This long article by former SecDef Laird (via Real Clear Politics) is worth reading. I don't agree with the entire piece but it has a lot to recommend it. I've long despaired of arguing about whether Iraq is another Vietnam for the simple reason that the Left has no idea what happened in Vietnam. They have a myth of simple peasants confronting an evil empire in a war the peasants for destined to win. That they simultaneously herald their own soap-challenged protesting as being responsible for ending the war should tell us something.
I want to highlight only one part:
In hindsight, we can look at the Vietnam War as a success story -- albeit a costly one -- in nation building, even though the democracy we sought halfheartedly to build failed. Three decades ago, Asia really was threatened by the spread of communism. The Korean War was a fresh memory. In Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and even India, communist movements were gaining a foothold. They failed in large part because the United States drew a line at Vietnam that distracted and sucked resources away from its Cold War nemesis, the Soviet Union.Yes, the domino theory. Those who dismiss this argument may have to ignore the rapid falling of East European dominos when the Hungarians tipped the first piece by opening their borders. The cascading impact of that decision toppled communist regimes from East Berlin to Moscow itself less than two years later. Success encourages success. That's all the domino theory is about.
But Southeast Asia did not fall after we lost in South Vietnam, so it did not apply to the Vietnam War, right? The domino theory for Vietnam is discredited even if a modern East European example shows that the theory is correct generally.
No again. First, you have to ignore Cambodia and Laos as casualties of our loss. Two dominos did fall. Still, the rest of the region has prospered since Saigon fell so even if the domino theory is generally good and partially tripped in Southeast Asia, it was not the disaster that some feared in the early 1960s. So our domino theory reason to intervene in South Vietnam was wrong.
Once again, no. You have to ignore the differences between 1965 and 1975. A loss in 1965 before the other countries of the region had a chance to build themeselves up to resist the false promises of communism were crucial to their standing in 1975 and prospering since then. They wobbled, to be sure, but they held. And I have doubts if they could have stood if the communists had won in 1965.
And Europe too, with so-called Euro-Communism on the march, was preserved by our fight in Vietnam, in my opinion. Deterrence and the defense of Western Europe rested on the absolute belief in Moscow that we would fight and risk going nuclear over a Soviet invasion of NATO. By fighting and dying in the Central Highlands in a war that seemed to have very little to do with direct threats to our security, we upheld the promise of the most terrible escalation to defend the far more valuable resource of Western Europe.
Our Vietnam veterans, like my older brothers who served during that war (and one served in Vietnam), accomplished a great deal in an unheralded holding action. Had we stayed the course and continued to supply South Vietnam to resist the North, we'd have seen an independent South Vietnam as a tangible symbol of this victory. South Vietnam would likely have evolved to a real democracy as Taiwan and South Korea have. Instead, the wider victory is unappreciated because North Vietnam succeeded in conquering South Vietnam
Though one needs a little more nuanced analysis than mere knuckle-draggers like myself are supposed to possess to grasp this victory, we accomplished a great thing in Vietnam despite North Vietnamese tanks rolling into Saigon in April 1975.
So to those who want to paint Iraq as a guaranteed defeat just as Vietnam was, spare me. You haven't a clue about what happened in Vietnam or what is happening in Iraq, so your comparison of two events about which you know nothing is less than useless.
And to the Vietnam veterans out there, thank you for a mission accomplished. Our world today depended on your victory then.
UPDATE: This isn't to say that defeat in Vietnam was painless. This article (via RCP) reminds us of that impact and perhaps why the Left chants Vietnam in their sleep:
Leahy's words lighted up a deep, dark secret that this nation would rather forget. Defeat in Vietnam was a catastrophe for the U.S., a body-slam to the nation's self-confidence. It was far worse for Southeast Asians, who were exiled, imprisoned, tortured and murdered by their vicious communist conquerors. But for left-wing Democrats it was a triumph. Forcing the mighty U.S. military to run away was the greatest victory they have ever known. That triumph broke a levee that sent a flood of left-wing ideas pounding across the U.S. landscape.
The 1974 congressional elections were a blow-out victory for Democrats. Watergate was a big factor, but public exhaustion with Vietnam (encouraged by the media) helped too. In 1973, the last U.S. combat troops left Vietnam, but Washington had promised to support South Vietnam with money and weapons. Congress refused to pay. In March 1975, President Ford made a desperate last appeal for funds to keep America's promise. Congress refused.
In April 1975, all remaining American diplomats and advisors were pulled out in a frantic, starvation-budget withdrawal. South Vietnam collapsed. "The decrease in American aid had made it impossible for Saigon troops to carry out their combat and force-development plans," North Vietnam's army chief of staff coolly explained.
So yes, we were crippled in responding to Soviet efforts for a time. But we endured the six years of shaky confidence without falling, and beginning in the Reagan presidency we again looked to confront the Soviets--and this time to win and not just to avoid losing.
And as Gelernter notes, hopes by some to ride defeat to power won't work today:
This nation will abandon the Democratic Party before it abandons Iraq.
Polls show American uneasiness about the war. Naturally. The fighting is dirty and dangerous. But the U.S. is a God-fearing nation; we are proving that by battling to spread justice. Polls also suggest that Americans are resolved to fight in Iraq until the job is done.
Sen. Leahy thinks that he can smell another Vietnam. Not this time, senator.
Even as I remain upset that the administration hasn't consistently and constantly reminded our people of why we fight and what we want--and need--to achieve, I think our home morale will hold long enough to win this war. Heck, if South Vietnam had possessed oil, they might have survived the Congressional betrayal of our word.
Amazingly, the hard Left insists on fighting the last war.
