Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

At 30: Iraq and the Vietnam Syndrome

By Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher. Posted May 2, 2005.


Iraq is not Vietnam; still, though some find comparisons silly, the fact remains that 53% of Americans feel the current war is 'not worth it.'

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Greg Mitchell

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The flood of stories in the press marking the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon is near its end (the anniversary having passed on Saturday). There have been articles lamenting that we ever set foot in Indochina, others claiming that we could and should have won the war, and every view in between.

Then there's Jonah Goldberg's Op-Ed in USA Today. He used the occasion not to try to come to grips with that war but denounce those -- mainly, he said, "liberal baby boomers" -- who on a "near-daily" basis link Iraq to Vietnam. He said they are simply filled with "nostalgia" for their glory days of antiwar hedonism.

Attempting to bolster this argument, Goldberg charged the boomers aren't even in touch with the facts: namely, the Vietnam war wasn't among the most unpopular in our history. His one piece of evidence: someone named Sol Tax of the University of Chicago who apparently claimed, in a 1968 study, that Vietnam ranked as only "the fourth or seventh least-popular war in American history."

Ignore for a moment the imprecision (fourth or seventh?) and consider when this ranking took place: 1968, well before most of the country turned against the war. I realize that Goldberg is a youngish man, but really, he should know his Vietnam history a little better. Then again, he didn't live through the conflict (as baby boomers did).

Then there's Goldberg's dubious claim that "in Vietnam, the insurgency phase of the war was largely over by 1965." Goodbye, "Charlie"!

With that taken care of, Goldberg described the ways that Iraq is "completely different from Vietnam in almost every major respect." He mentioned the differences between a "jungle war" and a "desert war." Also, "the technologies" are "incomparable." And let's not forget: the "terrain," the "ideologies," not to mention "the cultures." The Cold War vs. The War on Terror. The casualty rates.

Of course, this is all one big "Duh," the knocking down of overstuffed straw men. No one I know, when they make any firm or loose connection between Iraq and Vietnam, mentions anything on Goldberg's list, for good reason. But this Goldberg variation is necessary. He needs to highlight the no-brainers to avoid the profound ways in which the wars are similar.

Let's start with: the nation's leaders lying to the American people to gain our involvement in the two wars. Don't take my word for it. Gallup found this week that half of all Americans now say that President Bush deliberately misled them on WMDs.

Then, how about, watching the war drag on, month after month, with "pacification" said to be right around the corner (two or three times a year). We just came out of such a "turning point," only to be told by General Richard Myers last week that the insurgency was as strong as ever, followed by a massive upsurge in attacks in the past few days.


Digg!

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P and author of seven books of history and politics.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Vietnam syndrome
Posted by: Djon on May 2, 2005 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq's most important parallel to Vietnam is that we invaded and we lost both wars.

The difference is that Iraq was oppressed by a monster and his cult, our monster in fact, whereas Ho was elected, asked for our friendship, and was spurned.

As some know, President Ho was given the heave ho by Nazis (French and Japanese) under the direction of the British army in Burma, under direct orders from Churchill...who wanted to preserve the "integrity" of colonies ...unlike FDR who wanted them ended after WWII.

Contrast to Iraq: The US wanted Sadaam in place in order to counterbalance Iran, whose Shia citizens had given our boy the heave ho.

Interestingly we invented a Catholic country in "South Vietnam" and supported the ruler of Iran, whose wife, if not he himself, was a Catholic: endowed St Mary's college in Northern California.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even if you disagree with the war
Posted by: Damien1247 on May 2, 2005 3:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not believe that Iraq is yet as bad as Vietnam. For one it is at least a direct fight. From what i know of Vietnam it was nothing more than disguised fight against the Soviet Union. And let us also not forget when speaking of Sadam Hussein as a monster, we put him in that position. Indirectly, yes but we did put him there.


Another key difference is the fact that the insurgents are not receiving the level of support they recieved in Vietnam. My understanding of the situation is that the majority of people in Iraq want the terrorists and insurgents to give up.

Now mind you I am no great supporter of The wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan but i beleive that the American people should get behind their troops no matter what. Even if you do not support a war you have neighbors or neighbor's children in there getting shot at and should be supported. This is why Vietnam disgusted me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Support our troops
Posted by: liberal commies on May 5, 2005 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our country should support our troops regardless of if they are for or against the war. The boys our there are fighting for you, you may say that they are not but our government allows a volunteer army instead of mandatory service like most countries. Be greatful that we don’t send you paper writing and political complaining idiots to war cause I’m sure our death tolls world be up, because with out t.v. or a computer you can functioin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Support our troops Posted by: carrollhach