Many of the comparisons I've heard between Vietnam and Iraq are a reach. Entire books could be written about the differences. And perhaps the man best suited to write the book examining that topic would be the Former Secretary of Defense for nearly the majority of the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara. Unfortunately he has refused to comment on Iraq directly as he is unwilling to question a sitting Secretary of Defense. However, if we look to a book McNamara's wrote in 1996 "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam:" we find 11 lessons he learned from the Vietnam War.
As you read these, remember these were not written by a critic of the Iraq war second-guessing the administrations with the luxury of hindsight. Quite the opposite. These lessons were written not about Iraq, but a war that ended over 30 years ago. Words written four years before Bush came into office and five years before September 11th.
"We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries ... and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions." Lesson 1
In Vietnam we went to war on based on a belief in "Domino theory". The assumption was that if even the smallest of countries fell to communism, it was pressed upon them by the great communist powers of the Soviet Union and China, and so when that nation fell, soon after so too would their neighbors, leading to a "Domino Effect" that could drive entire regions into the sphere of influence of the red menace.
We invaded Iraq on the premise that it was part of a Global War on Terror. Our belief was that all countries hostile to US interest were potential supporters of Islamic Jihadist terrorists. And that Iraq without our intervention would join with Islamic Jihadists and that through this merger the entire region could potentially fall to anti-american, pro-terrorist rulers.
"We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience ... We totally misjudged the political forces within the country." Lesson 2 of 11.
People often say that went into Iraq on the assumption that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. This is both true and false. France has weapons of Mass Destruction, we don't invade them. Pakistan has Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to terrorists groups, and we don't invade them. The reason I feel we went into Iraq was that we made assumptions based on our forcing everything into a "Global War on Terror" set of beliefs. Our assumption about Iraq were
1)Iraq had WMD's 2)Iraq was immediately willing to use those weapons against America and it's allies, or at minimum provide them to those who would use them. 3)These Weapons could not be located, removed and/or destroyed while the existing regime was in power prior to them being given to people who would use them against America and it's Allies 4)Threats of severe consequences against the Iraqi interests, including use of military force, would not be effective at detering Iraq from distributing said Weapons to those who would use them against the US and it's Allies, because the regime could not be counted to act reasonable in it's self interests. 5)Therefore only way to prevent the use of these weapons was to invade the country.
Each and every one of these assumptions was wrong, and several of them untested. Iraq had no WMD's. If they did, they were a secular power formed with the goal of Arab National Unification. Providing weapons or support to Islamic Nationalists who considered the Iraqi government to be heretical made no sense. Osama Bin Laden called out Saddam as a heretic.
Iraq attacking directly or even being caught doing so indirectly would be suicide. Even using a weapon of mass destruction against isreal would provoke at least a proportional response, at most nuclear war. They were not, using the popular term going around "Islamofacists" who cared more about rewards beyond mortal life to the point they would commit suicide to smite thier enemies. They were a dictatorship, And dictators, though vile, are generally practical. They seek to remain in power above all else, and so their interests are not serves in provoking the US into attack and invasion.
"We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values." Lesson number 3 of 11
In Vietnam, first it assumed that communists countries would have a collective "Communist" interest that would usurp nationalist interests. We assumed the Vietnamese were fighting for China, and failed to understand Vietnamese were fighting for Vietnam. They were supported by the Chinese out of necessity, not out of loyalty. Vietnam as a state existed in spite of China, not because of it. Ho Chi Mihn fought to remove first the French Colonialists and later the Americans, not to gain the Chinese.
Chinese attempts at controlling the government would have met the same guns that French attempts did. We failed to see this. We viewed the world Cold War glasses, as perhaps our post September 11th glasses viewed Iraq. When we left it is true that Vietnam became a communist state, however China did not take over. To the contrary Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to remove the Khymer Rouge angered China to the point that they launched a short failed invasion into Vietnam in 1979.
"Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders." Lesson number 4 of 11
One of the biggest stated fears of leaving Iraq is the growing influence of Iran. And while it is true that the Majority of Iraqi's share the same religion as a majority of the Iranians, it is also true that they do not share the same language, and only 20 years ago were engaged in a bloody territorial war. Arab's are not Persians, Persians are not Arabs. While it is certain Iran will attempt to influence Iran, much like China in Vietnam, it is unlikely that they will succeed in any direct way.
Iran and Iraq exist as separate countries specifically because they are different cultures. We seem to be viewing them through the post September 11th lens of inserting religious extremism into every debate on the matter. But we must remember that as much as we would like to say that Saddam was the cause of all of the conflicts, Iraqi's wielded the guns just 20 years ago that invaded Iran. 20 years is living memory, and so it is unlikely that a country who's only shared linkage to Iraq is a tenuous partially shared interpretation of Islam will not control the hearts and minds of Iraq any more successfully than we have.
"We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine..." Lesson number 5 of 11
In Germany and Japan, the ratio of troops to civilians was nearly 1 troop for every 50 civilians. Yet despite citing this as the example of how quickly Iraq would stabilize and democratize, we committed 150,000 troops for a country of nearly 29 million. To put into perspective, in order to achieve the same ratio of troops to civilians we had in the most recent successful conflict, Bosnia, we would need to commit roughly 500,000 troops. This current troop surge comes no where near the levels that have been demonstrated needed in the past in similar conflicts. We thought going it that we could shortcut it with technology. And we were tragically wrong.
"We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture" Lesson number 6 of 11
While we now seem to be making this adjustment, our initial focus lead to seeing terrorists everywhere we went. While it certainly wasn't doctrine, Haifa and Abu Ghraib have been every bit as damaging to our credibility as the My Lai massacre was in Vietnam. Perhaps more so given satellite television.
"We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement ... before we initiated the action." Lesson number 7 of 11
Perhaps the war could have been averted. And perhaps if not averted perhaps if we had that debate early on we would have had a more reasonable plan for the peace and not just for the war. I doubt America even then would have committed the 500,000 man force needed to do the job. And perhaps that is exactly why we did not have that debate
"After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course ... we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did." Lesson number 8 of 11
While the administrations claims that the insurgency started with the bombing of the Samarra shrine in February of 2006, the fact is that it was clear in the summer of 2003 the mission was not accomplished. Tikrit, Mosul and Fallujah were functionally out of our control. When four contractors were killed, mutaliated, and their bodies put on display, it only brought the facts on the ground to our TV screens. Still they were called terrorists, and linked to a global religious war, rather than placed in proper context.
There really is nothing I can add to the final three points, as McNamara says it all in lessons 9 through 11.
"We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose." Lesson number 9 of 11
"We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action ... should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community." Lesson number 10 of 11
"We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions ... At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world." Lesson number 11 of 11
So where does this leave us going forward? I see two options, neither positive. One, we find a way to commit 500,000 troops to Iraq. There was a time when we had a multinational force of just that size in the region, but the political capital is long since spent. The only other option I see would be a draft, and even with those troop levels there is no guarantee. Another lesson of Vietnam.
The other option of course is withdrawal. And this is where Iraq is very clearly not Vietnam. In Vietnam we basically knew who would come to power if we left, the dreaded communists. Those who fought with us either fled with us or were killed. And as tragic as that was, in the end, letting Vietnam fall to communism was deemed the lesser evil relative to continuing the fight.
Now in Iraq, we just don't know. Will the Government stand? Will a clerical Islamic state rise instead? Or will Iraq fall into Chaos? The Sunni's and Shites co-existed peacefully for millenia, but the divide rises now as chaos forces people to choose sides. This isn't about us, and our post September 11th world view. We aren't fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here. They won't stop fighting and turn their focus on America when we leave. Osama Bin Laden will have no more safe haven there than the average Iraqi just trying to stay alive.
And that, in my opinion, is the issue. This civil was isn't as much about religion as it is about finding allies when the world is blowing up around you. It is about survival. When a man is trying to survive in a chaotic world, a man seeks alliegiances to join. And through these factions comes war. We were afraid after September 11th, and so our patriotism was our banner. We charged that banner into war, seeking a them to blame for our misfortune, in the hope that eliminating them would make us safe. Now the Iraqi's are afraid, and until they can feel safe they will ironically join together to fight each other.
The partitioning of the Middle East and Africa arbitrarily redrew lines over areas long established. It took Europe centuries to establish it's borders and sovereignty by the sword. America came to fruition more quickly thanks to the unceremonious and often bloody removal of the native residents, and a civil war that lead roughly a million casualties, roughly 3% of the population at that time. We like to delude ourselves into believing we came to our success and freedom through good men, when the truth is we came here by way of blood.
So the question is this. Is it worth it to us to commit 500,000 men and women to lessen a conflict we still may not prevent? And if not, then this time when we walk away will we remember the lessons we have been taught?