Vietnam, Iraq, Black and White thinking, and the failure of ideology.

[arbusto_baboso]

The wars in Vietnam and Iraq beg comparison, which is why Vietnam is still relevant to current political debate. Unfortunately, many still draw the wrong conclusions from Vietnam, and think they can be applied to Iraq.

The first mistake is in thinking that Vietnam was a struggle of Democracy against Communism, or of Freedom against Tyranny.

In reading any source material from that period, or speaking with any Vietnamese from that time, one is struck first and foremost by one thing. More important to the Vietnamese than any ideology was the idea of Vietnamese nationhood. Simply put, the Vietnamese wanted to rule themselves, not be ruled by any foreigners, however benevolent.

Further evidence that Vietnam was not about ideology is the fact that Ho Chi Minh approached the US several times requesting American assistance against the French. It was only AFTER being dismissed by American officials each time, that Ho reluctantly sought aid from the Communist Bloc to achieve Vietnamese nationalist aims.

The idea that "different rules of engagement" or a "clear committment from the politicians" could've achieved anything resembling an American victory in such an evironment is naive at best. Even worse is the train of thought which accuses anti-war protestors of sabotaging the war effort. This is no different from Germans assuming they could have won World War I if they hadn't "been betrayed" by the armistice which, in reality, SAVED Germany from utter destruction.

Fast forward to Iraq.

Is it *really* about "the forces of freedom battling the forces of terror"? It seems that I recall a great number of Iraqis were in fact grateful to be rid of Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, they didn't (and still don't) want Americans there. They wanted us to liberate them and leave, so they could determine their own fate. Instead, by staying longer to "stabilize" the country and "make it safe for democracy", we only succeed in further antagonizing an Iraqi population that increasingly sees our presence as that of an invader rather than a liberator. Indeed, for most Iraqis, they only want their own nation, and care little for whether the values are "democratic" or "islamicist".

Secondly, a great many Iraqis lived a fairly comfortable life in the Hussein regime... as long as they were NOT vocal in any kind of oppostion to the regime. Now, however, "free" Iraqis struggle to feed their families, have unreliable utilities, are unsafe no matter what their politics are, and somehow WE are surprised that they hate us for being in their country! Freedom means little when your children are starving, as I'm sure Maslow would attest.

We need to wake the fuck up. Things aren't always about "freedom vs. tyranny" or "Democracy vs. Communism" or "Democracy vs. Terror". Sometimes people just want to be able to go to hell in their own handbasket. And why should we even try to stop them?

[Malva Zebrina]

1. Because we want their stuff nt

[arbusto_baboso]

2. Well, DUH, but I was wanting to know.....

how anyone could possibly think this war was about ideology. I was also wanting to know how anyone could think that ideology was anything resembling a decent reason for GOING to war, or do anything but set us up for inevitable failure.

[Malva Zebrina]

3. I know, what you wanted

I am one of those "what's for lunch" philosophers

[Jacobin]

4. Vietnam was about the military industrial complex being bored and

wanting a nifty little war to fight to try out their new toys and intimidate the USSR. Domino Effect was their public justification.

The Iraq invasion is a much grittier and malevolent kind of conquest. Control of oil is the keystone and Israeli supremacy in the M.E. another. "WMD, Freedom for Iraqis, Saddam Bad Guy, fighting terraists" are all the willy-nilly (try this one and then that one) public justifications for the conquest.

Its not possible to get voters fired up about the real reasons for either of these wars and it would be hard to get soldiers to go die for the real reasons. The government makes up fables because people will die for fables long before they'll die for the real reasons.

[arbusto_baboso]

5. Strongly disagree. REAL reasons are more powerful...

if they're the RIGHT ones, which was my point.

Fighting for "freedom" or "democracy" or "against terror" will keep the populace and soldiers fired up for awhile, but is ultimately very vague and not sustainable.

The Iraqis and Vietnamese, however, were and are fighting for the VERY REAL reason of driving out the foreign invaders. That is motivation which can be sustained over the long haul, and which our high-flying retoric (even if it were the true reason for us going to war) could never compete against.