Vietnam vs Iraq - Essay Example

VIETNAM AND IRAQ United s' invasion of Iraq was questioned by many and the same critics have now invoked Vietnam as an analogy. Though President Bush rejected this analogy, doubts regarding United States' ability to form a stable government in Iraq persist, causing many to draw comparison between this invasion and US' military attack against Vietnam back in 1960s. It is believed that United States has again entered a foreign quagmire from which it is unable to withdraw without causing some heavy scars to the American psyche- not to mention severe damages to the economy, military assets, American soldiers etc. However proponents of this invasion fail to acknowledge any similarity between the two conflicts. They focus more on the differences and thus any similarity, if there exists any, is rejected off-hand. Instead of juxtaposing Iraq with Vietnam, which serves as a symbol of shameful defeat for the US, these proponents who compare this war instead with Nazi or Imperial Japan that were subdued by US forced during the Second World War. There is yet another group that feels that some similarities exist but there are differences too. for example counterinsurgency operations were involved in both cases but there is no force like North Vietnam present for Iraq. Since the fall of Saigon in 1975, Vietnam has been the symbol of failed US policies and bad military choices for many critics. It is seen as the worst possible demonstration of misplaced aggression and has been influencing American voters' attitudes towards war and use of force against a third party. Thus Vietnam analogy was something US couldn't keep out of discussion. It had to enter this debate since Vietnam's example is important and every time, US administration is criticized for its aggressive use of force, Vietnam can serve as a suitable reminder. Apart from that Vietnam also shaped the political awareness of generation that now rules America. Some obvious similarities between the two wars can be summarized as follows: In both wars, American public had been lied to about motives of invasion. Public had supported the government earlier only to withdraw its support when truth was revealed US suffered major setback when its allies refused to extend support in the long run. Its position in the world also declined. In both wars, while allies refused support for US' aims, they did provide troops when needed. When we closely study the case in point however more differences than similarities seem to exist between the two experiences. Vietnam in 1960s was a powerful nation and one that had long resisted against foreign domination. Sense of nationalism was strong, mobilized against the French by communists and thus people took extreme pride in their own political and social structure. They did not need a third party to tell them what was right for them. Iraq on the other hand was a weaker nation plagued by years of warfare and internal conflicts. Nationalism was missing because of extreme religious and ethnic tensions. In Vietnam, United States had adopted a vastly different approach of aggression. It had started out as an insurgency that later bloomed into full scale war. That was not the case in Iraq where it had been a full-fledge war from the beginning though it later transformed into insurgency. Similarly while Vietnam was well trained and its military strength was a force to reckon with, Iraq was a fragmented military power with no support from external sources. Apart from this, we also need to understand United States' global strategic position then and now. In 1960s, there were other powers that could keep United States' military aggression in check. Soviet Union could act as a great restraining force but that was not the case now. United States today enjoys a more powerful position globally and it has greater presence in the world than it had with USSR acting as a formidable force. It was now easier for the US to move ahead and overthrow the government in Iraq which was neither the intention nor the result of war with Vietnam. The differences also lay in the number of days the conflict continued. In Vietnam, it took America over 8 years to admit its mistake and pull out- resulting in the death of 58,000 Americans while 305,000 people were wounded. [1] However in Iraq it took, America less than 3 weeks to subdue the enemy but has stayed in the country for over 2 years now. Deaths and injuries are many but less in comparison with Vietnam. Thus from strategic or operational viewpoint, there appear to be no significant comparison between the two wars. The differences in US' global position and the size and power of the enemy have rendered any comparison meaningless. Apart from the fact that American Presidents lied to their people about their reasons to go to war, there are no other significant similarities to discuss. Apart from all the differences listed above, there are some other contrasts that exist in war aims and military strength now and then. When America went on war with Vietnam in 1960s, it was not as powerful or as uncontested a force as it is today. Secondly, its main aim was not to overthrow the government in North Vietnam but to protect South Vietnam from communist rule. America had always been against communism and it felt that for the maintenance of non-communist status quo in South Vietnam, it had to use force. Secretary of State Dean Rusk had apologetically said: There can be no serious debate about the fact that we have a commitment to assist the South Vietnamese to resist aggression from the North. . . . The integrity of the U.S. commitment is the principal pillar of peace throughout the world. If that commitment becomes unreliable, the communist world would draw conclusions that would lead to our ruin and almost certainly to a catastrophic war. [2] The war in Iraq was more of a preventive nature. It was meant to overthrow the government on the pretext of WMDs and it was felt that Iraq had to be subdued in order to fight the bigger war on terrorism. Differences also occur in the number of losses incurred by the US in these invasions. From 1965 to 1972, United States lost 55,750 soldiers while some 292,000 persons were seriously wounded. This loss was much more significant than the losses incurred in Iraq at the end of conflict period. On May 1, 2003 when major combat operations came to an end in Iraq, US had encountered suffered a total of 138 deaths in Iraq. [3] Even though this number increased later but still the average losses per day were far less than what US had suffered in Vietnam. Another important difference lies in principles and motives of war. For Vietnam, its war with the US was extremely important since it was basically viewed as an attack against its national unity. We must not forget that United States was a very impressive enemy even in 1960s, but the reason it lost this war was because of the passion with which Vietnamese were fighting for victory. This is clear from the number of losses that North Vietnam and communist forces were willing to suffer in order to allow communism to prevail. According to a figure released in 1995, Hanoi government declared that it had lost 1,100,000 people during its war with the US. [4] Richard K. Betts comments on the motives of war: The Vietnamese Communists were fighting for their country as well as their principles, while the Americans had only principles at stake--and as the antiwar case became steadily more persuasive, even those principles were discredited. The only possibility for decisive victory for the United States lay in the complete obliteration of North Vietnam, an alternative unthinkably barbaric, unimaginably dangerous, and pointless. Hanoi bent but never broke because it preferred endless war to defeat; Washington bent and finally did break because the public preferred defeat to endless war. [5] For one, there was never a definite force in Iraq. There were several groups fighting the war with diverse ends in mind. These forces were militarily manageable and none of them posed any serious threat. The Vietnamese had serious motives and they had one goal in mind i.e. restoration and supremacy of communism. No such aim existed in the minds of insurgents fighting against the US and many appeared to resent Saddam's government before US launched military attack. The enemy in Vietnam was impressive, powerful and relentless- however the same cannot be said of Iraq that has little external support and no organized internal force. Douglas Blaufarb observed: By and large, then--and this is the essence of the [VC/PAVN's] ability to survive in the teeth of American superiority--the enemy was able to control the pace and scope of combat and thus the level of combat losses by evading contact when it did not suit his purpose. By this means, he managed to keep losses within his capacity to replace them, even despite the length of his supply and replacement lines and his lack of mobility and heavy firepower. Generally alerted in advance to American intentions, he avoided battle until he was ready. To him, losses--at least up to a high level never actually reached--did not matter, terrain did not matter. What mattered was to keep the force in being, its morale high, and its minimum supply requirements assured-and to exact a price from the Americans which in the long run would be felt painfully. [6] Another main difference can be seen in the number of troops deployed in Iraq. United States had close to 135,000 troops in Iraq at the end of first year of war which is one-third of what it had in Vietnam during the same period. The support that Vietnamese had received from external sources was more powerful and consistent than support extended to Iraqis in terms of manpower and military weapons. Apart from human cost of war which was far greater in Vietnam than it has been in Iraq, the material cost has also been much less in this ongoing conflict. While the differences far outweigh the similarities between these two conflicts, still we cannot deny that Vietnam does have significance for this ongoing war. What we have discussed so far should not allow us to conclude that war in Iraq is much easier than it was in Vietnam. Though North Vietnamese were a formidable force and Iraq is a much weaker enemy, still America has many odds against it which can make even this conflict an embarrassing symbol of failure. For one, America doesn't have public support any longer. People are aggressively forcing the government to pull out from Iraq. This can have a far reaching implication on US already feeble attempts at building a stable democracy in Iraq. REFERENCES 1. Harry G. Summers, Jr., Vietnam War Almanac, New York: Facts on File Publications, 1985, p. 113. 2. Quoted in Larry Berman, Planning a Tragedy: The Americanization of the War in Vietnam, New York: W. W. Norton, 1982, p. 92. 3. Anthony H. Cordesman, The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons, Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2002, p. 238. 4. Spencer C. Tucker, ed., Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 64. 5. Richard K. Betts, "Interests, Burdens, and Persistence: Asymmetries Between Washington and Hanoi," International Studies Quarterly, December 1980, p. 523. 6. Douglas S. Blaufarb, The Counterinsurgency Era: U.S. Doctrine and Performance, 1950 to the Present, New York: Free Press, 1977, p. 252. Read More