Repeating The Mistakes Of Vietnam

Weekly Standard: Victory's At Hand And Democrats Want To Give Up

(Weekly Standard)  This column was written by Fred Barnes.

---

No one knows the tragic story of America in Vietnam better than Jim Webb, first as a Marine, then as a writer. So the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia — a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq — wants to keep Vietnam out of the debate over Iraq. "As much as possible, we need to keep this debate away from Vietnam," Webb said last week. Iraq "is not a parallel situation." But Webb feared that many who supported the Vietnam War, and watched America abandon South Vietnam as it grew close to victory over the Communist forces of North Vietnam, might see similarities.

Indeed, they might, for certain parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are uncanny. A new general, David Petraeus, is taking over in Iraq with a credible new strategy, counterinsurgency. Four decades ago, General Creighton Abrams became the American commander in Vietnam, also with a new strategy. It called for taking and holding the villages and hamlets of South Vietnam. In a word, it was counterinsurgency, and it worked. Now in Iraq, Petraeus has as good a chance of success, starting with the pacification of Baghdad, as Abrams had. And the painful lesson of Vietnam applies in Iraq: Don't give up when victory is at hand.

Those in Congress who advocate retreat in Iraq refuse to acknowledge this lesson. And they may have their way, whatever Petraeus accomplishes. With their calls for troop withdrawals and fund cutoffs and their antiwar resolutions, they have put America on a slippery slope in Iraq. And we know where it leads: to defeat while victory remains quite possible. This happened in six descending steps in Vietnam, and today's coalition in Congress of antiwar Democrats and vacillating Republicans has started pushing us down that dangerous slope.

The first step is when the war goes poorly, public support falls and politicians dramatically increase their criticism. In Vietnam, this occurred after the Tet offensive in 1968. In Iraq, it occurred gradually at first, then rapidly once violence and chaos in Baghdad flared over the last year.

Step two consists of growing criticism of the foreign government that America is supporting. In Vietnam, the target was the government of President Thieu. In Iraq, it's the elected government of Prime Minister Maliki. Senator Hillary Clinton, for instance, insists Maliki has failed to seek reconciliation between Shia and Sunnis — that is, a political solution. "I do not support cutting funding for American troops, but I do support cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions," she said two weeks ago.

The third step involves resolutions and threats. This week, the Senate will take up resolutions opposing the addition of 21,500 troops to Iraq, a buildup Petraeus says is indispensable to his plan to secure Baghdad. If resolutions fail to force President Bush to begin winding down the war, Senator Joe Biden promises the Senate will take stronger measures. In the Vietnam era, congressional critics passed limits on funding.

The fourth step — the one we're approaching now in Iraq — would put restrictions on troop deployments. In 1970, the Cooper-Church amendment sought to bar funding for any American troops in Cambodia, a sanctuary for invading forces from North Vietnam. Today, Hillary Clinton would put a cap on the number of American soldiers in Iraq. Webb, echoing many others in Congress, said withdrawals should begin "in short order."

Step five is the last resort of war opponents: a fund cutoff over the protests of the president. In Vietnam, it came in 1974, after American combat troops had been withdrawn, but with the United States still supporting and funding the South Vietnamese government. What's striking is how much the congressional majority then resembles today's antiwar coalition, mostly Democrats but with more than a handful of Republicans. True, only a minority in Congress favors a cutoff today, but that bloc could grow.

Step six: the collapse. In Southeast Asia, it led to the deaths of more than two million people in Vietnam and Cambodia after the Communist triumph. The members of Congress whose actions prompted the collapse expressed no shame or embarrassment for having betrayed allies. And practically no one held them accountable. Their perfidy was greeted with silence.

In Vietnam, the slide down the slippery slope seemed inevitable. But in Iraq, there's time to halt it. Bush can be expected to hold firm in his pursuit of victory in Iraq. If Petraeus achieves a breakthrough in pacifying Baghdad and then in controlling insurgent-dominated Anbar province, the war opponents must stand down. If they refuse to acknowledge success and cause a repeat of the Vietnam calamity, they should be held accountable. This time, self-inflicted defeat should not be met with silence.

[gdmoore2]

This article by Barnes is the dark heart of neoconservatism. The neocons are suffering from Vietnam denial, and just cannot get over the fact that Vo Nguyen Giap beat McNamara and Westmoreland. Now, the neocons are trying to prove their point on the backs of our troops in Iraq. In fact, the neocons are weakening our country economically, politically, and militarily on a failed ideology and failed strategy. Well, the test of it will be at the ballot box in November, 2008. Tick tock tick tock, Republicans.

[marcodele]

Clarence: FYI - Many Democrats (including Ms. Pelosi and Sen. Clinton) are arguing that our billion dollar bloodbath in Iraq is in fact causing the Taliban in Afganistan to re-group and regain power. If you think your hero Bush cares about that, ask yourself why all the resources and American lives are being squandered in Iraq instead of winning the first war in Afganistan. Then check today's numbers for Halliburton stock. It will all make sense to you someday.

[dallison7]

clarence

You have every right to show your *** here, but pleeease. Once is enough!!

[bluestardad]

For the past 50 years the west has been trying to impose its perception of democracy and government on the Middle East. This has cost a tremendous price in money, blood, and hardship on all sides. Diplomacy with honor is the only thing that will quell the fighting and bring all parties into agreement and peace. The American people have spoken on November 7, 2006 and demand that our elected officials pull our troops out of Iraq and start negotiations with all countries in the region on an equal basis. This Rovian Sound Bite that disagreement with the Presidents policies in the Middle East provides aid and comfort to the enemy is preposterous and rejected by the American people. First off the President and his Rovian Neocons Chicken Hawks who got us into this war don%u2019t know who the enemy is. Nor can they define the enemy we are fighting now! Is the enemy the Saudi back Sunnis or the Iranian backed Shiites that have been our friends for 20 years, could it possibly be the hold outs from the old Saddam regime or maybe just anyone who disagrees with President Bush?

[clarence1152]

I can't believe what I'm seeing in Congress now WE ARE AT WAR PEOPLE, when are you people gonna get it.Someone needs to tell MS Pelosie and these democrats that don't want to fund this war to sit down, and shut up, so the people that can win this war and will win this war to get on with it. Otherwise Ms. Pelosis can pickup her new headress at the new Taliban department store. located at the new upscale mini-mall in Kubul. Yes thats right people, Mr. Bush has tried numerous times to explain to you people the Ideaology of these radical people so quit argueing across the aile with one another over POWER and who is going to have the most and get behind these troops and give them what they need to win this war. The women in this world stand to lose the most, so wake up.

[clarence1152]

I can't believe what I'm seeing in Congress now WE ARE AT WAR PEOPLE, when are you people gonna get it.Someone needs to tell MS Pelosie and these democrats that don't want to fund this war to sit down, and shut up, so the people that can win this war and will win this war to get on with it. Otherwise Ms. Pelosis can pickup her new headress at the new Taliban department store. located at the new upscale mini-mall in Kubul. Yes thats right people, Mr. Bush has tried numerous times to explain to you people the Ideaology of these radical people so quit argueing across the aile with one another over POWER and who is going to have the most and get behind these troops and give them what they need to win this war. The women in this world stand to lose the most, so wake up.

[clarence1152]

I can't believe what I'm seeing in Congress now WE ARE AT WAR PEOPLE, when are you people gonna get it.Someone needs to tell MS Pelosie and these democrats that don't want to fund this war to sit down, and shut up, so the people that can win this war and will win this war to get on with it. Otherwise Ms. Pelosis can pickup her new headress at the new Taliban department store. located at the new upscale mini-mall in Kubul. Yes thats right people, Mr. Bush has tried numerous times to explain to you people the Ideaology of these radical people so quit argueing across the aile with one another over POWER and who is going to have the most and get behind these troops and give them what they need to win this war. The women in this world stand to lose the most, so wake up.

[bluestardad]

barns, kristol go to Iraq and fight you chicken hawks! you don't know who to fight just shoot someone.

[itchybrain]

It's so quaint to see our saintly armchair warriors drool all over themselves espousing their hardline views. I'd like to see chickenhawks like the aptly named FARTKNOCKER go fight the war he's so anxious to win. We should bring our kids home and let the neocon rabble go fight the wars they want.

Vietnam was never within our grasp, and the uneducated idiots that say it was, were never there... they haven't even a clue as to what went on over there. We did the same thing in Vietnam that we're doing in Iraq... winning the battles but losing the war because we don't keep the ground we're fighting over.

Bush and the rest of the neocon hoard sacrifice nothing but other peoples sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, husbands and wives for their stilted visions of victory. And, the victory they seek has nothing to do with winning a war, it's all about winning votes... for which a wise and justful God will dam(n) them all for their sins... and the American people will rejoice in the downfall of the Republican War Party in 2008. They will reap what they've sown.

[fascistusa]

Get your daily dose of PROPOGANDA.

The Elite want this War. Lots of PROFIT.

It's time for American Revolution II.

OUR COUNTRY IS FASCIST!!!!!!!!!

[mattgersz]

Four years of watching our guys die for no compelling reason in a war we had no business commencing (that's the REAL lesson of Vietnam). And now, we're on the brink of victory? Barnes, Kristol, The Weekly Slander, etc. Do these Neo-Cons EVER admit they are wrong?

[tonywikrent]

Fred Barnes brings back memories of Jane Curtin and Saturday Night Live.

Read Fred carefully, folks. He is a top mouthpiece for the neo-conmen who pushed us into this war. Does he talk about the war on terrorism anywhere in this latest bloviation?

Fred, you ignorant ***! The whole point is that the war in Iraq is squandering the military resources and global goodwill we need for fighting the war on terrorism.

Just more proof that conservatives are just as bad as Islamofascists: they care far more about maintaining allegiance to their ill-conceived beliefs, than about serving the interest of any particular nation, in Jane%u2019s, oops, I mean, Fred%u2019s case, the good ole U.S. of A.

[kreuz4]

I referenced 1967 as the date of publication, but that was actually a reprint; he issued that assessment first in Look Magazine on 5 April 1966, well before Barnesey here notes the American people turned against the war

[kreuz4]

"Korea also taught us that it is impossible to interdict the supply routes of an Asian army by airpower alone. We had complete air mastery over North Korea, and we clobbered Chinese supply columns unmercifully. Unquestionably, we inflicted serious damage upon the Chinese and greatly complicated their problems of reinforcement and supply. But we did not halt their offensive nor materially diminish its strength. The Chinese, like the Vietnamese, traveled light, with each man carrying his ammunition, his food, and his weapon on his back. They moved at night or on hidden footpaths and goat tracks, immune from air attack. And where we did find their concentrations and strike them, we still could not force them off the disputed ground. In Korea I saw whole sections of railroad bombed into scrap iron by aircraft, and yet the enemy rebuilt the tracks in a single night, and the trains ran the next day. After the Chinese repulsed the ill-fated advances to the Yalu, Gen. Douglas MacArthur himself expressed disillusionment with the value of tactical airpower. It could not isolate the battlefield, he said, and its effectiveness had been greatly overrated. It is easy for the civilian mind to be seduced with talk of 'easy' conquest through airpower. But the crucial battles are still won by foot soldiers."
- Gen Ridgeway, 1967

[kreuz4]

I'd recommend reading this passage, and compare Vietnam in these geopolitical terms to Iraq today: http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/2020.htm

"Many of those who have thoughtfully endorsed a widening or intensifying of the war have spoken, I believe, that they have been applying the lessons learned from Korea. But there are far more dissimiliarities between the actions than there are parallels. In South Korea, we had a workable government, led by a fiercely patriotic and powerful civilian leader whose opposition to communism was widely known and who held the allegiance of the majority of his people. We acted in concert with many nations and had been deputized by the United Nations to repel the aggressor in its name.

"Relatively little terrorist activity occurred in South Korea, United Nations personnel rode in open jeeps throughout the country without ever drawing an assasin's fire. Our power easily contained guerrilla activity, even though our forces were neither as well-equipped nor as mobile as they are in Viet-Nam. A unified military command kept both the United States and ROK armies under the direct control of the U.S. commander. In short, our line of battle was well-defined, the enemy clearly identifiable, and the political divisions were sharp.

"None of these conditions holds true for Viet-Nam today."
- Gen Ridgeway, 1967

[kreuz4]

And what good did that peace agreement do us? Nothing at all. The S Vietnamese government was a sham, and the North walked all over it in less than two months, and that was after we proped them up for 20 years. Airstrikes would only go so far, especially if they reverted back to the lower levels of Maoist insurgent warfare, in whihc case operations like LINEBACKER II would have done us no good (and wouldn't have back in 1968 for that matter). The only thing that could have saved S Vietnam from the North was a never ending occupation, with thousands of more casualties each year. We should have left much sooner.

I'm also sick of hearing the meme that Vietnam was fought "with one hand tied behind our backs." The fact is the military never wanted to fight in Vietnam, and the politicians in reality called most of the shots because the generals wanted to wash their hands of the whole thing (Gen Ridgeway claimed on his retirement that the thing he was most proud of in his career was keeping US troops out of SE Asia).

[clemenhagen1]

Knocker: You are certainly right that we can blow anything to smithereens. No conventional army can withstand our on-slaught. No citizen population could possibly survive if we took the gloves off and poured in the lead. The problem: overwhelming military force has not proven successful in either of the scenarios we have discussed. All our firepower could not prop up a corrupt and unpopular regime in Vietnam. The side we now support against the insurgents in Iraq, the Shiites, are aligned religiously and politically with our Axis-of-Evil pals, the Iranians. Several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians already lie dead, the infrastructure and economy of the country lie in ruins, and you and the other Curtis LeMay's of this board want to ride a few more missiles at them. Why don't you find Slim Pickens - he might want to go along for the ride with you.

[clemenhagen1]

Neocons love the simplistic argument. We actually won Vietnam but the commie *** in this country lost the war. Boil historical complexity into a slogan and sell it to the jingoistic and simplistic. Here again we have Captain Codpiece selling Mission Accomplished, though any intelligent individual knew all hell had been lifted loose in Iraq. Enough of your simple revisionist history. Why not just declare victory here, since it is a hopeless mess, give Bush a parade, and let him repackage MacArthur's "Old Soldiers Never Die" speech? Then all the neocon simpletons on this thread can shed some patriotic tears of joy and leave the complicated affairs of international diplomacy to the adults.

[minminmin-2009]

How long is "success in Iraq" supposed to take?? This is costing a whole lot of money is the problem. It's costing America jobs! Oh yes. I work for one of the largest defense contractors on the planet, and for the 3rd straight year, our program's budgets have been cut! ($$ is allocated by Congress) The program I work on was supposed to double in size this year according to our staffing profile, but you can kiss about 70 jobs good-bye, thank you. My program is only one of many in the same boat.

[diamtool]

"The mistake was letting congress defund it just like they want to do now
Posted by gunnerv1 at 12:17 PM : Jan 30, 2007"

Yes, of course. President Gunnerv1 would have marched the 3rdID down Pennsylvania Ave into the Capitol and shot them commie congressman. Why didn't Nixon think of that?? Yo, Dude! Ever been to an 8th Grade Civics Class??

God Bless our Troops
God forgive George Bush