|
A Comparison of Iraq with Vietnam
By Ray Pavlak, Winsted
Slowly but surely, like the inevitable progression of steps leading to a Greek tragedy, the people of the U.S. supported the decisions of their government towards involvement in the Vietnamese civil war.
After World War II, under President Eisenhower, we supported the French as they tried to hold on to their empire in southeast Asia against the popular movements for independence, including that led by Ho Chi Min in Vietnam. President Eisenhower wisely withheld the commitment of troops, realizing the tremendous drain this would have on our country’s resources and stability so soon after having ended the Korean conflict. Also, he had doubts as to the willingness of American advocates of democracy to prop up a colonial power. Military supplies, money and our good offices for peace were offered.
During the Kennedy presidency, a fear took hold that North Vietnam was a means for communism—especially the Russian and/or Chinese style—to gain control of the region. There was deep concern that if Vietnam fell, a "domino effect" would follow and the "free world" would lose territory to totalitarian communism. The recent loss of Cuba plagued us, as did the loss of eastern Europe. This fear resulted in the determination that we needed to draw the line between North and South Vietnam, like we did in Korea. There was no doubt at the time that this was a question of freedom vs. communism, and the Kennedy "Whiz Kids" decided we would hold back the Red tide by sending more money and equipment. In addition, thousands of American "advisors" were sent to Vietnam to assist.
But during the months to follow, military pressure by the North and South Vietnamese made the situation in the South more and more precarious. What to do then was in the hands of President Johnson, who weighed the options of more troop commitment vs. withdrawal vs. negotiation. I remember those days well. The nation prayed for Mr. Johnson to make the right decision as "hawks" and "doves" stated their cases. Then the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident happened (or was staged?), which gave the President a reason to go to war. Not doubting the truth of what we were being told by our government, I supported the decision. The President started a large scale escalation with 250,000 troops, and the rest makes for tragic history.
Let's look at the situation today. We have Saddam Hussein as the devil instead of Ho Chi Min. Communist expansion has been replaced by what Vice President Dick Cheney has called "a mortal threat" to the U.S., as posed by the development by Saddam Hussein and others of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
How did we get to this point? Iraq, led by our ally Saddam, invaded Kuwait. President George Bush I warned Saddam to leave the oil-rich sheikdom. When Iraq failed to heed the warning, the "Desert Storm" campaign drove the invaders back to Iraq. Then, even though Saddam had been compared to Adolf Hitler by the President, he was allowed to remain as the head of Iraq, bound by "no fly zones," economic restrictions and a demand to cease development of weapons of mass destruction. The objective of Desert Storm, as described by Secretary of State James Baker, was to free Kuwait's oil from Saddam's control, which was felt to be a threat to supplies needed for the U.S. economy.
Today, President George W. Bush, having named Saddam as one of the "Axis of Evil" leaders in the world and foremost enemy of U.S. security, wants him out of power. How? By war—specifically, a "pre-emptive" attack. No specific provocation by Saddam is said to be needed, as has traditionally been required to justify the drastic action of going to war.
Like President Johnson, Mr. Bush could take the nation to war. Yet, unlike President Johnson, he has virtually no support in the family of nations. Even the U.S. Congress is raising objections, including members of his own party, because they are not being consulted on such a momentous action. The polls have shown that the people are largely uninformed and only slightly in favor of supporting the President on this basis.
If Lyndon B. Johnson could not maintain the support of the American people in Vietnam, George W. Bush will not go far in pursuing a war with Iraq without it. And even if he does manage to marshal public support initially, this is unlikely to carry him very far. If the nation was split and badly scarred by its involvement in Vietnam, the nation will be opening a Pandora's box if it starts a war with Iraq. Who knows where this will lead? The consequences are vast and the potential damage is hard to envision or comprehend.
I have a mature friend with family in Israel who is very concerned about the devastation Iraq will unleash on Israel if it is attacked. Given the influence and wealth of bin Laden, who is still at large, and the fanaticism of the Muslim fundamentalists, can the fighting be contained in the area of Iraq alone?
We who see the folly of this adventure need to be certain to let President Bush know how we feel about war with Iraq and what may be workable alternatives to bloodshed. I hope it is not too late!
|
|
