An Unintentional Truth
Recently, President Bush gave a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, where he gave a speech on the importance of staying the course in Iraq. Included in this speech was a truth that he probably didn't mean to give, and one that was clouded by a complete and total misunderstanding of the facts that he presented to make his case.
Of course, I am talking about his comparing the current war with Iraq with Vietnam. In the speech, he made the argument that defeatists who decided to leave Vietnam in 1975 were the ones who ruined America's reputation abroad and left Vietnam to waste. However, the simple fact is that you cannot win an insurgent war militarily, and the United States actually tried a lot of things that were celebrated as successes in both wars. For example, President Bush and his GOP sycophants have trumpeted the Iraqi elections of 2005 and 2006 as proof that spreading democracy was actually working. However, these were the same arguments presented when South Vietnam had elections in 1967 and 1970. In the Graham Greene novel The Quiet American, the British reporter Thomas Fowler asks American doctor and naive idealist Alden Pyle, who says that he supports elections and the democratic process, what happens if the Vietnamese hold an election and Ho Chi Minh is the winner. (The novel takes place in 1955, a year after the United States began its involvement in Vietnam and nine years before its escalation.) President Bush quoted the novel in the speech, apparently not getting the memo that it is an anti-Vietnam War book that is opposed to American intervention. (It was also turned into a movie starring Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser a few years ago. I highly recommend either the book or the remake. Do not watch the 1958 version of the movie starring Audie Murphy, because it was severely butchered and turned into a piece of Cold War propaganda.)
Which leads us to the questions of Iraqi democracy. If the Iraqis keep a strong central government, which the Bush Administration seems to support, what kind of government would it be? Considering the fact that the Shi'ites are a solid majority in Iraq, I think it is safe to say that they will control their country's fate. Who is the most influential Shi'ite in Iraq? It is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the 79-year-old cleric whose website with a Q&A section in several languages says that it is wrong to shake a woman's hand, and that masturbation by yourself is forbidden, but it is allowed if it is done in front of your wife. However, he has since said that he doesn't want to mess with the Iraqi government any more, so he is out. However, another Shi'ite cleric, 33-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr does enjoy broad support among Shi'ites, and could very well be the type who could win an election and force an Islamic theocracy on this formerly secular state. Is that really what we went to Iraq for?
There is also the argument made by those who still support the war that we are in fact winning on the battlefield. However, there was a famous remark by an American colonel to a Vietnamese general after Vietnam ended, where he said, "but we beat you in every battle we fought." The Vietnamese general replied, "This is true, but it doesn't matter." That is because this isn't the type of war that can be won by conquest. If this were the case, the "mission accomplished" banner would have been accurate. The reason we failed in Vietnam and are failing in Iraq is because we did nothing for stability and alienated those we were trying to "liberate."
There was a window where we could have acted to win the war in Iraq. However, because of the lack of planning, and the lack of honesty when things were going wrong (another similarity with Vietnam), that window has closed, possibly forever. The real question about Iraq isn't whether we will get out, or what will happen when we do (It will be bad, but it is probably the least bad option available.), but how many Americans will die before that happens.
Of course, I am talking about his comparing the current war with Iraq with Vietnam. In the speech, he made the argument that defeatists who decided to leave Vietnam in 1975 were the ones who ruined America's reputation abroad and left Vietnam to waste. However, the simple fact is that you cannot win an insurgent war militarily, and the United States actually tried a lot of things that were celebrated as successes in both wars. For example, President Bush and his GOP sycophants have trumpeted the Iraqi elections of 2005 and 2006 as proof that spreading democracy was actually working. However, these were the same arguments presented when South Vietnam had elections in 1967 and 1970. In the Graham Greene novel The Quiet American, the British reporter Thomas Fowler asks American doctor and naive idealist Alden Pyle, who says that he supports elections and the democratic process, what happens if the Vietnamese hold an election and Ho Chi Minh is the winner. (The novel takes place in 1955, a year after the United States began its involvement in Vietnam and nine years before its escalation.) President Bush quoted the novel in the speech, apparently not getting the memo that it is an anti-Vietnam War book that is opposed to American intervention. (It was also turned into a movie starring Michael Caine and Brendan Fraser a few years ago. I highly recommend either the book or the remake. Do not watch the 1958 version of the movie starring Audie Murphy, because it was severely butchered and turned into a piece of Cold War propaganda.)
Which leads us to the questions of Iraqi democracy. If the Iraqis keep a strong central government, which the Bush Administration seems to support, what kind of government would it be? Considering the fact that the Shi'ites are a solid majority in Iraq, I think it is safe to say that they will control their country's fate. Who is the most influential Shi'ite in Iraq? It is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the 79-year-old cleric whose website with a Q&A section in several languages says that it is wrong to shake a woman's hand, and that masturbation by yourself is forbidden, but it is allowed if it is done in front of your wife. However, he has since said that he doesn't want to mess with the Iraqi government any more, so he is out. However, another Shi'ite cleric, 33-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr does enjoy broad support among Shi'ites, and could very well be the type who could win an election and force an Islamic theocracy on this formerly secular state. Is that really what we went to Iraq for?
There is also the argument made by those who still support the war that we are in fact winning on the battlefield. However, there was a famous remark by an American colonel to a Vietnamese general after Vietnam ended, where he said, "but we beat you in every battle we fought." The Vietnamese general replied, "This is true, but it doesn't matter." That is because this isn't the type of war that can be won by conquest. If this were the case, the "mission accomplished" banner would have been accurate. The reason we failed in Vietnam and are failing in Iraq is because we did nothing for stability and alienated those we were trying to "liberate."
There was a window where we could have acted to win the war in Iraq. However, because of the lack of planning, and the lack of honesty when things were going wrong (another similarity with Vietnam), that window has closed, possibly forever. The real question about Iraq isn't whether we will get out, or what will happen when we do (It will be bad, but it is probably the least bad option available.), but how many Americans will die before that happens.
Labels: Politics
posted by Albert McStephenson at 10:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home