The specter of Vietnam

ONE'S VIEW OF THE PAST is shaped by the present, just as I one's view of the present is shaped by the past. So it is with Vietnam and Iraq. The doves that oppose the war in Iraq have one history of the Vietnam War, just as the hawks that support the war in Iraq have another.

The Doves Version: Vietnam was a foolish intervention into a civil war we did not understand and never could win (or, for those on the far left, one we never should win). Wisdom only entered into the tragedy when the U.S. decided to leave--mandated by a congressional cut-off of funds. The consequences of this mandate were, therefore, beneficial. Congress was emboldened to assert its power in foreign policy--passing the War Powers Resolution; limiting the power of the CIA to conduct covert operations and, thus, avoiding future Third World involvements. In the late 1970s, Congress also reduced the defense budget and cut off aid to the anti-Communist forces in Angola. The doves' lesson from Vietnam was that the U.S. was the cause of its own problems in the world and, if we reduced our military profile, most problems could be handled peaceably. We needed to understand our enemies and reduce their paranoia about us. With dovish opinion prevailing after Vietnam, detente with the Soviet Union became a central priority of both the Ford and Carter administrations.

The Hawks Version: Vietnam never was a civil war. The Vietcong were controlled by the North Vietnamese regime which, in turn, was financed and supported by the Soviets and Chinese. The U.S. did not lose the war on the battlefield. The Tet offensive, followed by the American counterattack, was a devastating defeat for the Vietcong. Yet, thanks to CBS anchor Walter Cronkite and the media commentators who parroted his line, the American public considered it a defeat. The war, according to this version, might have been won in 1968, by accepting Gen. William Westmoreland's recommendation for an additional 200,000 troops to finish the job or, in 1973, by continuing support the South Vietnamese government after the North violated the 1973 truce agreement. The loss of Vietnam was a political one. A weakened Pres. Richard Nixon had to accede to Congress' wishes in the summer of 1973. By that time, not only had most of the Democrats given up on Vietnam, so had most of the Republicans. Pres. Gerald Ford, in the spring of 1975, when faced with the imminent collapse of the South Vietnamese resistance, could find little support for coming to their aid from either Republicans or Democrats. This defeat had anything but salutary consequences. In its aftermath, the Soviets felt heartened enough to expand their influence in Angola, Ethiopia, and Nicaragua, boldly invade Afghanistan, modernize their intermediate range missile force, and continue their arms buildup. By the end of the 1970s, many thought the correlation of forces was tipping toward the Soviet Union. Only during the Ronald Reagan years did the U.S. eventually recover its footing.

What are the historical lessons? Those who support an exit strategy for Iraq endorse the doves version of Vietnam. Some already are discussing how the U.S. should handle the problem of Iraqi refugees--especially those who stood with us during the conflict--once we withdraw our forces. As David Ignatius wrote in The Washington Post, "Whatever we do in Iraq in [the] coming months, it should include a bipartisan commitment to keep faith with the people who risked everything for a new Iraq--by making room for them in America, if necessary. We need a surge of compassion more than a surge of U.S. troops." These doves appear unconcerned about the overall consequences of another American defeat.

There seems to be much wishful thinking about the matter; just as there were such "revelations" from the doves about the overall consequences of a withdrawal from Vietnam. Perhaps some war critics may see our leaving Iraq as just a tactical retreat in the war against terror from which we can recover, and would have the U.S. place its military focus upon Afghanistan (until, of course, the casualities become too high). Other dovish critics see the terrorist threat as one that requires only defensive measures by the U.S. and would demand any regime change efforts be sanctioned by the United Nations.

Those who support a victory strategy for Iraq fear the hawks version of Vietnam will repeat itself. With the majority of Democrats in Congress supporting a withdrawal and more Republicans coming to that view, hawks see the same collapse of political will that occurred in 1975. Pres. Bush is determined to avoid such history, regardless of public opinion and the views of Congress. This is high stakes poker. As the Hoover Institution's Victor Davis Hanson wrote, "Imagine this war as a sort of grotesque race. The jihadists and sectarians win if they can kill enough Americans to demoralize us enough that we flee before Iraqis and Afghans stabilize their newfound freedom. They lose if they can't. Prosperity, security and liberty are the death knell to radical Islam. It's that elemental."