This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Atlas Blogged
   Quote of the Day

The errors of definitions multiply themselves according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see but cannot avoid, without reckoning anew from the beginning.

-Thomas Hobbes

   Recent Comments
   Categories
   Administrivia

The Neolibertarian Network

Syndicate this site (XML)
XHTML | CSS
Blogarama - The Blog Directory
blog search directory Listed on BlogShares

« Katrina and the Waves | Main | Intelligent Design in my Classroom? »

August 25, 2005

Iraq = Vietnam?

Yesterday, Rammage and I held a conversation via email regarding the differences between what actually happened in Vietnam, and what the perception of Vietnam seems to be. The USA "lost" Vietnam, of course... right?

This wouldn't be a hot topic for discussion, except that comparisons are frequently made between Iraq and Vietnam. Not for their balmy climates, of course, but for being a boondoggle of US foreign policy. Bush-bashers have been saying that since before our troops hit the ground, no surprise, but much has been made this week of comments by Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and a Republican senator.

Of course, most conservatives have come to the President's defense. But are they right?

(The context of this excerpt from our conversation is specifically how the 1968 Tet Offensive is portrayed in popular media, like film and television, vs how it is laid out historically.)

Rammage:

Thinking outside the box here, is it possible that Iraq *is* indeed like Vietnam, but not for the reasons that we are led to believe?
*Why* did we "lose" Vietnam?

Wulf:

I'm beginning to see that it's a lot like Vietnam, in that we are taking political heat for the loss of life, but that loss of life is largely because we are not imperialist, not destructive, and fighting a war that is contrary to every book or class or military stategery in history... because we value human life more than traditional military strategy and we won't use nukes or raze cities or drop smallpox-ridden blankets, etc.
We are trying to help a democracy stand up in a society where many people would frankly rather not have it. We are trying to pick the location of the battle before it comes to our shores (terrorism, communism). We are dealing with volatile political identities and
boundaries that were imposed by EUROPEAN imperialism (Vietnam = French, Iraq = British), making the locals unwilling to trust each other and resentful of our desire for them to set up a democracy where the minority would not be able to get its way as easily as they could if they just conquered or became a small independent substate. But you know that if we were to broker a peace that involved the fracture of Vietnam or Iraq, we would take a lot of shit from our European allies who lumped the disparate groups into a false geographical shape in the first place - I don't know why.
We are fighting guerrillas, many from outside the country (Chinese,
Laotians, Cambodians... Iranians, Syrians, Saudis...)

And most importantly, thirty years from now there will probably be people talking about how we actually didn't get our asses kicked over there, but we lost the war of the media and the history
books. Sigh.

I won't pretend this is the most profound analysis of the conflict, but I wanted to share it now, because I intend to soon use this blog to discuss the Iraqi constitution and some other items related to this conversation. Plus I wanted to open it up to comments from whoever might stumble by.


UPDATE: I found more of the conversation:

Rammage:

Nicely said. Very nice. Arianna Huffington disagrees with you. She asks:
And now there is Bush's newest fabrication about the Iraqi constitution, or at least the latest draft of a draft of a constitution. Holden at First Draft caught this fiction right away:

Q If [the constitution] is rooted in Islam, as it seems it will be... is there still the possibility of honoring the rights of women? THE PRESIDENT: I talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not "the religion," but "a religion." In fact, that's not at all what Article 2 Para. 1 says: "Islam is the official religion of state, and is a fundamental source for legislation." So is this version of Islamic theocracy what we are fighting for? Is this the "noble cause" Cindy's son died for?
Whoa! Holy frickin' hell, cool yer jets there, Aryanna. I thought you people were all against the Westernization of the Middle East? Right? You have your own values, they have their own values, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Right? Assuming Christianity left the Dark Ages at the Enlightenment, how many centuries did it take before Western Civilization came to the Women's Lib Movement, fer Christ's sake? The entire country is on the verge of tasting real freedom, and you expect bra burning rights to be written into the constitution? Goddamn the left are an impatient friggin' lot. Besides....I thought none of this was worthwhile *in the first place* anyway? What gives?
Wulf Posted by Wulf on August 25, 2005 at 05:16 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/55

Comments

Incidentally, this converation was sparked by an excellent posting by Junkyard Blog's Bryan Preston, http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003359.htm , regarding North Vietnamese General Vo Siphorus, er, Nguyen Giap's approach to post-modern warfare.

Scott Ott intended this (http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002285.html ) to be satire, but we'll see as the months progress if another similarity emerges between the two wars as this Crawford expo turns into Woodstock '69.

Posted by: rammage at August 25, 2005 6:11 PM


Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember This Information?