Iraq and Vietnam: Full Circle
The debate about Iraq war policy in the senate is akin to Vietnam
There are so many similarities in the rhetoric of the American presidents who presided over Vietnam and the one who presides over Iraq. History is there for the viewing, and George W. Bush is sounding an awful lot like late-1960's Lyndon Johnson right about now.
The war in Iraq has deteriorated, no one knows whether the U.S. is safer today than it was after September 11th, and the Democratic-controlled Congress is trying desperately to force President Bush into a troop withdrawal.
But Bush has countered with a Johnson/Kennedy-esque retort; he says that the terrorists' will is bound to strengthen with an American "retreat," as he so cleverly words it, and the threat against the U.S. will increase significantly.
Bush also cites the risks of an abrupt pullout, including a massive civil war that will tear the country apart and leave the United States vulnerable to attacks in the court of world opinion. Bush has drawn from the well of fear-mongering and McCarthyism to promote his agenda, which includes staying in Iraq until the government is ready to take over and stabilize the region.
However, there are a few things wrong with this plan, that Bush sees as a microcosm of America's valiant spreading of Democracy throughout the world. And Bush's mistake is the same as Johnson and Kennedy's before him: a blatant misunderstanding of a foreign culture.
The Shi'ites and the Sunnis have held true to their faiths for infinitely longer than the United States has been a sovereign nation. Their battle is rooted in the identity of Muhammad's heir, who the Shi'ites claim to be one being, and the Sunnis claim to be another.
The United States was never going to just inject Democracy into a region ravaged with holy war and have it work for a long period of time. There is too much acrimony between too many different kinds of people for something so trivial (such as a half-hearted attempt to build a Democratic government) to have a long-term effect.
America had the same cultural misunderstanding with the Vietnamese, who Johnson thought would break under the pressure of Napalm attacks and helicopter fire. The Vietnamese were historically fierce in defending their land, which they considered to be holy ground; they were more than willing to die in the fight to save their land from foreign invaders. The French and the Chinese tried to conquer Vietnam before the Americans, and neither world power was successful.
It was this lack of knowledge and understanding that led to the ugly situation in Asia, and the same kind of ignorant thinking applies to the mire in Iraq. The U.S., no matter how long and hard it tries to stabilize the mess, will never be able to bring about a stable government without a seismic shift in the ideology of the Arab populations, which will not occur through force or propaganda.
The Bush Administration has warned of the catastrophe that would commence after an immediate Iraq pullout, and is using words like 'defeat' and 'retreat' when referencing a departure from Iraq. But the truth remains; it is the same truth that Lyndon Johnson came to terms with at the end of his presidency in 1968, when he decided not to run for a second term in office: defeating centuries of history with some fancy ideology and big guns is not possible, and the sooner that Bush realizes that, the better.
Will a civil war break out if the U.S. leaves? Possibly. Will there be violence? Definitely. But that will always be the case as long as there is an American presence in Iraq. The end will always be ugly, but it is better to keep more American soldiers alive, and get out of there sooner rather than later. Bush will call it a retreat, but it is simply a bandaid for the mistake he made in 2003 when he propelled the U.S. into an impossible and deadly situation.
More in History
Latest Articles