Is the lesson from Vietnam being forgotten when applied to Iraq?

Question

"It is true that tens of thousands of Vietnamese were killed, and hundreds of thousands exiled to "re-education" camps, by a triumphant Communist government after Saigon fell in 1975. But by the early 1970s as the worst American bombing was raging, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were being killed, and millions being exiled from their homes—carnage that came to a dead stop once the war ended. As cruel as the Communist consolidation of power was, ending the war entailed an obvious net saving of lives, and if it were saving lives conservatives actually cared about—instead of scoring ideological points—this should be obvious." "the conservatives' magical thinking: that if we had stayed, and stayed, and stayed, amidst the slaughter of yet more hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, by fellow Vietnamese, and by us, until our side eventually "won," leaving only then—our Saigon allies would have likely been just as bloody-minded...http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/iraq_vietnam_genocide?tx=3

Answer 1

We have certainly learned our lesson.  We won't be using any more of that Agent Orange defoliant.

Answer 2

It's worse than Viet Nam.  In Viet Nam it took years to get to the level of troops we had over there from the beginning.  During the Vien Nam war research based on data from Korea and WWII clearly established what the limits were for a combat soldier.  That was taken to be two tours of 13 months, and that was our policy through the whole thing.  I saw guys who loved killing people who would get discharged from one branch of the service so they could enlist in another and serve more tours.  That was rare though.  There are thousands in their third tour right now, and I've heard of as many as 5.  They say they're trying to avoid a draft but this is inhuman.  These guys will come back more screwed up physically and mentally than any servicemen in modern times.  They're being dumped on the VA which was underfunded before the war.

One of the worst things about the Viet Nam war from the moral standpoint (and there were many)  was that we abandoned our Viet Namese allies in place.  As the North Vietnamese advanced Southward, a friend of mine was part of the CIA detachment assigned to clean up the file cabinets we were leaving behind so there would be no records of the Americans or their activities.  They were ordered to leave all of the records of the Vietnamese who fought on our side.  The thinking was that it would delay the NVA advance, because they would stop to look at the records and arrest these people, and that's what happened.  I know the South Vietnamese government was corrupt, but we were partially responsible for that.  We lied to them, they trusted us, and we handed them to the enemy.

Whenever we finally do pull out of Iraq (and we will), the same thing will happen to whatever government we're backing at the time.

Answer 3

The only lessen learned from VietNam is how a President and Staff can pretend to be stupid-but-well-meaning and have a nice little, well-contained WAR!

Does everyone pretend to be 'dumb' at certain times, when they believe that , if they simply 'play ball' they can get something they want? - I do! (works)

It always seems to work, too. The voters lined up and punched their ballots accordingly, all hoping to keep their jobs and make those extra-high house payments. War adds to the stability of an economy, you know.

I need another pair of skates!

Answer 4

You made one mistake in your other wise fairly accurate rant. You claimed the "conservatives" wanted to stay. I was there. That was a liberal war. That was LBJ's conflict all the way. And the democrats pushed through and passed the Tonkin resolution authorizing the war. A conservative finally had to be elected to end it.

The reason we are still in Iraq is the same reason the government stayed in Viet Nam. Money. People are getting rich on the Iraq war. If it ends, the money goes away. Viet Nam was about money too. Don't bother blaming Bush or anyone else in the government for this war. Blame the corporations that own this country and who own both political parties.

Answer 5

What you fail to remember is that it was a liberal administration (Lyndon Johnson) that got us in to Vietnam and a conservative administration (Richard Nixon) that got us out.  Actually, I suspect you were not alive during the Vietnam war as there are a number of significant differences between the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts that make comparison between the two meaningless, but you apparently have no knowledge of these.

Answer 6

So the French got kicked out of Viet Nam and then come the Americans.  The French told the Americans how bad the war was but, Americans being Americans they dove into the war any way considering the French too week.  55 thousand dead Americans later the Americans were running for their lives to get out of Saigon and onto American ships via helicopters.

Having had a civil war as a part of America's history they should have realized the violence of a civil war.

Let's get this straight here.  What ever were the problems, the US was on one of its paranoid, psychotic episodes and were afraid of darn near everything and were ready to invade anywhere because of that psychosis.

Can't you see the irony of the US complaining about the Viet Cong hiding in the jungles and the use of napalm and bombs of the high flying B52s killing indiscriminately and today's Iraq.

There is no help for the North Vietnamese as hundreds of sorties by the US bombs trying to kill every thing below them.  We, the west, except to the Hippies, just hadn't a clue.   Like the French told the Americans that they were into an unwindable situation.

Answer 7

You ask a terrific question but your answer is incomplete. Your answer, embedded in the question, simplifies too much and makes assertions that are not necessary to justify your valid and critical question. My Addition follows:

There are three factors about the war in Vietnam that are relevant to Iraq.

1. Why did we go to war?  

2. How did we get out of the war  

3. What were the predictions about the end of the war and how do they compare with reality? You answer on this key point is very good and complete, I have nothing to add. Footnote: There is stream of jumbo jets flying from Hanoi to San Francisco, our trade with them is booming and the Financial Markets have very wealthy Silicon Valley companies investing in Vietnam. About Castro's Cuba: Have you seen Michael Moore's "Sicko"? It's amazing how a few "old money people" control Florida and national politics -Democracy is not the word that comes to mind

1. Why did we go to war? Lies, including Presidential lies, drove the country into both wars. Only Senator Morse of Oregon voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, based on an invented or provoked attack. Our current Senator from Oregon also voted against funding the War in Iraq. Is it the water in Oregon, you think?

Gen. Eric Shinseki warned us that 200,000 troops were needed and was promptly sacked and nobody shed a tear for the penultimate sacrifice of this Iraq Hero -then or now. Sen. McCain is quiet on this issue.

2. The war in Vietnam ended when the people made it clear to our rulers that we want the war to stop. Many individuals tried to lead but most, if not all, led the people, AFTER the people had decided on their own.

Kent State was a turning point, perhaps the killing and the lies about Soldier Hero Tillman will become a turning point. We will get out of Iraq when enough people emphaticaly say, "ENOUGH! Stop the War in Irag" regardless the consequences, soldiers lives are beyond any "calculations."

Political "calculation" drives politicians to lead, but not so far ahead that they lose contributions from the Military-Industrial Complex, General Eisenhower warned us about. Many are slave to their Masters in ways they can never admit, perhaps they need an Emancipation Proclamation.

Some may not be wishy-washy, they know which side of their bread has the butter and the reality is most people against the War in Iraq do not contribute much to politicians running for office, neither did the demostrators that ended the War in Vietnam.

Sample Deception: Funding the war to send better armored Humvees illustrates their deception. People do not want our soldiers to be "better protected over there" they want them safe "over here, not over there!"

Yet, as clumsy and dumb as their line is, I have heard senior polticians deliver this line with great "gravitas", the tone of TV voice that gets you elected. How many voters are that dumb? Are the Politicians that feed us these views, too dumb?

Do people "buy" their line? I have never met any that dumb. Maybe,  I should "get out more often", you think?

If I may go beyond the original Question, and bring back Emancipation, I believe that the price of forgetting the sacrifice of 320 sailors in Port Chicago Magazine Explosion led to the indifference of our fellow citizens, it led to "I got mine, you are on your own" a way of thinking that makes us indifferent to the death of our soldiers in Iraq and Vietnam, as long as they are not relatives of ours.

Like Michael Moore, the philosopher, said in his movie: "We seem to have replaced 'We The People..' in the Declaration of Independence with 'I the People..' Something, more appropriate to King Louis who said "The State, is me" (it sounds much better in the original French, but French is no longer required in Yale).

--Finally, since we don't help the 9/11 volunteers that got sick from the WTC dust, how many, do you think, will learn the lesson from that and think twice about helping others...

Go see the Movie "Sicko"!

Addendum

James Clive wrote a book "Cultural Amnesia" which may help explain how and why we repeat a mistake.

Ans: The mistake is embedded in the culture and it is no longer a "mistake" but is OK to do it.

I heard a politician openly say that (approx) "people should learn that the government is not responsible for their health, they are!" He said it loudly and proudly.

Workers in all the other Industrial Nations, our competitors that are beating us out of high pay jobs, would be shocked!

I remember once I heard that Icon of Conservatism, Berry Goldwater say "If I get sick and my kids don't take care of me, I'll whip them!" I wonder if he remembered what he said when he reached old age? Before Alzheimer's was known.

There was once a sense of community born out of efforts to survive in the wilderness. The end of wilderness may have led to a sense of personal independence that says "Let them eat cake!" or "Don't they have orphanages?"

Global Warming will change all this. Either, we ALL change our behavior enough to survive or NOBODY survives.

It is a mutuality of purpose that has never been seen.

We depend on the Natives deep in the jungles of Indonesia and Brazil to protect the rain forest which will cleanse the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere that produces global warming. We depend on them, and they do not even know it.

We must reduce emissions to the level that can be handled by the rainforest. The oceans are full.

Answer 8

How is this an environmental question?

Answer 9

Your question is not an environmental question , but it has an environmental answer.

The funding for Islamic terorism comes from money earned by the export of oil.

A legitimate military response is to blockade the oil producing countries that are funding terrorism so that they cannot export any oil. That will shut off most of the funding for terrorism and bankrupt the countries who support and fund terrorism.

Essentially the biggest source of funds for Islamic terrorism is Iran. Iran earns over 80% of its income from the export of oil.

If you blockade Iran and prevent them from exporting oil you will bankrupt that country in a matter of weeks and shut of the major source of funding for the Islamic terorists.

The environmental side to this is that this will reduce the supply of oil and consequently dramatically increase the price of oil.

This will help alternative sources of energy to become more competitive economically.

Cheap oil has been the major impediment to alternative sources of energy and renewable sources of energy.

A blockade of Iran will have the environmentally beneficial effect of helping alternative sources of energy and renewable sources of energy to be economically competitive with oil.