We repeated Vietnam history because no consensus 'lesson' emerged

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

from that war.

I think that the most important lesson that SHOULD have been learned was,

"Don't embark upon a war where its importance to the nation isn't so self evident that it requires no explanation of its necessity, and where the cause is not so popular and compelling that the burden of fighting is shared among all social classes".

(I know that the rich will never have an EQUAL share of death in any war, but there was a big difference between WWII where people like GHWB and Ted Williams commonly served, and Vietnam and Iraq, where the Kerrys and Pat Tillmans were rare.)

But it seems like the lessons of Vietnam if any are muddled, and there isn't even a clear cut agreement that our involvement was wrong.

There seems to be competing messages:

The Vietnam war was a noble cause, but it was undermined by the media and the protest movement which caused its failure.

The Vietnam war was doomed to failure because it was based on a foundation of lies both in its inception and its day to day conduct.

I think the undeniable, fundamental truth of Vietnam is:

The Vietnam war was doomed to be a failure for the U.S., because the national will of the U.S. to achieve its goal was far exceeded by the will of the North Vietnamese to achieve their goal.

This is a fundamental issue of any war. It's "politics by other means". It's not just a scoreboard of body counts, Vietnam finished with a body count of less than 60,000 for the U.S. and over 2 million Vietnamese dead but a loss for the U.S. Some rightwingers will argue that the will of the U.S. was sapped by a subversive media and antiwar movement, but the fundamental issue was still that the sacrifice required was well beyond what the country was willing to put forth.

Now the invasion of Iraq was certainly "popular" by the measure of polling of the U.S. public at the time of the invasion, meaning the Bush administration's propaganda campaign was successful. But while the idea of invading the country was popular, the will of the nation was never gauged. No specific sacrifice was ever asked of America beyond that demanded of the military, and none is asked even now except the huge budget outlays which we are "committed" to, having started the war, and the ongoing bloodshed from those in the military.

Even the "Powell Doctrine" of not starting a war unless with overwhelming strength so as to assure victory, was seemingly "learned" successfully for Gulf War I, and then "unlearned" for this version. Of course a key difference between Gulf War I and II was that the first did not have an ongoing occupation as part of its mission, so the national will required to win a quick, overwhelming military victory was not great.

It seems likely that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is destined for an ignominious and shameful defeat for the U.S., whether sooner or later. If the consensus lesson

"Don't embark upon a war where its importance to the nation isn't so self evident that it requires no explanation of its necessity, and where the cause is not so popular and compelling that the burden of fighting is shared among all social classes".

can be retained from this misadventure, then perhaps some good can still come to the country and the world from this.

Can we learn the lessons this time?

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Probably not....seems to be a human failing to NOT learn from the past.

[jimshoes]

2. Not unless some of the architects

of this debacle go to prison for their disregard for the people of this country and contempt for the constitution of the United States. Hell the chimp still thinks he has a mandate. He must be made aware otherwise.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Exit Strategy.

Colin Powell wrote the book on exit strategies and it didn't do us any good. We got trapped again because it was the media's responsibility to help us remember the lessons of Vietnam, and they failed in that responsibility -- probably because there was never a national consensus that Vietnam was a wrong war. Imagine the courage it would have taken to allow the old Liberal newsmen to challenge George Bush by sharing their recollections about that war. Instead, they went about destroying our best resources. Look what they did to Dan Rather.

Nope. Never was a national consensus that Vietnam was a wrong war. If there had been, Jane Fonda would not be vilified the way she is by the right.

[bpilgrim]

4. the fucking CRAZIES din't learn

a.k.a the neoCONs

peace

[splat@14]

5. Those phrases apply as well to WWII, korea. Sometimes a different

set of players but the end result is the same. Seems that man is locked into a struggle with himself that manifest itself into a war every other generation or so (over whatever nonsense is perceived as a catalyst for justification). I fear that even if one generation changes the outcome for its contribution, the next will can fuck it up and it starts again. More severe because the cycles are so short, technology advances are achieved (most of us are still here) so we know how to destroy each other better and the severity of each cycle increases.

Depressing, eh?.....have another beer, buy a diesel powered dishwasher and eat some kind of critter!

[tocqueville]

6. It's not only a question of "will"

the Vietnam war was lost because of strategical and tactical mistakes. It is true that the losses of the Vietnamese far much exceeded the US ones (more near 5 millions than 2 if you count civilians), but the US might have won if they didn't underestimate their enemy. They did the same mistake than the French had done 20 years earlier. BTW most of the Vietnam war was fought in regular battles, the guerilla part was more in the beginning.

Another factor was that the US had no interest of challenging the Soviets and China when things started to get too ugly. The incident of the mining of Haiphong show that when a Russian boat was hit. Nixon backed very quickly.

Regarding Gulf War I, it was no match because the Iraquis didn't fight
and their equipment/tactics relatively outdated.

Both Gulf War I and Vietnam had at least "good reasons" even if they were different...

The last War in Iraq was so obviously based on lies that nobody in the world bought it, except in America. The so called coalition was
grounded on selfish interests only.

It makes that last war very difficult to win, and compromises another war that was more justified and had a broad consensus : Afghanistan.

[Eloriel]

7. I couldn't disagree more. We repeated Vietnam history because we

were LIED to, and the press wasn't there except to cheerlead the lies and perform propaganda for the state.

Now, whether or not we learned the lessons of Vietnam, no, I don't think we have -- except the one about not taking it out on the troops. That one we seem to have learned. That's the one the PEOPLE have control over; the other ones are for the leaders and they didn't learn and it makes me really angry.

[Gman]

8. I disagree a to a degree but agree with your overall conclusion

There was a lesson that was learned and it was common to both Republicans and Democrats. That is, never go into a conflict without a clear objective, a clear definition of victory and a clear exit plan once victory is achieved. George I learned from Vietnam and he used what he learned when he chose not to go to Baghdad during Gulf I. In Gulf I we had a clearly defined objective (liberate Kuwait). We had a clear strategy for doing it (what ended up being a "pincer" movement around Iraqi troops that found the Iraqi army surrounded and with their backs to the sea). Once the Iraqis were defeated, we left. Therefore, we went into Kuwait, got the job done in a matter of days (if not hours), then left.

However, it could be argued that George I disregarded the lesson in the case of Somalia but I think he didn't understand what he was dealing with in Somalia, and by way of inheritance, neither did Clinton. Clinton knew the Vietnam lesson and used what he knew when we went into Kosovo, did our job and got out. Clinton performed the, by then, text book strategy of go in with a plan, get it done then get out.

Right now, the fringe element we call neocons has taken over control of the US government and is part of a small minority of Americans that think "the Vietnam war was a noble cause, but it was undermined by the media and the protest movement which caused its failure." This belief fits with their overall ideology very well because if the US had been unhindered by the anti-war movement and the media we would have been vacationing in Vietnam as early as 1968. (Note that blaming the "liberal media" is an important way they are able to make theirselves and America the "victim". Playing the victim is key to much of the neocon propaganda strategy.) This fringe will continue to adhere to this belief about Vietnam and try to spread this belief for nothing other than ideological reasons. In other words, logic and reasoning have little to do with this belief but rather it fits with their ideology that America was and still is a great superpower that if left unhindered will be able to impose its will upon the world anywhere and anytime it wants to impose that will. America will impose its will for reasons that are solely in the interest of America, as defined by America and without regard to any external rights or desires (see PNAC).

From a practical perspective I think you are right on that "The Vietnam war was doomed to be a failure for the U.S., because the national will of the U.S. to achieve its goal was far exceeded by the will of the North Vietnamese to achieve their goal." This is very true in any war, any contest, any game, any duel of wills. Whoever wants it the most will win.

And you are also right on with your "doctrine" of "Don't embark upon a war where its importance to the nation isn't so self evident that it requires no explanation of its necessity, and where the cause is not so popular and compelling that the burden of fighting is shared among all social classes". I also think that these are the real feelings of the leadership of the US military (not counting political appointees in the DOD) and even throughout the State Department when Powell was there. However, as we saw recently when one of only eleven 4-star generals was dismissed recently under suspicious circumstances, those that disagree with the ideology of the fringe element neocons are gotten rid of.

I think the lesson of Vietnam was very well learned by the vast majority of Americans alive and of age at that time. However, our government was overthrown in 2000 by the theft of the election and control seized by ideologues. The revolution was perpetuated by similar theft centered in Ohio. So we do not have a government that operates on what is the best for the country. The US government now operates on ideological premises not at all different than the way Mao ran China, Ho Chi Min ran Vietnam, or Josef Stalin ran Russia. Every decision was driven by ideology by the aforementioned just as every decision by the US government is now driven by ideology rather than common sense an facts.

Also note that the neocons are plenty smart enough to know that they are able to revive and repackage their old debunked ideas every 25 years or so when those that are not old enough to remember are sold those ideas in a package that can be very attractive without the perspective they would have if they were 25 years older. This is a lot of what we are seeing the neocons do right now.

[laureloak]

9. Compare the fear of communism, the Nixon administration,

and Vietnam to the fear of terrorism, the Bush administration, and Iraq. It's as if the Bush administration is following Nixon's blueprint.

If you read about the tunnels of Vietnam it's easy to understand why we couldn't defeat them. It was in their jungle that they knew it inside out.