Why Iraq is not a rerun of Vietnam
Posted on Tuesday 27 July, 2010
Filed Under International, Iraq
SUCH was the depth of popular repugnance to the Vietnam War in the late 1960s that its magnitude was apparent to me even as a small town preteen schoolboy in an apolitical household.
Still I can recall watching the demonstrations on the television news, the ‘get out of Vietnam’ slogan hand painted in white on the walls of a local solicitor’s office, and the muttered vocal opposition evident among my older hippy cousins.
All this, even though Britain was not directly involved. So why is it that opposition to the invasion of Iraq seems not to have achieved anywhere near the same degree of resonance, despite the massive demonstrations of just seven years ago?
This train of thought occurs to me after reading Anthony Arnove’s good and useful book ‘Iraq: the Logic of Withdrawal’. Although written in 2006, its solid arguments for an end to the occupation have dated little, and it represents a worthwhile purchase if you come across a secondhand copy.
Arnove – a member of the International Socialist Organization, a breakaway Cliffite grouping in the US – believes that the antiwar movement should look to the tactics that worked in the Vietnam instance. Such a contention seems intuitively reasonable to me.
Here’s an extract from pp.89-90
The U.S. war on Vietnam ended because of a combination of five factors:
(i) The mass resistance of the Vietnamese people to U.S. intervention.
(ii) The resistance of U.S. soldiers and veterans, who sparked a rebellion against the war, provoking one military analyst to write, “The morale, discipline and battle-worthiness of the U.S. armed forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at any time in this century and possibly in the history of the United States.”
(iii) Domestic opposition on a scale that forced elites in the United States to recognize that they had lost the war at home, as well as in Vietnam.
(iv) International protest and opposition that isolated the United States politically and raised the costs of the war even further.
(v) The growing economic consequences of the war, which led to inflation and deficits that undermined the position of the U.S. economy.
The chapter is available online here if you are interested.
Again, that looks good as a checklist. So how many points can we tick off? Well, the resistance to the US and Britain in Iraq is clearly widespread; the question is whether or not it has achieved a mass character.
As far as the situation can be read from this distance, the answer looks negative. Although Sunni elements continue their armed struggle against both the Iraqi government and Shia Muslims, al Maliki enjoys a degree of popular support well in excess of the social base on which the Saigon administration rested.
So long as the resistance feeds off religious sectarianism – in other words, for the foreseeable future - it will remain minority property and thus fail to achieve the critical mass required of a fully-fledged national liberation movement.
Similarly, while an element of rebellion among GIs and squaddies is obviously present, it has not reached the point where officers are being frag bombed in any number. Remember that both armies are volunteer based rather than conscripted.
Opposition to the war, in the US and Europe, is an article of the liberal faith. But it is mostly taken as read, rather than expressed by explicit protest. Where the liberals live, the game to play is compromise solution.
It is fashionable in some quarters to blame the Stop the War Coalition for the inability to mobilise activists in any number. That is probably unfair; give or take this or that piece of blatant but nevertheless minor anti-democratic jiggery-pokery, I am not sure that I would have done that much differently had I been in Lindsey German’s shoes.
Finally, while the war is costing the US dearly in economic terms, the tab has yet to prove too big to pick up. Washington can even afford to run a parallel occupation in Afghanistan, bail out the banks and the motor industry, and still not find itself in the straits that forced Nixon to scrap Bretton Woods.
The result is deadlock. Given the amount of oil at stake, there is no structural dynamic within the situation that will force the US to withdraw even on single day before it is ready to do so. That might not be a message that StWC supporters want to hear, but it is sadly not too far off the truth.
<<Go back
Comments
22 Responses to “Why Iraq is not a rerun of Vietnam”
Leave a Reply
probably the biggest difference between both wars is the difference between the FNL/Vietcong and the “Iraqi resistance”
I agree with the conclusion, actually I don’t think they ever intend withdrawing. Iraq is now permanently under US colonial rule or at least will be until they get kicked out. In the immediate future the US will be happy to see the Iraqis turning on each other, no doubt this was already calculated into the likely outcomes. In fact they can use this violence they themselves created to justify remaining! You see these people are not stupid (only their followers meet that description), they knew exactly what they were doing.
Things have not gone bad for them in Iraq they have gone almost to plan.
Principal differences:
1. There is no national liberation movement in Iraq, only Ba’athist counter-revolutionaries and would be theocratic totalitarians of various stripes.
2. The genuine popular and revolutionary movements in Iraq are on the side of the occupiers. Oppressed peoples such as the Kurds and the marsh Arabs have been liberated, political oppositionists are no longer routinely tortured, raped and murdered etc. etc.
3. The occupying armies(certainly the US and UK armies) are made up of volunteers.
One has to spell it all out again, right?
After the Geneva Agreement, Indochina became 4 States: the DRV in the North. The RoV in the South. Then “neutral” Cambodia and even more neutral sleepy Laos.
Once the Communists in the DRV had settled the hash of their internal enemies, a bloody process but one known only to Vienamese and a very few foreigners, the DRV began the process of subverting the South, the RoV.
To do this required the use of Laotian and Cambodian territory.
The NLFSV, a body wholly-controlled by the DRV, set up supply routes in Laotian and Cambodian territory, establishing a reign of teror in the areas of Laos and Cambodia they controlled.
The RoV squealed for help; the USA and a number of other countries like the RoK and Australia responded with assistance.
Eventually people in the USA grew tired of the whole business and a sort-of-peace was signed in 1973.
Henry Kissinger’s “decent interval” followed.
The NLFSV and the DRV violated the terms almost at once and took over the RoV in 1975. many political enemies were murdered out of hand and far more were used as forced labour, as in Laos and Cambodia.
There is no valid comparison with Iraq at all.
Alan Greenspan made the succint point that the Iraq War was “about oil” but the USA has spent far more on this ghastly mess than it will ever get out of the wretched place in a century.
Oil, like hashish or coal, has a price on the world market and that is all that need be said about oil.
If it’s in short supply, the price goes up and people look for more.
Actually, the best possible realistic fate for Iraq would be to become a semi-satellite of Iran. Iran would then become a Great Power, with all her energies taken up with administration and no inclination to fire rockets at Israel or anyone else.
Runia,
I am afraid murder, torture and rape are alive and well in Iraq today. In fact to a far greater extent than in the Saddam era.
Having said that the movement to free Iraq from the tyranny of it’s occupation will be hindered by the divisions in Iraq. Something the US factored into its calculations. They can use the old tactic of divide and rule very effectively. This is why Iraq was attacked and North Korea and Iran never will be!!!
Nevertheless, eventually as the resistance unites the occupiers will be forced out as the contradiction between their self interest and the needs of the people come to pass. This could be a long process unfortunatley, so many more years of murder, torture and rape are in the offing.
Talking of Iraq, I have to admit I was only ever in Iraqi Kurdistan and that very briefly. However, I travelled overland from Erbil through Turkish Kurdistan [much larger and more populous than Iraqi Kurdistan] to Ankara, Istanbul and home to Bulgaria.
CallmeDave is gibbering inanities about Turkey and know-it-all McShanovitz is echoing him in Al-Grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/27/cameron-turkophile-diplomacy-europe
Enough to make a hyena vomit, dear readers.
Dean. What we do know is the US/British invasion was not for the sake of the Iraqi people. They were left to Saddam’s mercy after Gulf War 1. We know the WMD was a lie. So why do the US remain in Iraq. They got Saddam. The Iraqis have some form of government now. The US now control not only the oil and gas but the safe passage of it. They are building bases to confront Iran. Now if that is not a good reason then what is. I am baffled to think of any other reason for them being in Iraq.
Jimmy,
You seem to have misunderstood me. I accept the US invaded Iraq for oil, strategic bases, to get rid of Saddam, to help Israel etc etc. The point is that there isn’t one reason but many reasons that made the invasion worth the cost. One major factor was the divisions within Iraq which the US and it’s allies could exploit to the full. In fact they were banking on the carnage we have seen post the invasion. This is why they would stop short of sending an occupying force into North Korea, for example, here they would be up against a pretty much united opposition.
P.S. for an example of US actions in Iraq see the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah_killings
Dean. Thanks. Sad and sickening. At least the FBI got on their case. No official attempted cover up like Mai Lai.
You might choose to read this …
http://www.economist.com/node/16439024/comments#comments
about Gaza and so on
Tony and The Empress …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1297650/PAUL-SCOTT-His-n-private-jets-Freebies-galore-The-carnival-vanity-rolls-on.html
… remember how we effing really and truly loved them?
Volunteer armies made it easier for Bush and Blair to fight wars, but the alternative is…
I think we need to look at citizens service again in relation to the military, policing and other activities.
Les Abbey – Simple, give the EDL a little training and arm them.
Problem solved.
Speaking of long running battles, but given the end of the Gray/Hilton v. Kaschke case, will Southpawpunch finally explain themself?
“No official attempted cover up like Mai Lai.”
Well no. However, sending mentally ill drunken racist misogynists
with weapons of destruction around neighbourhoods where dark skinned people reside and no one being accountable for that decision does feel sort of inadequate. I don’t know about the victims of the Iraq war but personally only when Bush and Blair are rotting in jail will I be happy.
Dean.Bush and Blair will die in their beds. Blair will probably get sainthood for doing the lords work.
Agree with Bill Corr ‘There is no valid comparison with Iraq at all.
First of all it was what you might call a “proper war” (I wish I could think of a better phrase for it). The Americans were fighting North Vietnam (and their army) and the Viet Cong, the Americans never really defeated these two, unlike the ill equipped Iraqi Army of Saddam. And also China and the Soviet Union provided aid to North Vietnam.
This resulted in nearly 60,000 American deaths and an estimated two million Vietnamese deaths, much worse than Iraq.
American deaths led to steady flow of coffins returning to America which eventually led to mainstream America coming out against the war.
The anti-war demonstrations also had much more traction than the anti-Iraq war demos. They were something new and novel (often ending in violence) and had the support of the new “counter-culture”, which many young people wanted to feel, if not part of, then associated with. You could say the zeitgeist of the time supported those opposed to the war. (There was no ‘Decent’ secton of the left saying we must support America against these Commies)
And of course, despite intense American pressure, Harold Wilson refused to send British troops to Vietnam, even a token force (he once entered a cabinet meeting saying “I’ve just had LBJ on the phone saying can we send a bagpipe band to Vietnam”)
As a footnote, there were secret peace talks going on in 1968 between North and South Vietnam. These were sabotaged by Nixon during his 1968 election campaign when he contacted the South Vietnamese government. The terms of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords were not very much different from what the Vietnamese were discussing in 1968.
Persoanlly, I have to say as a young teen in the late-60s I found what was going on in America much more riveting than what was going on here with Harold and his prices and income policy.
Capt Swing. I was a teenager also. Harold Wilson did the right thing keeping out. Better his prices and income policy than geting involved in the mass slaughter of civilians. I wonder if the last of the US forces will be airlifted from the Embassy roof in Kabul and the fate of the poor natives left to the Taliban.
@ Jimmy Glesga
Indeed. Wilson often gets a bad press nowadays, but he kept British troops out of Vietnam.
He critised some American actions in Vietnam, but contined to say he supported their overall policy there.
When trade union leader Frank Cousins asked why he continued to support American policy, Wilson replied: “Because we can’t kick our creditors in the balls”
http://www.newstatesman.com/200004100025
Capt Swing. Wilson could not change US policy as Cousins should have known. Silly question to ask. Wilson’s answer was diplomatic! As ever.
Surely one of the biggest differences between teh anti-war movement (at least in Europe) tehn and now is that back in those days tehre were powerful and respected Communist (Stalinist) parties? I’m afraid te SWP and ‘Respect’ jut don’t cut it. And, Deen, do you think that teh Iraqis/Afghans/whoever are ready for self-govenment if they go around killing each other a teh slightest provocation? Seems a trifle barbaric and anti-socialist to me. But, quite frankly, I’d leave them to get on with it, we have enough of our own problems.