Is Iraq another Vietnam?

A stock objection to the Iraq war is that Iraq is another Vietnam. This is associated with the claim that Iraq is a “quagmire.” These charges have been leveled since the initial stages of the invasion, if not before.

They are generally leveled by the liberal media, but also by libertarians. So it’s worth scrutinizing this comparison.

As a rule, it isn’t terribly thoughtful to reach for the last major war as our analogue. After all, it would be quite a coincidence if the last war just happened to be analogous to the present conflict.

There is, in addition, a preliminary difficulty or two with the parallel. It assumes that the two wars are, indeed, comparable. And it further assumes that the Vietnam war was, indeed, a mistake, so the Iraq war must be a mistake as well, given the presumptive analogy.

To begin with, we judge the Vietnam war with the benefit of hindsight. We know how it ended as well as how it began.

Furthermore, the analogy compares one divisive war with another divisive war. The Vietnam war was controversial at the time, and remains controversial to this day—with defenders and detractors, both then and now. So the invidious comparison begs the question.

To judge by the coverage, you’d imagine that the Vietnam was wildly unpopular at the time. Yet the electorate twice had the opportunity to vote the anti-war candidates into office (e.g., Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern), and twice voted for a famous cold warrior (Nixon)—the second time by a landslide.

In order for the comparison to hold, you’d first have to render a negative value-judgment on the Vietnam war, then analogize to the Iraq war. But that’s pretty inefficient. Why can’t we judge the Iraq war on its own merits, or lack thereof?

It is also quite possible to oppose the Vietnam war, but support the Iraq war—on the grounds that there are no relevant parallels between the two. A liberal hawk like Christopher Hitchens has taken this position.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112895/

Having said all that, what, if any, are the possible parallels between Iraq and Vietnam? Any comparison is bound to be premature since we know how the Vietnam war ended, whereas the Iraq war is still up in the air.

1.Both are preemptive in the sense that Iraq did not attack us and Vietnam did not attack us. The causus belli was premised on the perception of a geostrategic threat.

2.Appeal to our treaty commitments furnished a putative justification for both.

3.In both cases, there was some dissension within the military itself over the wisdom of the war—whether in principle, planning, or execution.

4.Both cases involve a projection of American power and hegemony abroad.

5.In both instances, the consequences of losing face became an ex post facto rationale.

6.To some extent, both Iraq and Vietnam are pawns on an international chessboard, with international players moving or introducing the pieces.

7.In the case of Vietnam, we were propping up a corrupt and ineffectual government as well as deputizing as the de facto national defense force. At present, Iraq has taken on that appearance.

8.Both Iraq and Vietnam are partly civil wars.

9.In both instances, the enemy is partly motivated by a totalitarian moral vision.

10.In both cases the critics have alleged that we were goaded into war under false pretenses, although that is hotly contested.

11.Vietnam became a war of attrition. Iraq is beginning to look like that as well.

12.Both wars were defended in the name of freedom and democracy.

Again, it is possible for a man to concede some of these parallels, but regard that as an argument for the Iraq war, rather than against it.

At the moment we find ourselves in the paradoxical position of arming Muslims in our battle against militant Islam. To the extent that we can pursue a divide-and-conquer strategy, peeling away the “moderate” Muslims, or setting one faction against another, that may not be as nonsensical as it sounds.

Still, it’s passing strange that we are arming Muslims instead Christians. There are many defenseless Christians around the world at the mercy of the jihadis. If we were to arm them so that they could return fire and put the jihadis on the run, then that would make a contribution to the war on terror—as well as securing a beachhead for the church in a hostile world. But because the Bush administration ignores the religious dimension of the conflict, it ignores more obvious allies in counter-terrorism.