PDT

    •  The end result...

      Now we are a weaker country - less powerful, more divided internally, and less trusted and respected in the world.

      That's a very good outcome, given our history of overt & covert foreign intervention.

      by skrekk on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 08:04:53 AM PDT

      •  No, that's not good

        I don't view Uncle Sam as the world's oppressor; perhaps you and some other Kossacks do, but I suspect they constitute a vocal minority.  He's more like a well-meaning but schizophrenic and luxury-loving giant, for the most part trying to do right but occasionally veering into tragic misdirection while following the commands of those ever-present inner voices.  Despite Sam's flaws, my kids need this guy to remain capable of facing down the true bullies on the world's playground.

        by tomhodukavich on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 11:01:01 PM PDT

•  As the proprietor

  of ProgressiveHistorians, an online community dedicated to the intersection of history and politics, I would be honored if you would cross-post this excellent diary there.

  by Nonpartisan on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 08:26:27 PM PDT

  •  Thanks

    Glad to.

    by Thomas Kalinowski on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 02:51:03 PM PDT

•  Feel free to correct if I'm wrong here

  because everything I know about these wars, I learned from Hollywood.
  It seems to me that during Viet Nam, the new guy would show up, the stoner short timers would tell them how to survive the first few weeks and then the story proceeds from there.  
  Someone tell me if this correct.  In Viet Nam, the tours lasted a year as well, but wasn't it individuals being rotated in, combining seasoned and new boots, thus achieving some continuity?
  In Iraq, it seems the changes are wholesale, thus most of the knowledge and experience packed up and left with the troops, essentially leaving the new guys starting from scratch.
  Iraq is no Viet Nam, it's more like Groundhogs Day.

  by God loves goats on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 08:40:37 PM PDT

•  As they use to say on the old SNL

  It's Saturday night and Francisco Franco is still dead.

  And yes Well done diary.

  by JML9999 on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 10:39:57 PM PDT

•  And France would be part of the "Axis of Evil"

  along with Sweden.

  by gogol on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 11:39:36 PM PDT