Military collapse in Iraq: parallels with events leading to the end of the Vietnam War
June 12, 2014
By John Keller Editor
THE MIL & AERO BLOG, 12 June 2014. Iraq today is starting to look a lot like South Vietnam did in spring 1975, and the circumstances of the turmoil in both places is eerily similar.
Islamic militants backed by al-Qaida have captured Mosul in Northern Iraq, the nation's second-largest city, as well as Tikrit, the former home town of Saddam Hussein. Now they're poised to march on the capital of Baghdad. With Iraqi government soldiers fleeing and throwing down their arms, there's little today standing between Islamic rebels and a complete takeover of Iraq.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Baghdad fall by next week, and perhaps earlier. It's as if a decade of U.S. military presence in that country -- not to mention 4,487 American soldiers killed and 32,226 wounded in Iraq between 2003 and 2012 -- never even happened.
Here's the biggest unfolding irony of all. U.S. forces invaded Iraq in 2003 presumably to punish Saddam Hussein and his regime for their suspected support of the al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11. Now al-Qaida-backed rebels are poised to take control of all Iraq.
Remind me again why the U.S. government spent thousands of American lives and billions of dollars over a decade fighting in Iraq. At this stage it seems like such a waste, and American military personnel who served in that country must be heartily disgusted.
What were they fighting and sacrificing for? Why did so many of their friends get killed and wounded? As of now it would seem to be for nothing.
For historians and for those of us who lived through the 1960s and '70s there is a growing sense of bitter deja vu.
On 10 March 1975 the North Vietnamese army and Viet Cong fighters launched a spring offensive. While U.S. intelligence suggested that South Vietnam forces could hold out at least for the season and for as long as a year, Hue and Da Nang fell to the attackers before the end of that month.
U.S. military forces had been pulled out of Vietnam two years earlier after more than 10 years of warfare in which 2.59 million U.S. military personnel served, 58,169 were killed, and 304,000 wounded. Without direct U.S. military support, the South Vietnam military couldn't hold off the attackers.
After Hue and Da Nang fell, floods of refugees fled from the fighting, as South Vietnam military resistance quickly disintegrated. By 9 April the attackers had reached the South Vietnam capital of Saigon. The city fell on 30 April 1975 after a frantic helicopter evacuation of U.S. and South Vietnamese citizens.
As that last helicopter lifted off the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon during the evacuation called Operation Frequent Wind, many of those 2.59 million U.S. servicemen who had been in Vietnam must have felt a lot like Iraq veterans must feel today: what was it all for?
Should we have been in Vietnam and Iraq at all? Those academic questions are best addressed elsewhere. What we see today is a monumental amount of American blood and treasure wasted over the last 50 years. We've seen military interventions begun with optimism and ending with defeat and disgrace.
My heart goes out today to the U.S. veterans who served in Iraq, and in Vietnam before them. They gave so much, sometimes even their lives, and the tolls on individuals and families is immeasurable.
As U.S. forces entered Iraq in 2003 and for a good while afterward there was a spirit that U.S. military leaders and warfighters, this time, wouldn't let another Vietnam happen. Well, here we are.
Perhaps it's too early to start talking about the lessons learned from Iraq. Here are a few observations. First, the U.S. government is really, really bad at nation building. I'm hoping the debacles of Vietnam and Iraq have cured us of that permanently.
Second, you can't win the hearts and minds of people who don't want their hearts and minds changed. Contrary to our best intentions, democracy isn't always a cure for the ills of nations. American values are worth fighting for, but the fighting should stop short of imposing our values on others. Worthy as the task might seem, the last 50 years have shown us that it simply doesn't work.
I could go on, but you get the idea. It's all so sad, frustrating, and disillusioning to see such human effort and monetary expense go for naught. So let's all take a deep breath, and resolve -- once again -- that we'll learn some meaningful lessons from these experiences.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth JUNE 13, 2014 Photo
Nikita Khrushchev and East German leaders with a Sputnik 3 replica in 1959. Credit Bettmann/Corbis Tyler Cowen
The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.
An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.
The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.
Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.
A Safer World The number of people who have died in wars has declined sharply since the 20th century.
Source: Steven Pinker, Harvard University, based on data from the Human Security Report Project at Simon Fraser University, It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.
War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.
As a teenager in the 1970s, I heard talk about the desirability of rebuilding the Tappan Zee Bridge. Now, a replacement is scheduled to open no earlier than 2017, at least — provided that concerns about an endangered sturgeon can be addressed. Kennedy Airport remains dysfunctional, and La Guardia is hardly cutting edge, hobbling air transit in and out of New York. The $800 billion stimulus bill, in response to the recession, has not changed this basic situation.
Today the major slow-growing Western European nations have very little fear of being taken over militarily, and thus their politicians don’t face extreme penalties for continuing stagnation. Instead, losing office often means a boost in income from speaking or consulting fees or a comfortable retirement in a pleasant vacation spot. Japan, by comparison, is faced with territorial and geopolitical pressures from China, and in response it is attempting a national revitalization through the economic policies of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story Ian Morris, a professor of classics and history at Stanford, has revived the hypothesis that war is a significant factor behind economic growth in his recent book, “War! What Is it Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization From Primates to Robots.” Morris considers a wide variety of cases, including the Roman Empire, the European state during its Renaissance rise and the contemporary United States. In each case there is good evidence that the desire to prepare for war spurred technological invention and also brought a higher degree of internal social order.
Another new book, Kwasi Kwarteng’s “War and Gold: A 500-Year History of Empires, Adventures, and Debt,” makes a similar argument but focuses on capital markets. Mr. Kwarteng, a Conservative member of British Parliament, argues that the need to finance wars led governments to help develop monetary and financial institutions, enabling the rise of the West. He does worry, however, that today many governments are abusing these institutions and using them to take on too much debt. (Both Mr. Kwarteng and Mr. Morris are extending themes from Azar Gat’s 820-page magnum opus, “War in Human Civilization,” published in 2006.)
Yet another investigation of the hypothesis appears in a recent working paper by the economists Chiu Yu Ko, Mark Koyama and Tuan-Hwee Sng. The paper argues that Europe evolved as more politically fragmented than China because China's risk of conquest from its western flank led it toward political centralization for purposes of defense. This centralization was useful at first but eventually held China back. The European countries invested more in technology and modernization, precisely because they were afraid of being taken over by their nearby rivals.
But here is the catch: Whatever the economic benefits of potential conflict might have been, the calculus is different today. Technologies have become much more destructive, and so a large-scale war would be a bigger disaster than before. That makes many wars less likely, which is a good thing, but it also makes economic stagnation easier to countenance.
CONTINUE READING THE MAIN STORY 28 COMMENTS There is a more optimistic read to all this than may first appear. Arguably the contemporary world is trading some growth in material living standards for peace — a relative paucity of war deaths and injuries, even with a kind of associated laziness.
We can prefer higher rates of economic growth and progress, even while recognizing that recent G.D.P. figures do not adequately measure all of the gains we have been enjoying. In addition to more peace, we also have a cleaner environment (along most but not all dimensions), more leisure time and a higher degree of social tolerance for minorities and formerly persecuted groups. Our more peaceful and — yes — more slacker-oriented world is in fact better than our economic measures acknowledge.
Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.
Quoted Text
Here is the Koch Brothers’ chief academic on the Keynesian glories of war–for the State and its oligarchs, anyway: "It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth. War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days."
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
I didn't get that at all from his little speech today. What I got from it was 'Deal with it, it's your problem'
Obama screwed up bad by pulling everyone out and not leaving a reactionary force behind.
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
I didn't get that at all from his little speech today. What I got from it was 'Deal with it, it's your problem'
Obama screwed up bad by pulling everyone out and not leaving a reactionary force behind.
If we had left a reactionary force it would have only delayed the inevitable. I am not (and neither should anyone else be) surprised. I would go so far as to predict the same will happen within 2 years of our forces leaving Afghanistan.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Another example of the ineptitude of Obama, his Cabinet and top advisers. I have absolutely no confidence that this president would react appropriately if America itself were attacked again.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Now Goatboy is an authority on war! He couldn't get elected dog catcher, but is a complete authority on everything political and how ALL politicians should act. Hey Goatboy, tell us then, just how should America handle this crisis in Iraq now. Tell us what you would do different than what Obama has already laid out.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
No one is an 'authority on war'. EVERYONE just forms their 'opinion' based on the propaganda being fed to them via the 'system'.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
No one is an 'authority on war'. EVERYONE just forms their 'opinion' based on the propaganda being fed to them via the 'system'.
So if I understand you....you are not able to form a valid opinion for yourself because everything you use to form that opinion is propaganda, aka bullshit...is that right? Well, I am not you and can make an intelligent decision based on facts in information by knowing what is fact, what is fiction and what is bullshit. As for Goatboy, he is an authority on everything....FACT!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
So if I understand you....you are not able to form a valid opinion for yourself because everything you use to form that opinion is propaganda, aka bullshit...is that right? Well, I am not you and can make an intelligent decision based on facts in information by knowing what is fact, what is fiction and what is bullshit. As for Goatboy, he is an authority on everything....FACT!!!!
Personal perception of information aka propaganda fed to people is everything. I do know for a fact that i'm sitting at my device typing this. My personal perception/opinion is that you are sitting at your device reading it. Do i know for a FACT that you are sitting at your device reading it? That is just my personal perception/opinion.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Personal perception of information aka propaganda fed to people is everything. I do know for a fact that i'm sitting at my device typing this. My personal perception/opinion is that you are sitting at your device reading it. Do i know for a FACT that you are sitting at your device reading it? That is just my personal perception/opinion.
Are you Cissy in disguise????? Has he been giving you lessons???? Your answer explains why you think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy!
PS - Evaluation of information is not perception if a person has capacity to ferret out facts from fiction and evaluate "ALL" facts before forming an opinion or personal position.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Logged
