The Vietnam Aftermath & Lessons Learned

The President really lit a tinderbox in his speech to the VFW this week when he invoked the aftermath of the Vietnam War as a lesson for us in Iraq.

It was an interesting act of political jujitsu, since conservatives have typically rejected the Iraq-Vietnam comparison mantra, especially as it is espoused by the likes of the surrender now caucus headed by the likes of Sen. John Kerry, Rep. Jack "Abscam" Murtha, Sen. Hillary Rodhman Clinton, and Sen. Harry "The War is Lost" Reid.

I think this reflexive attitude of most conservatives comes from a perspective that is diametrically opposed to the perspective of the American Left.  Conservatives (typically) view the Vietnam War as military mission we were capable of winning, but that we decided to lose.  While the American Left sees Vietnam as a stellar example of what they see  as America's failures, conservatives see Vietnam as a America's prime foreign policy failure of the last century.  The American Left rejoices in America's failure in Vietnam and are proud of it.  Conservatives (typically) mourn America's loss and are embarrassed by it (though not embarrassed by those who fought it).  The "lessons learned" by the American Left in Vietnam were about to dimish American power and prestige.  The "lessons learned" by (typical) Conservatives are on how to win wars against insurgencies.

But there are parallels.  In Vietnam, we spent "the early years" trying to fight an insurgency with a military doctrine designed to fight the Soviets on the plains of Central Europe. We failed to work hard to interdict VietCong and NVA supply lines in countries outside the war zone.  We refused to acknowledge the role of external actors -- the Chinese and the Soviets -- in prolonging the war for their own benefit.

In Iraq, we have done -- and continue to do -- some of the same things.

But in Vietnam, we also had a strategy shift in 1969, when General Creighton Abrams became CINC of MAC-V (Military Assistance Command, Vietnam).  Abrams emphasized counter-insurgency tactics:  secure the people, territory, and property of South Vietnam.  It was the Vietnam equivalent of "The Surge".  The result was incredibly effective.  The NVA was largely on its heels in 1972 and 1973-- and that is why (combined with bombing) -- the Paris Peace Accords were signed.

In Iraq, we haven't made this full turn yet.  But we are on our way, as Ralph Peters laid out here.

As Senator James Webb notes here in his April 2000 column from the Wall Street Journal, we only lost Vietnam when in 1975, the "Watergate Congress" voted to suspend ALL SUPPORT for the South Vietnamese government.  Since the Hanoi government read the NY Times too, they immediately saw the opportunity and took it.  They were all too well aware that this vote meant the United States of America would not have any interest in enforcing the stipulations of the Paris Peace Accords.  Saigon fell on May 1, 1975.

There was no "peace with honor" in Vietnam.  There was only skedaddle with disgrace.

Will we lose Iraq the same way?  That is the thrust of President Bush's speach.  By unveiling this aftermath of our defeat in Southeast Asia, Presdient Bush is attempting to apply "lessons learned" and issue a warning that repeating history -- the 1975 vote -- could be far worse now. 

Al Qaeda and their fellow travelers in the Islamofacist world are a far more potent enemy than the VietCong and NVA ever were.  Some vets make take exception with that description, but the fact of history is that Al Qaeda has already displayed a tactical ability and desire to attack these shores, something that the NVA never possessed.

And not too long from now, those Islamofacists will have unfettered access to nuclear weapons.

Does the American Left want to turn America's heartland -- not to mention the Middle East -- into the next set of Killing Fields?