Invoking Vietnam
to Skirt Iraq
By Siddique Malik.
Louisville, KY
smalik94@hotmail.com
On May 1, 2003, less than
two months after launching the Iraq war, President
Bush declared the mission accomplished. During
those tumultuous days, questioning war was quickly
labeled as being pro-terrorism. The talk of the
possibility of the Iraq war turning into another
Vietnam-like fiasco was frowned upon.
More than four years later, the mission is still
unaccomplished. Moreover, the President is drawing
parallels between the two wars. He was wrong when
he made the “mission-accomplished”
announcement on board a Navy ship after creating
the drama of landing on it. He and his staff thought
that the pictures of him emerging on the deck,
dressed in a Navy jacket, and declaring victory
in front of the soldiers, would create impressive
images to be used in the 2004 presidential campaign.
Little did they know that the war was going to
take such a bad turn that they would be bending
over backwards to hide these pictures and avoid
any mention of this event. Foresight and wisdom
were completely missing from the picture.
The President is wrong again. There are differences
between the Vietnam fiasco and the Iraq debacle.
As a matter of fact the Iraq situation is much
worse than the Vietnam disaster.
The Vietnam War had a national and international
purpose. Communism was on the march in South East
Asia, and a case could have been made for efforts
to stop this encroachment. No sloppy intelligence
was allowed to enter the decision-making process
over Vietnam. On the other hand, President Bush
was personally hung up on starting the Iraq war.
He told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
and was harboring terrorists while he knew that
this was untrue. The excuse of sloppy intelligence
is just a sloppy excuse that does not befit the
holder of the world’s most powerful office.
The other difference is in the exit options. When
America left Vietnam, it did not leave behind
an Iran, a country imbued with religious hatred
and bent upon developing military nuclear power.
Yes, terrible atrocities took place in the region
and millions died at the hands of the murderous
Khmer Rouge. But this region did not have 14 centuries
old sectarian animosities. Otherwise, the carnage
would have been even bigger.
If we leave Iraq abruptly, the subsequent sectarian
conflicts would engulf the entire region and possibly
spread from Turkey to Pakistan and from Morocco
to Egypt. Iran would fill the vacuum, quickly
becoming the sole and unquestioned power in the
region. Its quest for military nuclear prowess
would become virtually unstoppable, because it
would have no fear. Having just fled the region,
the US would be in no position to return to it
and invade Iran. President Bush or his successor
might order air strikes on Iran but this action
would accomplish nothing except inducing more
instability into the region. Infuriated by the
US air strikes, Iran would fire nuclear-armed
missiles in all possible directions the moment
it develops them.
It would not be a cold war like situation in which
sanity prevailed in Moscow and all Western capitals.
Despite immense dislike of each other, the USSR
and the West made diligent efforts to ensue that
the cold war’s temperature did not rise.
Slightest irritants in relationships were discussed
urgently and thoroughly. On the other hand, the
Iranian leadership truly believes that it takes
its orders from Allah. If Iran has nuclear weapons
and one night the “grand” Ayatollah
eats too much before sleeping and the indigestion
causes him to have strange dreams, he might wake
up and interpret his dreams as a divine instruction
to press the nuclear button. Being a religion-based
tyranny, there would be no room inside Iran for
discussions over the Ayatollah’s conclusions.
No efforts would be made to discuss the Ayatollah’s
“indigestion” with the infidels of
the “satanic” West.
This is the extent of the danger to which President
Bush has subjected the US and the entire free
world, and this highlights the differences between
the Vietnam and Iraq wars from yet another angle.
America lost in Vietnam but only after considerably
denting the prospects of the entire South East
Asia being overrun by Communism. The energy spent
in pursuing the Viet Cong in hot, humid and dangerous
jungles of Vietnam were not a complete loss.
On the other hand, not only has the Iraq misadventure
been a complete wastage of energies, it has actually
made America and the free world less safe. Too
many lives have been sacrificed and too many financial
resources consumed against an enemy that did no
exist: WMDs and Saddam’s link with terrorism.
Iran, a country that would have been afraid of
America’s might while secretly pursuing
nuclear power, is openly seeking this capability.
It is loving the silver platter on which we have
handed it the entire region.
Therefore, despite the obvious similarities of
death and destruction, there are major differences
between the Vietnam and Iraq wars. We just cannot
leave Iraq with our diplomats crammed in a helicopter
taking off from the rooftop of our embassy and
assume the case is closed. We have no choice but
to remain miserably mired in Iraq for many decades.
Now, when President Bush equates the Iraq and
Vietnam debacles, he is just talking about the
tip of the iceberg that he has injected into a
sea of bigotry, tyranny and suppression. His attempt
to liken these two wars amounts to invoking the
Vietnam adventure to hide the failures of the
Iraq misadventure. President Bush is an expert
on deflecting issues and he is doing it again.
Meanwhile, Americans deserve to know if President
Bush or any of his officers foresaw this dismal
situation at the war planning stage, if, in earnest,
there was one? “What did the president know
and when did he know it”?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
