Iraq - The New Vietnam

So this is a topic that is extremely controversial as well as redundant in a lot of ways. I think most of the observations I will make are relatively obvious and common place but I want to discuss it anyway.

Terrorism - Bush's Communism

So the first thing that makes Iraq so analogous to Vietnam is the overlying fear associated with the region. During the Cold War everyone feared Communism and if you were even suspected of being a red sympathizer you were shunned, especially if you held public office. More of the same with terrorism now a days. Because of the Arab association with terrorism, the labeling and prejudice against this demographic has been wide spread and, for all intents and purposes, been ignored by the unaffected parties.

In the case of Vietnam, it seemed that the main fear was the association of China with Vietnam and the idea that if Vietnam feel, it would inspire a domino affect that would spread communism throughout the the Eastern World and eventually result in an anti-capitalistic conglomerate that the US and Western Europe could not handle. In the case of Iraq, it appears that insurgents are the main issue and Iran is the background country that the US fears the most, not unlike China during Vietnam. However, rather than face the actual enemy (which I do not suggest we do) we go head first into a region we are not prepared to fight with, which brings me to my next point.

Urban Warfare - The New Canopy Jungle

It seems like with any warfare involving an army that is from a distant country, success is pretty minimal. Rather than fight using conventional warfare as we would like, ie weapons used for large scale warfare between super powers, we are stuck with expensive weapons that are ineffective against guerrillas and faceless enemies. By ineffective I do not mean that they do not offer major destructive power, but rather they are not useful in deterring enemy attack.

What makes matters significantly worse is that rather than adopt analogous means of fighting, we seem to push our accustomed tools like tanks and missiles. It seems like in this case, we are using weapons that are not effective because they do not fight the enemy directly. More often than not, civilian casualties are a result, despite some possible gain against the enemy. In my opinion, the issue here is very similar to Vietnam in the sense that in the 60's we were up against VC hiding in fox holes and jungles and despite our vastly superior resources, were unable to effectively deter our opponent. Much is the case here. A great line from Ho Chi Minh was "you will kill 10 our men, and we will kill only 1 of yours and in the end it will be you who will tire of it" and this is definitely the case here. Almost always, the most fundamental group usually wins in these kinds of battles because the losses they feel are insignificant relative to what they feel they have to gain.

In the case of insurgents, they are fully to prepared to die, suicide bomb, etc.. for their cause and that is an operating system, we as the US have no answer for. For them, the ends justify the means and the US policy with respect to this is usually the opposite. This raises 2 potential options. Fight fire with fire, meaning utilize the necessary means to render a victory which could mean outsourcing to the Israelis because of their experience in similar war fare. This is a very controversial issue because it would possibly provoke other Islamic nations to intervene which is something the US does not want for a variety of reasons. Second, all out nuclear annihilation of the country, one of those, "the only way to save them is to kill them" which no one wants but as far as warfare goes, it is an effective solution, which brings me to my next point.

Iraq - Political WWII

It seems that the politicians are in control of this war, not unlike Vietnam. The justification of the US in Iraq is a function of opinion and belief and because the US is so married to history and oil, we are absolutely terrified of letting the region go. Much like Vietnam, the US government intervenes in a region that is hostile towards help and at the end of the day, the people that lose are the US soldiers and the Iraqi civilians. Similar to innocent people that were killed out of frustration and ignorance in Vietnam, civilians in Iraq are pushed aside and marginalized because they cannot be differentiated from the enemy. This is something that the US has never utilized in warfare and it is a tough tactic to beat. The enemy knows the gold hearted nature of the West and challenges their stomach in these situations. Making the line between enemy and civilian fuzzy is to their advantage.

It is my belief that to succeed in Iraq you have to either hand over responsibility to a militant body that can actually succeed in the region, ie Israel, or take the necessary steps to put down the threat via suspect war practice and brutality. Neither one is something the US is willing to do but the bottom line is that to succeed in war, you have to do what your opponent can't/won't and the US will not do either. Fighting a war like this is like fighting an infection half-assed. When given an antibiotic prescription, it is stressed that you take every pill because if you do not, you end up with a relapse bacteria that is now resistant to the antibiotic. Without completely wiping out your opponent whatever the cost, you cannot win and it seems that with a political war, there are degrees of victory when in reality it is win or lose.

I believe that in the case of WWII we had the motivation to carry out our task to completion and nuking Japan was not necessarily justified, but we had an argument for such an extreme tactic and we were victorious. In the case of Vietnam and Iraq, we do not have such a clear opponent or moral reasoning for being in the area, because most of our government is concerned with keeping allies and our economy. This doesn't mean that we are weak, but it does mean that we don't belong in a war. People do not like being "occupied" and things never seem to work out despite the over bearings power's ability to rationalize with their homeland population and other major nations. In addition, once again like Vietnam, we are actively fighting group we do not care to understand and such an over sight drastically reduces our capability for success

Islam is the most misunderstood/represented religion out there and so much of our efforts are out to defeat an opponent we wish was us. Fighting a war is like sports. Every NFL head coach watches film of their opponents because their defense needs to know how to handle a different offensive strategy. If you only know how to stop your own offense, success against a different game plan is limited. Most of our ideas about Islam are routed in fear, not unlike our feelings towards communism during the Cold War and once again, rather than try and understand our opponent, we have simply decided to fight them our way. Hiring Iraqi ex-patriots, teaching Arabic to soldiers, or just taking a more cerebral route to this whole endeavor seems like a much better option. However, the end result of intense mental effort in this case is basically to just get out of Iraq which leads me to my next point.

Changing of the Guards - No one kill Obama, PLEASE!!

The election this year doesn't exactly follow the timing of Vietnam but it does have certain similarities. Check out this clip from JFK, it's awesome. Sums up the "how's" and "why's" a government would want to kill JFK for getting out of Vietnam. Barrack Obama is clearly the favorite to win both the democratic nomination and the presidential election this year and because he has new ideas and a new mind set about Iraq (relative to the current administration) he is definitely a threat to the "Industrial Military Complex". For this reason, Barrack definitely draws parallels to JFK. He is young, idealistic, and committed to ideas that conflict with the old. I think he is the future of this country because he challenges our assumptions and that is something we need.

Under the current administration we have feared our oil dependency, and with good reason, but they have done nothing about it. It took a failed presidential candidate to make something like An Inconvenient Truth and rising green minded lobbies to induce car companies to produce hybrid cars to keep us from slipping into scare tactics and efforts in the Middle East. We are a nation that has landed on the moon, successfully transplanted organs, sent radio controlled robots to Mars, and developed into the World's strongest nation in less than 200 years. Is it possible that oil is something we cannot live without? Are we completely incapable of utilizing things like wind, solar, hydroelectric or other energy sources to the same degree as oil? It is a bitch that infrastructure has such a lobby in these instances and it is a shame that our government is run by people with self interests. I sincerely believe that Obama can and will change things and restore the patriotism in this country. The feelings this nation had on 9/11 are more or less the same our parents had on 11/22/63. Fear, shame and the government left to lead us did not act in our best interests. They used fear to rob us of our pride and rather than rally us the way FDR did after Pearl Harbor, we have spent the last 7 years seeing our prosperity dwindled in the wind.

Closing Thoughts

It is my belief that the US is capable of returning to glory and this will happen with a new president. When Bush was elected in 2000, I remember thinking to myself "Bush, Gore, what's the difference" and 8 years later I know. I think we will see great things from our next president and being a scientist, my main focus will be on a transition in spending from defense back to domestic concerns like the NIH.

To sum up my Iraq discussion, it seems like democracy is the new Christianity. The last few years we have seen forceful insurgence into a sovereign nation for the purpose of saving the locals from themselves. This seems to be the same rationale as missionaries spreading the teachings of Jesus to natives from Africa to North America but like religion, certain kinds of government are not for everyone. These two institutions have the same goal in mind, keep people under control, and despite our love for the 10 commandments, Jesus, Charleton Heston movies, the electoral process, and the US Constitution, democracy and Chrisianity aren't for everybody. Different strokes for different folks and while I do believe some practices in this world are egregious, there are some things we as a nation cannot fix. Like Vietnam, we cannot win in Iraq and sooner or later, we are going to have to think about what is best for the US and rather than make the same mistakes again, it is in our interest to do what we should have done in the early 60's. Rather than drag out Iraq the way we did Vietnam, we should just cut our losses and our government should start paying attention to the people they represent, Americans.

just my thoughts

match unleaded