Lessons from History

I find it interesting that people in various pro-war factions, right up to the President, take such umbrage at even the slightest comparision between the war in Iraq and Vietnam. It doesn't much matter whether the comparison is on a broad scale, or in relation to the finest of points - pro-war factions declare such comparisons to be false, unfair, and even that the comparison (in the President's words) "sends the wrong message to our troops and sends the wrong message to the enemy".

It is also interesting that similar objections typically are not raised when comparisons are made between Iraq and other conflicts, such as Lebanon or Algeria. (In fact, the Pentagon military saw enough parallels between Iraq and the French experience in Algeria, that it was reportedly screening the film "The Battle of Algiers" as a cautionary tale.) And anybody who recalls Lebanon, including the short-lived U.S. intervention and barracks bombing, and Israel's ultimate withdrawal after eighteen years of occupation, should be concerned by the thought that the Iraqi occupation may turn out the same way.

So why the consternation about Vietnam, and not other wars - particularly where the comparison to a different war may ultimately be more damning? In my opinion, it is because the popular conception of Vietnam is "The U.S. lost", whereas there is little popular understanding of the other conflicts which are mentioned. There is no instant message to a comparison between Iraq and Lebanon, or Iraq and Algeria, but a comparison to Vietnam sends the message, "We might lose" - or perhaps even, "We are losing". If understood, comparisons to Algeria and Lebanon might seem more damning than a comparison to Vietnam, but absent a popular understanding the pro-war factions apparently see no reason to try to shout down those comparisons.

Ultimately, the "we might lose" subtext, and not the validity or invalidity of any particular point of comparison, is why the pro-war factions are so pained by mention of Vietnam.

Comments