|
||
The Day Iraq Became Vietnam
Coming when it did -- exactly five years ago -- the photograph seemed like a cruel joke, or a Photoshop prank, just as nearly everyone in America (except perhaps a few Fox News commentators) was awakening to the bone-chilling reality of a quick war that was threatening to turn into a longer slog. And there, splashed across a spread in The New York Times, during the second week of the invasion of Iraq, was a picture of a smiling Donald Rumsfeld bending over to shake the hand of an equally buoyant Robert S. McNamara.
Unfortunately, it did not look like McNamara was whispering, "What part of the word Vietnam don't you understand?"
It was a Pentagon luncheon for former defense secretaries hosted by Rumsfeld to discuss the war in Iraq, which seemed to be undergoing more "Vietnamization" by the hour. We had seen it all before: the apparently false claims that we had won the "hearts and minds" of the people; the charges that the enemy was not fighting fair; and a rising toll of dead, wounded, or missing military personnel -- and journalists. And that was even before a postwar occupation.
I wrote much of the above, and what follows below, at Editor & Publisher on the last day of March 2003. Less than a month later, after Saddam fell, but as the insurgency began in Iraq -- and it started to look like we might, indeed, be there for awhile -- I may have been the first writer to predict that this would turn into a "quagmire." I was roundly ridiculed for that.
Flash forward to March 2008. In an article marking the fifth anniversary of the war, famed correspondent John F. Burns in The New York Times dryly referred to the "Iraq quagmire" -- as a fact, not an assertion.
Here is an excerpt from that March 31, 2003, piece. It also appears in my new book, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq.
Of course, it is absurd to compare a war of less than two weeks with one that lasted decades. But still, many hear echoes, faint or strong, of Vietnam. Only a few days have passed since CNN's Walter Rodgers, in Iraq in the early moments of the war, told anchor Aaron Brown, "It's great fun," but that seems like a year ago now.
With the conflict under way -- and getting nastier - -we thought we'd check back with some well-known reporters we had visited during the long run-up to war.
As with Vietnam, too many in the press follow the Pentagon line, says Joseph L. Galloway, the Bronze Star winner and author who is now military-affairs correspondent for Knight Ridder. "One thing not lacking," he adds, dryly, "is optimism for the game plan, but if it hasn't been cleared with the enemy, it tends not to work." He called the press briefings "bullshit."
Tom Wicker, columnist for The New York Times from 1966 to 1991, tells us that he wonders why more didn't question earlier Rumsfeld's plan for a lighter and quicker force in Iraq when many generals were predicting the war would have to be won with more boots on the ground. "Journalists," he says, "share the common perception that technology will triumph."
John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's magazine and author of an important book about media coverage of the first Gulf War, warns that if the war goes on for months, you "could see a breakdown in the discipline of the Pentagon's control of coverage. The soldiers may start to become paranoid about the reporters, and the reporters angry they're getting lied to by officers. Maybe more embedded reporters will be emboldened to report what they see, and then there might be reprisals from the military, revoking privileges."
Another troubling reminder of past conflicts is the relative little attention on civilian casualties. "We pay more attention to American deaths," says Anthony Marro, editor of Newsday in Melville, N.Y., whose paper publishes few photos of dead bodies, even fewer if they are Iraqi. "It is easier to report on people we know, we put more faces on the Americans, we know who they are."
Geneva Overholser, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, says that strong civilian coverage had been lacking at newspapers. "I wish they were showing us more of that reality of war," she adds. "We have more than 600 reporters embedded, and we have better access, but we are not seeing much in the way of civilian casualties."
The Boston Globe received complaints after playing up a photo of an Iraqi civilian killed by a stray bullet. Paula Nelson, Globe deputy director of photography in charge of Page One, reveals that the photo department debated using the image. "You got a lot from that photo," she explains. "It showed a casualty, but it also showed the urban fighting involved. It was the first dead body we printed." Nelson says the paper has declined to run other photos of the dead if they showed identifiable faces.
At least 60 readers wrote or called USA Today with complaints after it ran a picture of dead Iraqi soldiers on its front page March 28. Several asked why the paper did not replace it with an inside photo of a U.S. soldier walking with several smiling Iraqi children.
Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq, which features a foreword by Joe Galloway and a preface by Bruce Springsteen.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Over the past 2 weeks there has been a Major Uptick in Violence.
None of it has been attributed to Al Qaida.
Why are we there?
Are we joining the CIVIL WAR?
Which Side are we fighting for?
Sunni's that used to be Insurgents or part of Sadamm's Army and now Our Awakening Force?
The Shia controlled government?
The Mahdi Army?
Radical Shiites in Basra?
"Thugs" in Basra, Baghdad and Mosel?
Kurds?
I thought the LATEST REASON for staying in Iraq was to DEFEAT Al Qaeda there so they
do not come here to kill Americans.
Between the Allied Force of 160,000, the Awakening Force of 70,000 and the 430,000 Iraqi
Security Forces (660,000 Total) shouldn't we be focusing on the remaining 6000 Al Qaeda Terrorists? Apparently we have killed or captured 4000 Al Qaeda over the past couple years.
So if we stay focused 100 years will not be necessary.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6Wvx25P1oVNBEjTF_X7wJmBq8SQ
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7333099.stm
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/report-more-tha.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23977964/
No point in going into the same old arguments about Nam. After all these years, we can be objective and look at the big picture, as it is much more revealing as to what has really been hapenning here.
In Vietnam, even though there was an organized and deadly lethal army there to fight us, it was still an occupation. We fought and fought, then finally, we dismantled our occupation, and came home.
In Iraq, there is no army, just insurgents who want their country back, and an overblown romantic hodgepodge of resisters our president and media calls "Al Queada." In Iraq, no matter what anyone says, or how our media trumps it up, it is not a war. Not in the honorable historic sense that has always had America in the right. It is, and always will be, nothing more then an Occupation.
The only real comparison between Iraq and Vietnam is that they both were fought and won using the media and public opinion. The Iraq war will never make america safer, but vietnam was fought during the cold war. The domino theory turned out to be true and turned southeast asia into the killing fields.
The better move in the mid-east would have been secure Afghanistan and spend the money wasted in Iraq on a modern infrastructure in Afghanistan and education for the people.
The domino theory was bunk. For the price of the war in Vietnam Asia would have progressed and industrialized. Vietnam - who knew it began with a desire to be a democracy. Who knows they were just tired of being ruled by the French. Algeria rose up against the French and was set free by de Gaulle who knew the war couldn't be won. But it sure would have been smart to put the money wasted on the war in Iraq on infrastructure in Afghanistan. and education. I don't understand why people don't realize that it is a big saving to put in infrastructure and education.
HuffPost's Pick
"The domino theory proved to be true"????? On what planet. The domino theory was based on faulty premises which lead to a faulty conclusion. Our involvement in Vietnam led to the "killing fields" in Cambodia--Nixon destabilized the Cambodian government allowing the Khmer Rouge to take control.
After we lost in Vietnam, Thailand didn't fall to a communist tidal wave. Nor did Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. The domino theory was wrong.
Greg, I’m enjoying your posts. They stimulate me to think about what I read and hear about Iraq.
I remember Dan Rather reporting on the war from Vietnam. Sitting in our easy chairs, Americans saw the bloody violence of war on TV for the first time. Reporting from Vietnam then wasn't like being an embedded reporter in Iraq, i.e. it wasn't censored (at least not at first.) We saw wounded, dead Vietnamese civilians and American soldiers on TV and in LIFE magazine. Americans were SHOCKED. That, as well as the draft, propelled anti-war demonstrators out into the streets to demand the end of the Vietnam War.
Today, we hear about the violence in Iraq, but aren't allowed to SEE its visceral effects. We see bombed out building and streets, but not the dead and bloodied bodies, which doesn’t allow us to place this confrontation in its true context. It’s kept remote so we don’t THINK about it, personalize it, or DO anything about it.
There is no draft today; we're told to go shopping and live "normally," all of which contribute to a complete lack of intellectual curiosity about the Middle East. The media must show the on-the-ground reality in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the weak-stomached who complain that graphic images of the dead, or the caskets of dead soldiers coming home, are emotionally disturbing.
The Fourth Estate needs to step up to the plate and do its job.
The neoconservative account of what happened in Vietnam is that it was lost due to public opinion. Therefore, the priority of the neocons running this current war is controlling public opinion. Unfortunately, the assumption guiding neocon strategy is utterly false, and further, constructs a myth of American military invincibility that is disturbingly similar to that constructed by Germany post-WWI (the German military did not fail, therefore some other factor, namely being "stabbed in the back" by the Jews, was responsible). The neocons have done their job of controlling the all-too-pliant Fourth Estate well. What a shame that they have failed at every other conceivable task.
Five years, going on six, qualifies as a quagmire under any definition.
What do you suppose the Russian generals who got thrown out of Afghanistan are thinking/ ? Funny that no one in the Corporate Media has thought to look some of them up and ask their opinion. Bet they would be very insightful.
Iraq is identical to Viet Nam in that both were attempts to enforce Colonialism on an unwilling people. Neo-Cons have the wrong name. They are in actuality Neo-Colonialists.
Colonialism died in WW II. And the bloody history of local revolts since that time were just the dying throes of an ideology that had long been discredited. Nationalism is THE MOST POTENT political force on the planet. Which should be obvious to any fool who bothers to look at world history.Afghanistan, Algeria, Kenya, Viet Nam, Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia. How many times must the same lesson be taught?
Ironically, the nationalist revolt against foreign domination began in 1776 in America. If there is any nation that should understand the folly of colonialism it is the USA.
Iraq is like Viet Nam for the same reason Phil Ochs sang in the 1960's. we are "White Boots Marching In A Yellow Land."
While it took LIES to start both wars.
Vietnam was about money.
Iraqi is about 4 things.
1. Protecting the Sadui Kingdom
2. Protecting Isreal.
3. Making sure that there is a U.S. Friendly government in Iraq setting on 25 % of the worlds OIL.
4. MONEY MONEY MONEY AND STILL MORE MONEY. DID I MENTION MONEY????????
My God, can you anti-war folk come up with something other than "just like Vietnam"? That is a feeble, weak-minded analogy that substitutes for real analysis, which I know is not a strength of liberals.
You are denying the similarites? You Pro-War folk sure come up with some crazy convoluted rhetoric. But I'm sure we can count on you to Stay the Course, Mr. Conservative Superpatriot
It is apt in many ways. We went in thinking technology would win it easy for us. We went int hinking we could do it fast, on the cheap, and with a minimum of troops. We went in thinking we would be loved. What we are doing has never worked for anyone. Soviets, British, French etc... all learned this lesson. We will someday learn it too.
Both Vietnam and Iraq were predicated on faulty intelligence (or bullshit intelligence?) that led to preemptive strikes, which make neither a "war" but rather a "conflict."
Iraq became Viet Nam the first day it was launched. Like Viet Nam the premise was a lie. Like Viet Nam it's a war of colonialism Like Viet Nam congress is too cowardly to stop it.
There is a difference a Democrat started Vietnam.
That is stupid. The Viet Nam fiasco evolved over at least 5 Administrations from Truman to Nixon or Ford. In fact some of the biggest blunders were made by Eisenhower, and Nixon of course.
But to ascribe it to "Democrats" as if that is a defining statement in some way is stupid. You should know that at every point the Republicans were right there. Mostly pushing for "tougher' measures.
There was a political consensus supporting the war in Viet Nam. Read anything from the time and you will see. Johnson got in over his head because he felt he had to "outhawk" the Republicans led by Nixon. (Listen to the ending of Simon and Garfunkle's Silent Night for a clue.)
Just because the Republican policies of the 50a and 60's ensured a national Democratic majority at the time in no way absolves the Republicans. They were into the tragedy of Viet Nam right up to their eyeballs.
America's involvement in Vietnam was started by the Eisenhower's administration.
I think comparing Iraq to Vietnam is overly optimistic. Vietnam ended.
Give it time, Iraq will end too, just like Vietnam badly. And this time it may be even worse.
Simple.
Everyone got fat off this war. It was good for business.
Like ALL of the US's wars.
Everyone? I don't think so, but you are right about it being good for business - the war business.
Do you think that the U.S. as a whole will be as prosperous after Iraq as it became after WWII? I wonder...
The US becamet prosperous because Europe was bombed to rubble and what industries the British could sign over to the United States were as part of the payment for support from the United States.
So the point of this commentary is" "I told you so?" Please write back later with some new material - heaven knows, the people who have to get us out of this mess need NEW ideas, not old ones.
Its also important that we analyse this disaster and make sure something similar does not happen again. War with Iran, for instance? "I told you so" is way more contructive than "lets give it another six months" which is all we ever hear from War proponents. We need to keep this issue in the minds od citizens in order to bring pressure to bear on our leaders to END THIS DISASTEROUS HOSTILE MILITARY OCCUPATION. This war is decimating our military and financial security while offering nothing in the way of positive results. BTW unlike Bush & Cheney I don't consider $100+ a barrel oil to be a positive thing,
Here's a new idea. Get out and say sorry we armed Hussein and supported him. Sorry we tried to get you to give up control of your oil. Sorry we ruined your infrastructure. That would be new.
There was a editorial in today's Washinton Post by Max Boot (neocon war architect) that is using Vietnam as an analogy for staying in Iraq. He referenced Cambodia also. I remember fierce denials by the administration that the outcome of Vietnam would NOT overshadow Iraq...now they are using it as a defense. Kind of makes you wonder what these guys will do to keep the vision alive. Sad, truly sad. Read for yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032801729.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Their ability to spin knows no bounds.
The dqay Iraq became Virtnam was when the surrender monkys voted for regime change in the Clinton Administration. The surrender monkeys have been waving their white flags ever since.
No one is hated as much as someone who was right when everyone else was wrong. My condolences.
I agree.
What you don't seem to be looking at, however, is the uncanny resemblance of "the surge" to "the light at the end of the tunnel."
I recall that on my first tour in Vietnam during 1967 that many of us made a joke of that phrase. At first, in 67, we joked about it by saying "the light at the end of the tunnel is a VC coming after you." In 1968 (my second tour), after the Tet offensive we said "the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train." Then, in 1969 (my third tour) we said "will the last person out of the tunnel please turn out the light."
Funny how so many people in government and military always see the merits of their arguments as authoritative and professional rather than irrational and amateuristic as they reallly are. Where is Gen. George Marshall when we need him- Gone with Ike who warned us about getting involved in the Middle East - or Muddle east in this case.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
