THE CURMUDGEON CHRONICLE - #212

THE CURMUDGEON CHRONICLE ©

AN IRREVERENT VIEW


Time Line: August 21, 2007
Date Line: Flemington New Jersey

Now that we are about to leave Iraq, (more or less), the comparisons to Viet Nam will begin in earnest. The Chronicle would like to give you its take.

Viet Nam would not have happened if Franklin Roosevelt had lived. He was absolutely opposed to France’s demands for colonial control in Indo China. After FDR’s death, a strident De Gaulle demanded US assistance in transporting a French army to Indo China. While FDR would have turned that down flat, Truman and the people in the State Department bought the Gaullist argument that a strong France was necessary to counterbalance the Russian threat in Europe. In consequence the concept of local independence and self rule went by the wayside; The US provided transport, and Ho Chi Min became our enemy.

As with Iraq, our self interest was never an issue in Viet Nam. We got embroiled in an unnecessary conflict for purposes that were like the French argument. Safety in Europe required assisting its colonial aspirations. In Iraq need for removal of Sadaam was a similar Trojan Horse. Near term history has proved that Sadaam was no more bloodthirsty or inimical to our interests than his successors. In some quarters he was considered the lesser of two evils.

As in Viet Nam, Iraq demonstrates that US ideals, methods, beliefs and form of government are not what every nation aspires to have. It is the most damaging form of hubris to act as though we have the holy grail and are anointed to give the world a sip from the golden chalice. Can you preach freedom and love, while in the same breath you set death in motion in a cloud of “shock and awe”? The Middle Eastern nations do not think that is possible and will not be bought into that belief.

As in Viet Nam, the Legislative and Executive branches avoided being confused by the facts. Experienced observers and participants in the Gulf War knew what would happen once Iraq’s pitiful military forces were swept aside. Cheney had but to recall his own assessment of the foolishness of trying to occupy Iraq for us to have avoided this conflict.
\
As in Viet Nam we underestimated the will and religious fervor of the region’s Muslim majority not to be ruled by Western concepts of secular government. While Muslims are divided on some matters, in dealing with the West they are united. We underrated their devotion to their religious practices and to places considered holy and sacrosanct. That is a battle that cannot be won without adopting the biblical model: total destruction of a conquered territory and murder and enslavement of its inhabitants.

The risk/ reward ratios never favored the enterprise in Viet Nam or Iraq. In each case if we had “won” we would have proved decisively that a super power can defeat a fifth rate military organization but the costs are too high for such a victory. In each case if we “lost” we would prove that a superpower can invade and occupy a fifth rate power but the costs are too high to risk the possibility of loss.

Finally, in Iraq and in Viet Nam no thought was given to alternative courses that would preserve our alliances and prestige; increase local opposition to terrorism in the Middle East; cement new alliances in that region, and leave us free of the crushing debt and sorrow that follow in the wake of war.

There must be something in the water in Washington DC that makes people in government substitute slogans for rational thought. I give you for example:” Bring it On”; “Stay the Course”; “Save the World”, “Fight them There Instead of Here” and so forth.

As long as that mind-set thrives, terrorists don’t need to attack us here; they can just leave the job to our own government and save a bundle of cash and weaponry. (By the way, Viet Nam is now independent and our honored “trading partner” which is what it was all about in the first place.)


Howard Stamer