As violent outbursts break out in Iraq, media comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam abound in both liberal and conservative outlets. This op-ed is no exception.
The April 6-8 offensive by U.S. troops in Falluja in efforts to "pacify" those who are or support "terrorists" is reminiscent of similar raids in South Vietnam. These raids target the enemy and those who harbor the enemy. The first U.S. strike in Falluja came by air as U.S. warplanes dropped "bombs on a residential area of the town" as payback for the murder and sickening dismemberment of four American civilian contractors the previous week. The ground fighting then turned fierce. After two days of combat Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne described the operation as "the most intense kind of fighting. . . this is like Hue City in Vietnam," referring to a battle in the 1968 Tet Offensive.
If a comparison to Vietnam is to be extracted from Iraq, it should be to the early years of Vietnam. For every minute of the Nixon administration, one ton of explosives were dropped on Vietnam under order of the Nixon administration. We are not to this point in Iraq, clearly, but it is useful to see where we could end up if we are not careful. By November, 2003 the number of Americans killed in Iraq surpassed the number killed in Vietnam from 1962-1964. Make no mistake, Iraq could be another Vietnam given some time.
A clear similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is the use of language by the U.S. The rhetoric is different: In Iraq we fight terrorists; in South Vietnam we fought communists. But the application of such terms is the same. This framework is spelled out in the Bush Doctrine very plainly: If you are not for the U.S. you are against the U.S. This translates into tough policy for the occupied peoples. There is no space for a reasonable Iraqi or a Vietnamese to oppose what they may perceive as two evils: the occupation and the removed tyrant. If they openly oppose the occupation, they are labeled terrorists or communists, respectively. This label gives the U.S. a certain moral latitude in fighting the enemy or enemy abettors, hence the use of chemical warfare in Vietnam and the residential air raids in Iraq.
Both the Iraq and Vietnam wars were American aggressions. Both of these wars were fueled by economic interests; desire for oil in Iraq, desire for a "dominant economic presence" in Southeast Asia. Both of these wars were opposed by the majority of the world. And of course the wars were widely opposed by both the Iraqi and Vietnamese populations.
As Iraqis digress from protest to hostility toward the occupation, the US rhetoric accordingly shifts: In Iraq, a murderous protest becomes a terrorist act and bombing indiscriminate residences in Falluja is justified under the Bush doctrine. In South Vietnam, the violent protestors (Buddhist and National Liberation Front) became communists, to be dealt with mercilessly.
In Vietnam, Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge viewed Buddhist protestors in "as equivalent to card-carrying Communists." American General William Westmoreland stated that the Buddhists and the other significant political group, the National Liberation Front, were not acting "in the interests" of South Vietnam. This statement implies an irony that is irrepressible: the U.S. has a better idea of the "interests" of South Vietnam than do the Vietnamese people. A similar pattern has developed in Iraq. Those hostile to the occupation become terrorists working against the interests of Iraq.
But in Iraq, the reasonable and radical Islamic clerics are only now openly advocating violence as a means against the occupation. The radical Najaf cleric Moqtada al-Sadr recently called "to stop protests, because they will get you nowhere" with "these arrogant powers," the cleric then called for the use of "terror" against the occupation. Vietnam fell to communism and Iraq is ambling dangerously closer to terrorism. The Shia majority is considering terror as an official tactic against the occupation.
How will the U.S. punish "terrorists" that "intimidate Iraqis with violence" when it is the Iraqis perpetuating the violence? "Lightning strikes" against "volatile regions," apparently. We can only hope these strikes do not reach the magnitude of destruction as in Vietnam. As Americans and as humans, we should hope for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq. For the sake of our troops, for our country, and for those Iraqis who are innocent and reasonable.
Be the first to comment on this article!