Escalation: Vietnam and Iraq
Robert Fantina
January 18, 2007
Throughout most of the 1960s and ‘70’s, American presidents escalated U.S. military involvement in the tragic, misguided and unnecessary war in Vietnam. The ultimate result of this military, political and economic disaster was the death of over 50,000 Americans and between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 Vietnamese. The Vietnamese economy was left a shambles, and the American one not much better. To this day, veterans of that war continue to suffer the physical and emotional effects of one of America’s greatest mistakes.
Following the 2006 mid-term elections, President George W. Bush conceded that the war in Iraq is not going as well as he had hoped. For nearly two months he studied a new direction for the war, and word leaked early that this new strategy would involve a significant increase in the number of soldiers deployed to that devastated country. This, Mr. Bush says, is necessary in order to quell the ‘insurgency’ that has taken hold of Baghdad and other cities and areas within Iraq.
The obvious parallels between American involvement in Vietnam in 1966 and in Iraq in 2007 are so striking as to be alarming.
In 1966, Secretary of State Robert McNamara reported on conditions in Vietnam to President Lyndon Johnson. “The Secretary vividly described South Vietnam's sinking fortunes - the increase in communist forces; spreading Vietcong control of the countryside; declining ARVN morale and skyrocketing desertions.” General William Westmoreland had requested additional soldiers in order to combat these problems, and after this meeting with Secretary McNamara, Johnson granted his request. It would be nine more years and tens of thousands of gallons of blood spilled before the U.S. would finally leave the Vietnamese to settle their own differences.
Current reports from Iraq strongly indicate an increase in ‘insurgents,’ both freedom fighters from Iraq opposing with their lives the foreign occupation lead by the United States as well as those crossing the borders from other nations to fight against the Americans. More and more areas of Iraq are controlled by these so-called insurgents.
Desertion from the Iraqi army is also a major problem. In the troubled Al Anbar province, at least several hundred soldiers a month are deserting. These desertions are impeding the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, causing additional headaches for the American occupiers.
Police training by the Americans is inefficient at best; more and more members of the police appear to have ties to Iraqi militia groups. U.S. morale, as judged by both the number of American soldiers deserting and recent polling of soldiers, is deteriorating. The situation for both Iraq and the United States is, by all accounts, grim.
Following the 1966 meeting with Secretary McNamara, President Johnson summoned a bi-partisan group of Representatives and Senators to his office. Unfortunately, all the members of this group had publicly supported the war; only one had expressed doubts, and this privately to the president. Critics of Mr. Johnson’s policies were not invited. The purpose of this meeting was ostensibly to discuss the proposal for sending more troops, but the concept of debate was absent. The inevitable result was the tragic escalation of the decades-long catastrophe known as the Vietnam War.
Despite surrounding himself with yes-men, some of those meeting with Mr. Johnson began to ask questions, apparently more for clarification than debate. This, however, was unacceptable to the president. With an appeal from his skewed view of patriotism he silenced questioning and changed the subject: “I've asked you to come here not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans. I don't want any of you to talk about what is going on. The press is going to be all over you. Let me appeal to you as Americans to show your patriotism by not talking to the press.” The truth, including the expected cost, required manpower and possible consequences of this momentous decision, known by the men in the meeting, must not be divulged.
Four decades later, Mr. Bush and his minions have taken this distorted view of patriotism a giant step further as they try to portray those who oppose his Iraq policies as un-American. “If you favored international law, you were in danger of being called ‘soft on terrorism….’” In the 2002 midterm elections Mr. Bush & Co. were able to defeat Georgia Senator Maxwell Cleland, a triple amputee as a result of his service in Vietnam, by portraying him as lacking the commitment to do whatever is necessary to protect the United States. As with Mr. Johnson, the truth for Mr. Bush is too awkward to be faced and dealt with.
As part of Mr. Bush’s new strategy he is replacing Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid and Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., both of whom have expressed skepticism about any increase in the number of soldiers serving in Iraq. It appears that, like President Johnson forty years ago, Mr. Bush has decided to surround himself with those people who will support his view of the world, without dissent.
When Mr. Johnson announced the escalation at a midday press conference, he reported a lower number of new deployments than actually planned. At that time, it appears that no one was paying close attention; the need to ‘win’ the war was overwhelming. Today, the newly-empowered Democrats have stated that they will evaluate carefully Mr. Bush’s new proposals, and have hinted strongly that they will only approve funds for the number of soldiers currently serving in Iraq, but not for any increase. They have the opportunity to demonstrate that they have learn history’s painful lessons, and avoid the repetition of the tragic mistake made by Mr. Johnson that Mr. Bush wishes to perpetuate. America, Iraq and the world hope that they will not be swayed by platitudes of false patriotism, and will prove themselves to be the courageous leaders that the voters expect. Should they fail, Americans and Iraqis can only look forward to more death and destruction.
Following the 2006 mid-term elections, President George W. Bush conceded that the war in Iraq is not going as well as he had hoped. For nearly two months he studied a new direction for the war, and word leaked early that this new strategy would involve a significant increase in the number of soldiers deployed to that devastated country. This, Mr. Bush says, is necessary in order to quell the ‘insurgency’ that has taken hold of Baghdad and other cities and areas within Iraq.
The obvious parallels between American involvement in Vietnam in 1966 and in Iraq in 2007 are so striking as to be alarming.
In 1966, Secretary of State Robert McNamara reported on conditions in Vietnam to President Lyndon Johnson. “The Secretary vividly described South Vietnam's sinking fortunes - the increase in communist forces; spreading Vietcong control of the countryside; declining ARVN morale and skyrocketing desertions.” General William Westmoreland had requested additional soldiers in order to combat these problems, and after this meeting with Secretary McNamara, Johnson granted his request. It would be nine more years and tens of thousands of gallons of blood spilled before the U.S. would finally leave the Vietnamese to settle their own differences.
Current reports from Iraq strongly indicate an increase in ‘insurgents,’ both freedom fighters from Iraq opposing with their lives the foreign occupation lead by the United States as well as those crossing the borders from other nations to fight against the Americans. More and more areas of Iraq are controlled by these so-called insurgents.
Desertion from the Iraqi army is also a major problem. In the troubled Al Anbar province, at least several hundred soldiers a month are deserting. These desertions are impeding the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, causing additional headaches for the American occupiers.
Police training by the Americans is inefficient at best; more and more members of the police appear to have ties to Iraqi militia groups. U.S. morale, as judged by both the number of American soldiers deserting and recent polling of soldiers, is deteriorating. The situation for both Iraq and the United States is, by all accounts, grim.
Following the 1966 meeting with Secretary McNamara, President Johnson summoned a bi-partisan group of Representatives and Senators to his office. Unfortunately, all the members of this group had publicly supported the war; only one had expressed doubts, and this privately to the president. Critics of Mr. Johnson’s policies were not invited. The purpose of this meeting was ostensibly to discuss the proposal for sending more troops, but the concept of debate was absent. The inevitable result was the tragic escalation of the decades-long catastrophe known as the Vietnam War.
Despite surrounding himself with yes-men, some of those meeting with Mr. Johnson began to ask questions, apparently more for clarification than debate. This, however, was unacceptable to the president. With an appeal from his skewed view of patriotism he silenced questioning and changed the subject: “I've asked you to come here not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans. I don't want any of you to talk about what is going on. The press is going to be all over you. Let me appeal to you as Americans to show your patriotism by not talking to the press.” The truth, including the expected cost, required manpower and possible consequences of this momentous decision, known by the men in the meeting, must not be divulged.
Four decades later, Mr. Bush and his minions have taken this distorted view of patriotism a giant step further as they try to portray those who oppose his Iraq policies as un-American. “If you favored international law, you were in danger of being called ‘soft on terrorism….’” In the 2002 midterm elections Mr. Bush & Co. were able to defeat Georgia Senator Maxwell Cleland, a triple amputee as a result of his service in Vietnam, by portraying him as lacking the commitment to do whatever is necessary to protect the United States. As with Mr. Johnson, the truth for Mr. Bush is too awkward to be faced and dealt with.
As part of Mr. Bush’s new strategy he is replacing Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid and Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., both of whom have expressed skepticism about any increase in the number of soldiers serving in Iraq. It appears that, like President Johnson forty years ago, Mr. Bush has decided to surround himself with those people who will support his view of the world, without dissent.
When Mr. Johnson announced the escalation at a midday press conference, he reported a lower number of new deployments than actually planned. At that time, it appears that no one was paying close attention; the need to ‘win’ the war was overwhelming. Today, the newly-empowered Democrats have stated that they will evaluate carefully Mr. Bush’s new proposals, and have hinted strongly that they will only approve funds for the number of soldiers currently serving in Iraq, but not for any increase. They have the opportunity to demonstrate that they have learn history’s painful lessons, and avoid the repetition of the tragic mistake made by Mr. Johnson that Mr. Bush wishes to perpetuate. America, Iraq and the world hope that they will not be swayed by platitudes of false patriotism, and will prove themselves to be the courageous leaders that the voters expect. Should they fail, Americans and Iraqis can only look forward to more death and destruction.
Print
Email
