Iraq as Another Vietnam? Well, Sort of...

May 24, 2004

The beheading of an American in Iraq by shards of "humans" has predictably prompted more cries of "Iraq is Vietnam!" I chose not to fight in Vietnam. According to some liberals, my decision to remain in nursery school-I was 4 years old-disqualifies me from discussing issues of national security. Some liberals would call me a chickenhawk. Once again, the champions of free speech use sophisticated name-calling to devalue opinions not of their liking. At the risk of ending up in the chicken coop, what about "Iraq as Vietnam?" In their hourly struggle to reconcile emotion and logic, that liberals mistakenly define military casualties associated with protracted war as a Vietnam-style "quagmire" is not surprising. On the other hand, maybe liberals are right. Perhaps Iraq and Vietnam are similar.

As was true during the Vietnam war, the media have relentlessly attempted to define war in liberal terms. 1960’s television transmitted bloody scenes of GI’s dying and villages being torched. Deservedly so, My Lai received vast media attention yet, incomprehensibly, stories of military altruism and compassion, even for the dying enemy, went unreported. Good deeds accomplished in Iraq are shamefully unacknowledged. Mainstream media overwhelmingly ignores rebuilding of schools, refurbishing of hospitals and the kindness of U.S. forces, while selectively highlighting horrors that every war produces. Like Vietnam, liberal media conveniently fails to provide balanced reporting of atrocities committed against our forces or aid workers, focusing instead on our supposed excesses and the mistreatment of prisoners. So infrequently do U.S. war-time indiscretions occur that when they reportedly do, it becomes a media extravaganza. further amplifying unjustified Islamic anger. As was true during Vietnam, there is no current shortage of liberal slander. In discussing John Kerry’s antiwar activities, John O’Neill, a decorated Vietnam war veteran noted that:

"John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades." (WSJ 5/4/04)

Here at home, leftist antiwar activists currently rally their "troops" by asking them to support Iraqi "insurgents". Leftist web-sites accuse our forces of regularly committing unspeakable atrocities. Driven by hatred for the United States, some celebrate the deaths of our soldiers.

Like Vietnam, the Iraq war was launched to prevent the burgeoning spread of tyranny. During the cold war, the threat of nuclear annihilation was real. Children were versed in the theatrical duck and cover and could locate bomb shelters. Soviet world influence was alarming and Vietnam was another potential domino. In Iraq, the mass murderer and executioner Abu Musab al-Zarqawi used Saddam’s Baghdad as his personal HMO. He recently mentioned that if chemical weapons were available (they are), they would be dropped on Israel. With Saddam’s support, Jews in Israel were blown up. Ansar al-Islam had crept into Northern Iraq and had to be stopped. Of course, the best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior-Saddam’s territory was again becoming fertile ground for the spread of aggression. As was true in Vietnam, in Iraq, the United States carries the primary military burden. To secure world stability, our Vietnam-era forces tried to finish the task abandoned by the French after Dienbienphu. The United Nations, consistently critical of the free world, demanded access to Iraq, but then ran screaming at the first sign of trouble. They did not try very hard in Vietnam either.

In Vietnam, the enemy was invisible-the Vietcong hid their booby-trapped children in holes, yet we avoided jeopardizing innocent life. Vietnam veteran John O’Neill writes:

"Rather than use excessive force, we suffered casualty after casualty because we chose to refrain from firing rather than risk injuring civilians. More than once, I saw friends die in areas we entered with loudspeakers rather than guns." (WSJ 5/4/04)

As in Vietnam, our military forces currently perform with morality under savage conditions. In Iraq, bombs are remotely detonated and terrorists blend onto the street. Bullets rain down from Mosques but regardless of media reports, our forces seek to avoid, at their own peril, killing innocents or destroying holy places. Sadly, Vietnam veterans returned to this country unloved, unwelcomed and castigated. Lacking support from their fellow citizens, many developed debilitating traumatic memories of their service. I fear the same for our troops in Iraq.

Whether or not the Vietnam war was the right thing to do will be debated indefinitely. The loss of the Vietnam war, however, does not diminish its impact or meaning. Nor does it prophesize impending retreat from the current conflict. For those that support the war in Iraq and honor the men and women who fight, a Vietnam-Iraq connection, as seen through the eyes of this "chickenhawk" anyway, serves not as a barrier. "Vietnam" is not a dirty word-it is a tribute. Our soldiers exemplify the meaning of personal sacrifice in the service of freedom. Yes, much to liberal dismay, Vietnam and Iraq are similar-just not in the ways they want it seen.

Marcus J. Goldman, MD