November 11, 2005

AND WE BEAT THE CONG:

Why the Iraqi quagmire is no Vietnam (Aaron Glantz, 11/12/05, Asia Times)

Is Iraq another Vietnam? Tran Dac Loi should know. The secretary general of the Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation grew up in Hanoi dodging bombs dropped by the United States Air Force, while his father fought in the successful guerrilla war in the country's Central Highlands.

Three decades later, Tran, now an important figure in the ideological wing of Vietnam's communist government, has some thoughts on the Iraqi resistance.

"Our struggle was well organized," Tran said in an IPS interview. "We had an address and official contacts, but with Iraq you never know who the resistance is and what their objectives are."

Pointing to what he sees as a serious flaw in the Iraqi resistance, he added, "Sure, the fighters all want the Americans out, but there's no unifying political program."

In Iraq, the insurgency's appeal flows primarily from the pain of the occupation. Much of its support comes from regular Iraqis who have relatives who have been killed or imprisoned by US forces and they want to get even. "This kind of resistance leads nowhere," Tran said. "Resistance has to have a clear objective. Ours was independence and socialism; not reaction but revolution."

Some of the occupation's opponents in Iraq do have developed organizations, complete with spokespersons and ideological programs. But, Tran predicts, because the insurgency is built on ethnic and religious lines, they'll never succeed in their objectives.


Other than popular hostility, lack of any coherent objective, no leadership, and reacting against something that's ending anyway, they're doing fine.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 11, 2005 12:15 PM
Comments

you forgot to mention that they possess no discernible resources or skills that one would associate with a modern military effort.

Posted by: JonofAtlanta at November 11, 2005 12:53 PM

OT, perhaps, but today in Atlanta the Veteran's Day Parade paraded right in front of my office on Peachtree Street. I went out and watched it. There was a small contingent of ARVN vets, in uniform, in the parade. I gave them a whistle, and thought "sorry about bugging out on you right there at the end!!"

Posted by: Twn at November 11, 2005 1:23 PM

Of course, this article missed the single biggest similarty between the Viet Cong and the Iraqi "minutemen", that they both have won the hearts and minds of the American left, and their allies in the press and Europe.

Posted by: H.D. Miller at November 11, 2005 1:33 PM

We beat the Cong quickly and Nortn Vietnam with strategic bombing. What we didn't beat is what threatens us now, the dagger in the back.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 11, 2005 7:30 PM

I have never really understood the dolchstoss angle on the vietnam war due to the fact it was the liberals who started and mainly prosecuted the war. Nixon inherited it from Kennedy and Johnson and was never enthusiastic over it so didn't the left have some skin in the game to see the thing to victory?

Obviously the leftist went for the jugular and used the war to their full advantage, hence the knife in the back but was it also in the backs of the liberals?

Is it really possible that just 45 years ago leftist and liberals in this country were so different that they would be on different sides of a war?

Posted by: Perry at November 12, 2005 10:27 AM

Perry:

The Left supports the wars it wages, not those Republicans do. On the other hand, Republicans support the wars America wages.

Posted by: oj at November 12, 2005 10:30 AM

You should add that the Left doesn't prosecute the wars it wages (Kosovo being the latest example).

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 13, 2005 1:28 AM
« AH, THE THIRD WAY (via Gene Brown): | Main | DUH?: »