Why Iraq is Not Vietnam
Hundreds of thousands of American troops are bogged down in a war in Asia, defending a friendly, but weak, government from a violent insurgency. As American deaths mount, more and more people call for withdrawal. The President says it is crucial that we stay until we win.
This summarizes our predicament in Iraq today, but the same words could have applied to the Vietnam War any time before 1973, when we pulled out of South Vietnam. Although both Iraq and South Vietnam were carved out failed empires (Ottoman and French, respectively), when we leave Iraq the insurgents will not take over. And here is why:
Iraq: Created by the British
After the British defeated the Ottoman Empire in World War I, they divided the Arabian penninsula into the countries that exist there today: Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and so on. The British installed Prince Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein ( who had sided with the British in the War) as the first King of Iraq. The monarchy was overthrown by the military in 1958; after a series of coups, Sadam Hussein seized power in 1968 and ruled the country until the US invasion in 2003.
There are three major population groups in the country: Kurd, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab, of which the Shia are about 60 percent of the total. The Kurds, whose homeland straddles the border with Turkey on the north, have little in common with other Iraqis, and have struggled for independence intermittently since the country was created. Despite their majority status, the Shiites were dominated by Sunni rulers both during the monarchy and subsequent regimes. Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other since about 750 CE, and show little interest in settling their differences peacefully any time soon.
The people of Iraq are loyal to their religious and ethnic groups, but there is little real loyalty to Iraq, per se. Iraq is the artificial creation of outsiders, formed from antagonistic populations. Sadam Hussein was able to hold the country together, but by methods we would not like to see used again.
South Vietnam: Created by the French
When Japanese armed forces withdrew from Southeast Asia after World War II, the French tried to re-impose their colonial rule. They faced an armed rebellion from the communist Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh. After years of fighting, the French agreed in 1954 to withdraw from Vietnam within two years; meanwhile the country would be divided into two sectors: the North, ruled by the Viet Minh, and the South, in which the French would regroup before leaving. The French, with American support, set up a government under Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, which rejected re-unification with the North.
Communist forces in the South (called Vietcong), armed and supported by the North, launched an insurgency in 1960. Unable to crush the rebellion, Diem obtained American military support. After Diem was murdered (with American connivance) in November, 1963, South Vietnam was ruled by military officers. After ten years of war, American forces were withdrawn in 1973. In 1975, North Vietnamese armed forces invaded the South and quickly annexed the country, thus re-uniting Vietnam under communist rule. The dictator of Vietnam, which now vies with China to supply low-wage labor for international manufacturers, was welcomed to the White House in June by President Bush. (We can only imagine what would the country would be like today if the communists had lost the War.)
Iraq and Vietnam: A Political Comparison
Whereas Vietnam was a single nation (sharing language and ethnic identity) artificially divided by an outside force, Iraq consists of separate ethnic and religious groups dragooned into one nation by an outside force. This difference is important in assessing the future of the Iraq conflict, because the war in Vietnam was fought to re-unite the country under a single leadership. South Vietnamese people did not consider North Vietnamese soldiers or their Vietcong comrades to be foreigners in their country, and that may be why they did not resist them effectively. Once Diem was gone, the only hold the Saigon government had over the people was military power, and in the final analysis, it was not enough.
The US initially tried to impose a government on Iraq consisting of pro-American Iraqi exiles. However, the US provisional government could not resist the pressure from Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the Shiite prelate of Iraq, to hold quick elections. These elections, in which 8 million people voted ( although boycotted by most Sunnis), created a Kurdish-Shiite coalition government, with genuine political support from the two communities that comprise a big majority (about 75%) of the total population. Unlike the generals in South Vietnam, Al-Sistani controls his followers with religious authority, not military force.
The insurgency, manned by ex-Baath Partisans, al-Qaida, and other Sunni jihadist-types, kills people everyday with bombs, but has very few loyal supporters.(1) Their cruelties inspire hate among the masses of Iraqis, not trust. Unlike the Vietcong, the insurgents are considered deadly enemies by the vast majority of Iraqi people.
The Geo-Political Picture of Iraq Today
Although many of the insurgents have entered Iraq from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, not one country is openly allied with the insurgency. This means that after US forces leave, there will be no foreign invasion to topple the elected government and hand power to the insurgents, as was the fate of South Vietnam. The insurgents can kill and destroy, but they cannot win, either militarily or politically.
But what if Iraq fractures along ethnic and religious lines into three or four mini-nations? First, each of the new nations would enjoy more internal cohesion and loyalty than Iraq does today. None of them would be powerful enough to threaten their neighbors, as Iraq did under Sadam. Years of conflict between the fragments of Iraq is a real possibility, and it may not be possible for any outside power to impose an lasting settlement.
Iraq may turn out to be another Yugoslavia, rather than another Vietnam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Even a few bombers can wreak tremendous chaos and death. Dr Ted Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) bombed people for 17 years before being fingered by his own brother. (Had he been an only child, he might still be doing so) Timothy McVeigh killed 168 Americans with only minimal help from others. Image what even a hundred, let alone a thousand, mad bombers could do to a country the size of Iraq!
This summarizes our predicament in Iraq today, but the same words could have applied to the Vietnam War any time before 1973, when we pulled out of South Vietnam. Although both Iraq and South Vietnam were carved out failed empires (Ottoman and French, respectively), when we leave Iraq the insurgents will not take over. And here is why:
Iraq: Created by the British
After the British defeated the Ottoman Empire in World War I, they divided the Arabian penninsula into the countries that exist there today: Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and so on. The British installed Prince Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein ( who had sided with the British in the War) as the first King of Iraq. The monarchy was overthrown by the military in 1958; after a series of coups, Sadam Hussein seized power in 1968 and ruled the country until the US invasion in 2003.
There are three major population groups in the country: Kurd, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab, of which the Shia are about 60 percent of the total. The Kurds, whose homeland straddles the border with Turkey on the north, have little in common with other Iraqis, and have struggled for independence intermittently since the country was created. Despite their majority status, the Shiites were dominated by Sunni rulers both during the monarchy and subsequent regimes. Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other since about 750 CE, and show little interest in settling their differences peacefully any time soon.
The people of Iraq are loyal to their religious and ethnic groups, but there is little real loyalty to Iraq, per se. Iraq is the artificial creation of outsiders, formed from antagonistic populations. Sadam Hussein was able to hold the country together, but by methods we would not like to see used again.
South Vietnam: Created by the French
When Japanese armed forces withdrew from Southeast Asia after World War II, the French tried to re-impose their colonial rule. They faced an armed rebellion from the communist Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh. After years of fighting, the French agreed in 1954 to withdraw from Vietnam within two years; meanwhile the country would be divided into two sectors: the North, ruled by the Viet Minh, and the South, in which the French would regroup before leaving. The French, with American support, set up a government under Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, which rejected re-unification with the North.
Communist forces in the South (called Vietcong), armed and supported by the North, launched an insurgency in 1960. Unable to crush the rebellion, Diem obtained American military support. After Diem was murdered (with American connivance) in November, 1963, South Vietnam was ruled by military officers. After ten years of war, American forces were withdrawn in 1973. In 1975, North Vietnamese armed forces invaded the South and quickly annexed the country, thus re-uniting Vietnam under communist rule. The dictator of Vietnam, which now vies with China to supply low-wage labor for international manufacturers, was welcomed to the White House in June by President Bush. (We can only imagine what would the country would be like today if the communists had lost the War.)
Iraq and Vietnam: A Political Comparison
Whereas Vietnam was a single nation (sharing language and ethnic identity) artificially divided by an outside force, Iraq consists of separate ethnic and religious groups dragooned into one nation by an outside force. This difference is important in assessing the future of the Iraq conflict, because the war in Vietnam was fought to re-unite the country under a single leadership. South Vietnamese people did not consider North Vietnamese soldiers or their Vietcong comrades to be foreigners in their country, and that may be why they did not resist them effectively. Once Diem was gone, the only hold the Saigon government had over the people was military power, and in the final analysis, it was not enough.
The US initially tried to impose a government on Iraq consisting of pro-American Iraqi exiles. However, the US provisional government could not resist the pressure from Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the Shiite prelate of Iraq, to hold quick elections. These elections, in which 8 million people voted ( although boycotted by most Sunnis), created a Kurdish-Shiite coalition government, with genuine political support from the two communities that comprise a big majority (about 75%) of the total population. Unlike the generals in South Vietnam, Al-Sistani controls his followers with religious authority, not military force.
The insurgency, manned by ex-Baath Partisans, al-Qaida, and other Sunni jihadist-types, kills people everyday with bombs, but has very few loyal supporters.(1) Their cruelties inspire hate among the masses of Iraqis, not trust. Unlike the Vietcong, the insurgents are considered deadly enemies by the vast majority of Iraqi people.
The Geo-Political Picture of Iraq Today
Although many of the insurgents have entered Iraq from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, not one country is openly allied with the insurgency. This means that after US forces leave, there will be no foreign invasion to topple the elected government and hand power to the insurgents, as was the fate of South Vietnam. The insurgents can kill and destroy, but they cannot win, either militarily or politically.
But what if Iraq fractures along ethnic and religious lines into three or four mini-nations? First, each of the new nations would enjoy more internal cohesion and loyalty than Iraq does today. None of them would be powerful enough to threaten their neighbors, as Iraq did under Sadam. Years of conflict between the fragments of Iraq is a real possibility, and it may not be possible for any outside power to impose an lasting settlement.
Iraq may turn out to be another Yugoslavia, rather than another Vietnam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Even a few bombers can wreak tremendous chaos and death. Dr Ted Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) bombed people for 17 years before being fingered by his own brother. (Had he been an only child, he might still be doing so) Timothy McVeigh killed 168 Americans with only minimal help from others. Image what even a hundred, let alone a thousand, mad bombers could do to a country the size of Iraq!
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:34 AM
0 comments
