Another Vietnam Parallel In Iraq

The New Republic: Just Like Abrams In Vietnam, Petraeus Has Been Tapped Too Late To Win

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Lawrence F. Kaplan.

---

Of all the depressing ways that the war in Vietnam has been replayed in Iraq — the failed architect of the war being promoted to World Bank chief, the failed ground commander being promoted to Army chief of staff, congressional Democrats reverting to Vietnam-type, the whole rotten litany — nothing can top the belated dispatch to Iraq of David Petraeus, a general who actually knows what he's doing.

Armed with a strategy that rejects nearly four years' worth of big-unit sweeps and the widespread application of conventional tactics against an unconventional foe, Petraeus has instead focused on securing Baghdad's population. Already, attacks and executions in the capital have (depending on the source) declined by one-half to one-third. Alas, the surge could transform Baghdad into Zurich, and it wouldn't be enough to budge the course of the U.S. enterprise in Iraq. That's because the base of support for the war — American public opinion — has utterly collapsed, and it's not the public's fault. If the circumstances seem familiar, that's because they are: In General Petraeus, the ghost of Creighton Abrams walks again.

Analogizing Petraeus to General Abrams, the highly regarded commander of U.S. forces during the latter years of the Vietnam War, has become a favorite pastime in Baghdad and Washington. And for good reason: As with so many other public figures tied to the Iraq war, the likeness to a Vietnam-era personality is downright eerie in Petraeus' case. Like Petraeus, Abrams replaced a commander plainly not up to the task — William Westmoreland in Abrams' case, George Casey in Petraeus'. (Asked at a press conference how he intended to combat the insurgency in Vietnam, Westmoreland famously responded with a word: "firepower.") Like Petraeus, Abrams rejected his predecessor's approach in favor of a "clear and hold" strategy that elevated the importance of population security over the tactic of destroying the enemy. After Abrams assumed command, recounts General Fred Weyand in Lewis Sorley's A Better War, "tactics changed within fifteen minutes." Substitute "Iraqi" for "Vietnamese" and Abrams's "one-war plan" — which aimed "to provide meaningful, continuing security for the Vietnamese people in expanding areas of increasingly effective civil authority" — reads like a distillation of Petraeus' "best practices" of counterinsurgency.

But the resemblance between the two generals goes beyond the particulars of strategy. In the narrative of Vietnam embraced by the officer corps — and popularized in books such as Sorley's — Abrams all but won the war only to be robbed of victory by a weak-willed public and a perfidious Congress. By 1972, "the pacification program had essentially eliminated the guerrilla problem in most of [South Vietnam]," the program's deputy, William Colby, recalls in his book, Lost Victory. By then, of course, the operational in clock in Vietnam was so badly out of sync with the political clock in Washington that it no longer really mattered. A similar complaint is rapidly becoming conventional wisdom among the officer corps in Iraq, whose members routinely argue that, even as Petraeus and his surge achieve real progress, the home front has collapsed.

There is a kernel of truth here, but no more. Drawing the analogy to Iraq, Colonel Stuart Herrington (Retired) writes in Parameters, the journal of the Army War College, that "having wasted more than three years (until 1968) pursuing a flawed strategy, the Pentagon lost the support of the American population and was not given the time to get it right, even when it was clear that General Creighton Abrams' pacification and Vietnamization approach might have worked." Note here that Herrington does not blame the American public, but rather the three wasted years that collapsed its will. In Iraq, too, the Army wasted more than three years pursuing a flawed strategy — the difference being that, even now, it's not at all clear that what worked, or ought to have worked, in Vietnam will work in Baghdad.

Leave aside that South Vietnam boasted a relatively well-trained and certainly well-equipped array of security forces, while Iraq boasts neither. Indeed, leave aside all the ways in which South Vietnam during the early '70s compares favorably to Iraq today. At the end of the day, the United States lost the war in Vietnam. And, like in Iraq, it did so for reasons that go beyond the realm of public support. As in Vietnam, had the Army employed a suitable approach from the outset, it might have had a shot at winning the war in Iraq before losing it home. But, as the war grinds into its fifth year, charges of abandonment ring hollow.

So, yes, the proximate cause of America's exit from Iraq may turn out to be a collapse of will at home. And, yes, if Washington continues to ground its Iraq polices in political calculation and bogus posturing, it will have earned some of the blame for America's defeat. But, having studied the fate of Abrams for 30 years, today's military leaders knew full well the lesson of his cautionary tale: The wars that America loses at home tend to have been lost on the battlefield.

[knyghtwolf]

My understanding is that bush wackies are trying to evoke Executive Privilege, the definition of that privilege is defined as: The privilege that allows the president and other high officials of the executive branch to keep certain communications private if disclosing those communications would disrupt the functions or decisionmaking processes of the executive branch. As demonstrated by the Watergate hearings, this privilege does not extend to information germane to a criminal investigation. If there is criminal activity going on in the bush administration (little attempt at humor here) then he and his warm diaper squad have to held accountable. I also understand that any and all wrongdoing discovered AFTER his so-called "leadership" can still be pursued. He can LOSE his post-presidental perks as well. I agree here that any and all monies he or dork cheney would receive be revoked before they even get a dime. After all, I think all that money Haliburton "misplaced" will probably turn up in an account somewhere with the cheezewhiz twins having the account numbers to readily access said account. I also believe that any and all of the bushwacker administration have ALL their United States citizen privileges permanantly revoked.

[samthetvcat]

(pt 2 - lol)
Implicit in my prior post is the idea that the lesson that's supposed to be learned from Iraq is that those control freaks who think they're just inherently better than others need to become more realistic about other peoples' strengths and weaknesses (including themselves) and become better at assessing what people and situations they can and cannot influence. It may make you feel fredgrad that you're superior to think that Iraqi people and the average American are 'weak', but it's not rooted in reality in a way that leads to productive thinking. If you try to address Iran the way you Saddam was addressed, then maybe you're still part of the problem and not part of the solution even though you've at least disassociated from Bush on some level. The ideal way to have dealt with Saddam would have been to leave him in power and escalate UN inspections - same goes for Iran. Sometimes the most powerful thing you can do is resist the urge to dominate others and and accept that optimization sometimes requires embracing amiguity.

[samthetvcat]

The difference between you and me fredgrad2000 is that I base my thinking on what has ACTUALLY been said by you. You project all sorts of stuff onto me and make ASSumptions. When you play power games, which I can tell you don't have much ACTUAL experience with, you can't be this sloppy and overzealous without inviting retaliation. I never said nor was I ever implying that there weren't people out there whose self-interest conflicts with our own - your basis for concluding that I was naive, blinded by hatred and an idiot. Not that I really respect your opinion based on the logic behind it - more important is what you fail to add to the debate, which is nothing of merit. Spain was attacked for being an ally. Britain was attacked for being an ally. I think it goes without saying that if we haven't been attacked that maybe the CIA and FBI deserve a little more credit for a job well done than your panicky and once again mistaken assumptions that nobody's ALREADY addressing potential threats and will be even more capable if resources are freed up by scaling down the unwinnable war in Iraq. The resources could be used to hire additional agents to follow tips/leads, to keep track of terrorist sites, train more interpreters, provide additional security, and community police US muslim communities to name a couple of areas that the billions of $ rerouted from Halliburton could cover. Do YOU have any ideas there Skippy or just more fearmongering and name-calling?

[fredgrad2000]

This isn't a football game - Bush and his cronies biggest enemy is themselves. They were defeated by their own arrogance - they put themselves in a position whereby success was dependent upon their enemies wanting to follow their lead. Al Qaida and Iran didn't have to do a *** thing. posted by SamtheTVCat

That's just naive, that we lost due to faults by the President and the Dept of Defense, I am not questioning, but you not wanting to admit there were enemies working to defeat us to further their own aims is solely due to your blind hatred of Bush and wanting to have only him to blame, and that's idiocy. This war may be lost (though I think Petraeus may be just the guy who has a slight chance of turning this around), and withdrawal may be our only terrible option left (there are no good ones anymore) - but its time some of the people who say we've lost and withdraw start thinking of the day after we withdraw and who will have gained by our loss, who beat us, and how we contain THEIR victory...as anyone informed on the world knows that those who contrived to beat us, and capitalized on our mistakes are not our friends and won't be content to just rest on their laurels...they have plans to use this victory as a steppingstone to other "victories", so we better have a plan do defeat their further intentions. To not think about the day after we pull-out and declare defeat is just as dangerous as the poor planning that put us in the position to lose this battle!

[bluestardad]

karlimhof; WELL SPOKEN I would like to despense out a little justice to these coward neocons over here for once.

their cowardous actions have killed more people than any weapon known to man!

[karlimhof]

This is your mentality, Lefties. The mentality of hate towards Jooz, Christians, and America in general. But you sure know how to tolerate ILLEGALS, Islamofascists (Pelosi, Murtha, Webb, et. al., want them to win),and froootcakes. That's your speed - a bunch of cowards and crybabies. Period.
Posted by superpatri18


This guy, lieberman18, liebersissy, now he's "superpatrioteer".

Allow me to define a "patrioteer":

"one who makes a blatant show patriotism, or who profits from it"

A perfect fit for a guy, probably a staffer for AIPAC or ADL, or the JDL - and getting paid to inject his false patriotism on line.

I wonder how much he get paid - by the hour or by line?

Anyway, his hot air and racism would serve him well back in the holy land - he's got the "right to return" and spanking new israeli passport to boot. The return of the profligate son, ready to kill all the naziislamofacists - go home lieberman and take your uncle joe with you.

[harp1963]

In the history of mankind there are not many successful examples of any country occupying another country. Hell, the British are unbelievably more militarily superior than the Irish, but they could never completely defeat them. Only since they used diplomacy have they had peace of mind from the guerrilla tatics of the IRA. The same will be true in Iraq. Diplomacy is the only way to peace. Peace may not be what Bechtel, Haliburton, Bush, and Cheney want though. There is much war profiteering going on in Iraq.

[bluestardad]

FACTS ARE STUBORN THINGS KUWAIT AND SAUDI ARABIA ARE SLANT DRILLING INTO IRAQI OIL!

ISRAEL WANTS AMERICA TO FIGHT IRAQ AN IRAN!

WHILE YOU ARE AT IT TAKE JOE LIEBERMAN BACK TO ISRAEL.

ASK THESE BOUGHT B A S T A R D S WHY IF THEIR SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL TRUMPS THEIR DUTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING KILLED FROM THEIR STATES?

ASK THEM HOW MUCH AIPAC INFLUENCES THEIR VOTES ON IRAQ AND IRAN?

IF YOU DON%u2019T KNOW WHAT AIPAC IS THEN DO A LITTLE RESEARCH OR SHUT THEHELL UP YOU IDIOTS!

TRULY SOME OF YOU ARE SO IGNORANT IT DEFIES REASON THAT YOU CAN CROSS THE ROAD!

http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm


Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)

If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

The House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

[e-mail] Here is the Republican Party email address too!

[e-mail] Here is the Democratic Party email address also!

[xgi123]

As for the author of this piece - once again, the assumption is that the war is winnable and that success/failure is contingent upon the resolve of the 'weak' general public. It's that kind of self-laudatory thinking that got Bush and his cronies into this unwinnable war in the first place - lack of self awareness is a weakness not a strength.
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 08:08 PM : Mar 20, 2007

It seems that maney stupid things have and will be done simply because it was thought it could be and wasn't. The real problems come out of the combination of not only thinking something can be done and can't but also thinking it SHOULD be done and shouldn't.

[samthetvcat]

"But IF this is already a lost cause, who is the victor? Who did we lose TO!?"
fredgrad2000

This isn't a football game - Bush and his cronies biggest enemy is themselves. They were defeated by their own arrogance - they put themselves in a position whereby success was dependent upon their enemies wanting to follow their lead. Al Quaida and Iran didn't have to do a *** thing.

As for the author of this piece - once again, the assumption is that the war is winnable and that success/failure is contingent upon the resolve of the 'weak' general public. It's that kind of self-laudatory thinking that got Bush and his cronies into this unwinnable war in the first place - lack of self awareness is a weakness not a strength.

[xgi123]

Viet Nam was not lost to the Vietcong. The military problem was fighting the NVA while having ARVN troops not doing a dam thing.

[Syndicate]

One of the problems with Vietnam was the constant call for peace talks. The Vietcong used these cease fires to rearm. Another lesson from Vietnam was how much comfort the Vietcong took from the American anti war protestors. I think its Funny how when this is pointed out today people call you names. But its true ask the Vietnamese they'll tell you. People please understand Iraq is not lost until we say it is. We can withdrawl our troops at any time and nuke the whole ******* country. We win. Game Over. :) OH and if anybody wants to complain we can send them a few ICBMs too.

[jpesot]

I think that Petraeus is a great general, and I'm glad he's in charge. I still want us to redeploy, and do so as quickly as possible.

Petraeus didn't design the surge. GW and the neocons did. Petraeus recognized that if he didn't lead it, some one else would take the men (his men) and lead them in anyway. Read Cobra II and you get a sense of the man.

I think he'd rather lead his men within a bad strategy, and try to adjust it himself, rather than leave his mean to be lead by another.

I also think the neocons hide behind him like the cowards that they are.

I think the surge idea is yet another mistake, but I hope Petraeus can modify it on the ground and turn GW's total disaster into something stable and managable.

[scott4261]

Before this war this war even started, I said, "I hope I'm wrong, but this could be George W. Bush's Vietnam!"

God, I wish I had been wrong about that.

[xgi123]

Otherwise, Jooz hater, and America basher, move to Iran or Syria, you'd be much happier there. But don't forget to take your fellow traitors with you.
Posted by superpatri18 at 04:33 PM : Mar 20, 2007

What are YOUR military credentials?

[superpatri18]

Israel NEVER got us into Iraq, bonehead Nazi boy.
Ever hear of Kuwait, Hitlerian stooge? Nah, probably not. You're too busy claimed to be an ex-American soldier. Ex is correct. Soldier, maybe. American, not by a longshot.

If Saddam had curbed his expanionist appetite, had not massacred the Kurds (incidentally are you going to make excuses for Bush I on that subject, Captain Botelier aka Bluestarbigot?), or actively sought nuclear weapons, despite what glorified secretary and PLAYBOY wannabe Val and the pervert Ritter claim, we might have left him alone. Just as we have with the Saudis. And just as we did when we betrayed the Shah.

In fact, if you want to blame anyone for us being in Iraq, go down to Plains, Georgia, arrest Carter, and order a drumhead courtmartial for the coward. He started it all by abandoning Reza Pahlevi. We abhorred Saddam but were quite willing to stay out until your hero forced us to make Saddam a foil to the Iranians.

Otherwise, Jooz hater, and America basher, move to Iran or Syria, you'd be much happier there. But don't forget to take your fellow traitors with you.

[Syndicate]

fredgrad2000: Great point.

[bluestardad]

NO ISRAEL DID NOT GET US INTO VIETNAM IT WAS FRANCE WANTING THEIR COLONEY BACK!

ISRAEL GOT US INTO IRAQ! THEY WILL WALK US INTO IRAN TOO IF WE DONT STOP THEM.

IF YOU SEE AIPAC ANYWHERE YOU KNOW IT IS THE STRONGEST ISRAELI POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE! DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE ON IT AND GUYS LIKE THIS CHICKEN HAWK NEOCON WILLIAM KRISTOL ARE TOO.

THESE GUYS HAVE CAUSED MORE DEATH THAN ANY WEAPON KNOWN TO MAN! IT IS TIME TO STOP THEM!

HOW MUCH AIPAC INFLUENCES YOUR SENATORS VOTES ON IRAQ?

http://www.aipac.org/forms/join
_aipacClubs.htm


Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN)
Allard, Wayne- (R - CO)
Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA)
Cochran, Thad- (R - MS)
Coleman, Norm- (R - MN)
Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Cornyn, John- (R - TX)
Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID)
Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC)
Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY)
Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC)
Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK)
McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY)
Roberts, Pat- (R - KS)
Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL)
Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR)
Stevens, Ted- (R - AK)
Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Warner, John- (R - VA)

If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Th
e House Speakers email address: [e-mail]

info@go
p.com Here is the Republican Party email address too!

[e-mail] Here is the Democratic Party email address also!

[fredgrad2000]

(Cont'd)...Iran had every incentive to help foment this sectarian violence as they too believed we would tire and eventually withdraw, leaving them and their allies in the majority as the masters of Iraq. But more importantly for them, the bloodier and more drawn out they helped make Iraq, the less likely we would be to have the stomach to take them on. Al Qaeda in Iraq is mostly native Iraqis, but is controlled by foreigners and swears allegiance to the overall Al Qaeda, and Iran has few minions in Iraq...but it is THEIR strategy and their proxies that have beaten us. Every war has losers and victors, if we are the losers, its important to know who the victors were that beat us, and how to, if that victory is now certain, how to limit their ability to capitalize further thereon.

[fredgrad2000]

The posts here are 80-90% against the war, which is fine, I think it was a mistake to go in based on what we know now of WMD and of the shortcomings of the Iraqi people - they'd rather fight each other and settle old blood feuds then fight for their own freedom and prosperity. But IF this is already a lost cause, who is the victor? Who did we lose TO!? Its a question that needs to be answered. The answer is we lost to Al Qaeda and Iran (our 2 most dangerous enemies). Al Qaeda, knowing they could not possibly defeat us on a battlefield, contrived the strategy of fomenting a sectarian war to make the country ungovernable and prevent a democracy from flourishing, while taking as many American lives as possible in smaller attacks, knowing that if enough US soldiers died and a definable victory remained elusive long enough (we Americans like our clear-cut victories like VE and VJ Day), we would tire and eventually "redeploy" (like it or not, that is their strategy and that is what has happened). Us leaving would allow them a near base to attack the moderate Mideast govts they despise and give them a safe haven for planning against the "big fish", us.