Do Americans Understand Iraq/Vietnam Parallels?

Joe Bell

Politicians from both major parties have taken to invoking a phrase that has become as tiring to hear as it is self-defeating to utter: It’s time to send a message to the Iraqi government that America’s military commitment to that nation is not open-ended.

The most recent politician to board this rattletrap bandwagon is Senator John Warner, R-Va., who said he might support Democrat legislation ordering President Bush to begin bringing troops home from Iraq if the president does not set a timetable for withdrawal. That would be a huge mistake.

It’s time for blunt talk about this “send a message” drivel. First, there is no doubt that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is making little progress in tying together the factions that comprise Iraqi society. His lack of success may have something to do with his own inability to persuade disparate groups to come together or it may be that any group of elected officials would have difficulty establishing a stable, democratic government during a war. Whatever the reason, the premature departure of U.S. forces will not accelerate political progress.

Second, instead of delivering a meaningful message to Baghdad the withdrawal of troops would send a message to America’s enemies around the world that their speculation about the lack of U.S. resolve on the battlefield is accurate. That is the last message any rational nation would send to an enemy that has proven himself to have tremendous tenacity and patience.

What is lost in the debate about timetables, withdrawal and the effectiveness of the government in Baghdad is the overriding reality that there is a war going on in Iraq and the conclusion of that war will determine in large part the shape of the Middle East, the next phase of the war against the global terrorism network, the strength and influence of al Qaeda and America’s leadership role on the international stage.

During an August 22 speech in Kansas City, Missouri, President Bush said America’s enemies have a firm understanding of history. He said, “In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that ‘the American people had risen against their government’s war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today.’ …Here at home some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility – but the terrorists see it differently.”

No doubt America’s enemies also remember that in the aftermath of Washington’s abandonment of Vietnam, America’s adversaries sprang into action across the globe. Max Boot, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently observed, “In the late 1970s America’s enemies seized power in countries from Mozambique to Iran to Nicaragua. American hostages were seized aboard the SS Mayaguez (off Cambodia) and in Tehran. The Red Army invaded Afghanistan. It is impossible to prove the connection with the Vietnam War, but there is little doubt that the enfeeblement of a superpower encouraged our enemies to undertake acts of aggression that they might have otherwise shied away from.”

There are a number of parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. In the case of Vietnam, American politicians forced a withdrawal of U.S. forces at a time when South Vietnam was becoming able to defend itself with negligible U.S. ground support. Boot wrote that by 1972 much of the South was considered secure and South Vietnamese forces were able to turn back the Easter Offensive with U.S. air support but with minimal U.S. ground assistance.

Boot concluded, rightly, “The danger is that American politicians will prematurely pull the plug in Iraq as they did in Vietnam. If they do so, the consequences will be even worse since Iraq is much more important strategically than Vietnam ever was.”

It is expected that when General David Petraeus delivers his report on the effectiveness of the current troop surge in Iraq next month it will be positive.

On August 26, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of Multinational Corps Iraq, said the transition of security duties from coalition forces to Iraqi forces must be done with care and deliberation so the successes achieved thus far will not be lost.

Odierno said coalition and Iraqi forces are pushing al Qaeda out of safe havens, but cautioned, “We just can’t tomorrow say we’re going to turn everything in Iraq over to the Iraqi security forces. We must do it slowly over an extended period of time, so we do not lose the security that we’ve gained here.”

As was the case in Vietnam, if Iraq is lost it will be an American setback that was engineered by U.S. politicians, not a loss that took place on the battlefield. This self-defeatism is reflected in the determination of members of both major parties to quit the battle regardless of the circumstances on the ground or the consequences of retreat.

After their recent fact-finding trip to Iraq, Senator Warner and Senator Carl Levin, D-Michigan, issued this joint statement: “We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results - in al-Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against al-Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents.”

There was a time when opponents of the Iraq war said U.S. forces should leave because the war was not winnable. Now some critics of the war have grudgingly changed their tune regarding the possibility of victory. They now hitch their desire to leave Iraq on the failures of the Maliki government. Levin and Warner also said, “We remain concerned, however, that in the absence of overall national political reconciliation, we may be inadvertently helping to create another militia which will have to be dealt with in the future.”

Replacing Maliki does not guarantee success. Iraq’s political dilemma runs deeper than one man. Without a semblance of order it is doubtful that any single leader could deliver the stability Americans – and surely Iraqis - would like to see. The immediate key is for U.S. politicians to “do no harm.” No one ever said America had made a ‘forever’ military commitment to Iraq. Neither the American nor the Iraqi people want that. Petraeus will give a clear picture of the surge next month and he will likely say it is working and can continue to work if accompanied by patience. America needs to display the same degree of endurance and determination that its enemy continues to demonstrate. The only alternative to maintaining the surge and handing over security duties to Iraqi security forces as they become capable is defeat. As was the case in Vietnam, it would be a defeat America will have inflicted upon itself, but with even more calamitous results.

###

Joseph Bell has hosted a radio talk show and is a former editorial writer/columnist for several Connecticut newspapers. A former liberal Democrat, Bell has not been on the conservative side of the aisle for very long. He voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992. Abandoning the convictions that he had held and defended through adolescence and into adulthood was not easy. Sincere soul-searching and a commitment to distinguish fact from fiction compelled him to accept that liberal ideology was bankrupt.

jbellopedresponse@hotmail.com