Hindsight is 20/20. History repeats its self. Two clichés, both plague conversations over the Iraq war. Both clichés though, are found to be very accurate when talking about the war. History repeats itself is very fitting when considering the similarities in the Iraq war and the Vietnam war. Hindsight is 20/20 seems to be a favorite of the people calling the shots in the Iraq war. The Iraq war is a war that has found itself in a bit of a rut. Things have not exactly been going as well as everyone would like. With every mistake being excused with “hindsight is 20/20,” but is it? With the many of the mistake being ones previously seen in Vietnam are the people heading this war really oblivious to what is going on till after it happens? But that brings up the controversial argument that Iraq is NOT another Vietnam, and because Iraq is not another Vietnam is cannot be treated like it is. But whether anyone person agrees that Iraq is another Vietnam, or whether they agree that the wars are similar but cannot be treated the same, or the wars are nothing alike, when it comes down to it, there are undeniable similarities in the two wars. Which raises the question on whether Vietnam can be looked at to help understand what needs to be done with the present situation in Iraq. From the beginning of the Wars up to the end, there are major similarities, but there are also a lot of differences.
The history of both the wars are relatable. Looking into information about the administrations in charge, the economy, and the people living in Vietnam and Iraq, is very important. It is also important to take note of events that lead up to the two wars. The United States relations to Iraq and Vietnam is also very important to understand the wars. In understanding the war there is the hope to being able to better find a solution to the conflict.
One thing that was similar in both wars and had profound impact was the different groups of people that resided within Iraq and Vietnam. The differences between the different groups of people would undeniably effect how the United States fought the wars. The history of these people is very Important to understand because it helped to illustrate why handling them had to be delicate. Vietnam had North and South Vietnam. Vietnams division resulted from after Vietnam managed to fight off French rule the country was divided. the non-communist south was separated from the communist north. Naturally because of her anti communist stance the United States backed the south. The United States being so strongly opposed to communism encouraged South Vietnam to refuse the unification elections. The Vietcong began attacks on south Vietnams government. The Vietcong were the guerilla war groups from the North. The United State sent advisors to teach South Vietnam to be able to deal with north Vietnam.(rotter) These events would mark what eventually led up to full scale war. The people living in Vietnam really were not any different except for what side of the parallel they lived on. Iraq is a bit different because there are two groups of people that are significant to the war but unlike Vietnam there is not a physical line dividing them and the origins of these two groups is very different from where the groups in Vietnam originated. The Sunni Muslims and the Shiite Muslims are very different in their beliefs. These differences have been a source of violence for years. It should be noted that not all Sunni and Shiites cause violence. It is only the extremist of both groups that cause waves. According to HNN The differences between Sunni and Shiites stems from their beliefs in religion. While both groups recognize Muhammad as the founder of the religion after Muhammad passes the Sunnis and Shiites go their separate ways in belief. The Sunnis believe in the first four Caliphs. The Caliphs were Muhammad’s successors. The Sunnis believe that the first four Caliphs took the place of the proper rulers of the Muslim world. The Caliphs heir then took over leadership after the originals passed away. The Shiites though do not recognize the first three Caliphs heirs as proper leaders. They only consider the heirs of the fourth Caliph as true leaders. The reason the Sunnis and Shiites had these qualms over the leaders was because they were looking for who they thought would be most capable of upholding the faith Muhammad had set for them. Another subject Sunnis and Shiites do not agree on is “the rightly guided one, ”Mahdi. The purpose of Mahdi is to bring to the world a Caliph that is capable and will rule the world. The Sunnis believe he has yet to come to the world while the Shiites believe that he has come but is hiding. Also according to HNN about ninety percent of the Muslim world is Sunni while the other ten percent is Shiite. The violence between the Sunnis and Shiites also has it origins. According to HNN it started with the Shiites who followed Ali, Muhammad’s cousin, killing the third caliph. The Sunnis retaliated by killing Husain Ali’s cousin. The Sunnis recognized the third caliph as a leader in the faith. The struggle between the two groups continues but the Sunnis have taken the upper hand. But none the less the Shiites continue to develop their beliefs through the ones they consider to be the true leaders. According to HNN after World War One the caliphate was destroyed. It is at this point the resentment that some Muslims feel toward Europeans surfaced. The caliphate refers to the form of government under the caliph. The resentment toward Europeans and Americans started when Europeans after world war one entered the Muslim world bringing with them liquor, “lewd” women, and institutes of science and culture. Many Muslims felt that these European influence tainted their people. Some of the Muslim people took on the habits of the Europeans and questioned their faith. Osama Bin Laden, a Sunni extremist, was responsible for the September eleventh attacks. Through a video Bin Laden made it very clear that he felt that the Muslim world has been hurt a lot more by Europeans and the United States than what they have done to the United States. This information helps to explain some of the reasons for terrorism. The majority of people know of terrorism but its not often asked why it exists. There is a history for the hatred some Muslims feel toward Europeans and the United States. HNN also talks about how many political leaders or the people making the calls on relations with the middle east do not understand the differences between Sunnis and Shiite or often get mixed up on the two. This is important when considering the two groups cannot be treated as the same, but if people cannot differentiate they will treat them exactly the same. Not recognizing the difference between Sunni and Shiites does become a problem in the Iraq war.
It is also important, when considering the history leading up to the two wars, to look at what administrations where involved. In Vietnam it starts with the Kennedy administration then move onto the Johnson administration and finishes with the Nixon administration. The Eisenhower administration would come up with the theory that justified the United States involvement with South Vietnam. The theory Eisenhower’s administration came up with was the domino theory. The idea behind the domino theory is that if South Vietnam fell to communism then the rest of South East Asia would. Communism would then spread to the rest of the world.(simmon). Kennedy’s administration helps to understand the set up of the war, but it is Johnson’s administration that begins making the decisions that would begin the war. The main ideas that need to be taken into consideration when talking about the influence of the Kennedy administrations on the war is during the cold war tension with Russia developed. This would influence Russians decision to back north Vietnam. Also the Kennedy administration in reaction to the Vietcong, felt counterinsurgency a necessity and created an elite force, known as the Green Berets, to go in and help calm the situation. (simon) After Kennedy’s assassination Johnson took over. Johnson was a democrat which is interesting especially when comparing Vietnam to Iraq. Vietnam was started by a democratic administration while Iraq was started by a republican administration. Johnson was the one who made the decisions that would bring the United States to full scale war with Vietnam. The Johnson administration continued to deal with the problems of North Vietnam attacking the South. It wasn’t until there was a alleged attack on an American vessel in the Bay of Tonkin that the decision to be fully involved with Vietnam was made. After the Bay of Tonkin incident, Johnson ordered that North Vietnam be bombed. This would mark when the United States truly started fighting with North Vietnam. The air strikes ordered by Johnson would lead into the large bombing campaign known as Rolling Thunder. (simon) the Nixon administration would be the concluders of the war. Its major contributions being the introduction of Vietnamization, Watergate, and the way the war ended (simon). In Iraq basically the administration held accountable for the duration of the war would be the Bush administration. Some of the prerequisites for the war can be put on the Clinton administration, or the first Bush administration, but basically it is the second bush administration that is held responsible for all that has gone on with the Iraq war. Sometime the first Bush administration is brought up and held for not having finished the Gulf war properly. Some people say had Saddam Hussein been taken from power then the United States would not have had reason to go to Iraq and begin the current war. But no matter when it comes down to the line, the second Bush administration took up against Iraq and began the war. The September eleventh attack made by Osama Bind laden would be a rallying opportunity for the United States government to get support in going to war with Iraq. There are other justifications for the United States going to war that the second Bush administration uses. These justifications will be discussed later. A question that is of very importance at the present time is “who is going to be the next administration?” With elections less than a month away it is interesting to look at Vietnam, see how the changes in administrations affected the war, and wonder what this change in administrations will bring to the Iraq war.
A similarity that is particularly striking between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war is the incidents that actually caused for the beginnings of the war. The basic fact are that with both war there was informational faults that gave the government reason to begin attacks on Vietnam and Iraq. In both wars the justifications for going to war were later proven false. Whether the government purposefully used the “faulty” information to their advantage is up for debate. Hindsight is 20/20.
The Bay of Tonkin incident took place on August 2, 1964. The U.S.S Maddox was on an intelligence mission in the Tonkin bay. During this time there was already conflict in Vietnam between the North and the South in Vietnam. The United States had been backing South Vietnam for a good bit of time. The U.S.S Maddox was allegedly attacked by North Vietnamese PT boats. The Turner Joy was also allegedly attacked. It would be found that both of these attacks were fabricated, and if either of the vessels had had any kind of confrontation, they did not receive any damage. But after the incident was reported this gave Johnson the support he needed from congress to begin air strikes against North Vietnam.
With Iraq there was also false information used as justifications for going to war. Just as it was with Vietnam, the disturbing idea shadowing the false information in Iraq is it seems like it was purposely fabricated by the government. With Iraq there were two things that the Bush administration used as justifications for going to war with Iraq. The first is the supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. The United States made it seem as if Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was a threat to the safety of the United States. The United State used the United Nations law of pre-emption as a justification to invade Iraq. Then legal terms stated in pre-emption are elaborate. The laws of pre-emption have changed. As stated in the “Just War Theory” article, according to the National Security Strategy pre-emption is applicable when a country feels threatened by another, and the country feeling threatened feels it needs to attack before it is attacked. This is the way the law is stated and is accepted by the United Nations. A newer definition of the law is a “guess” that a war or power shift could occur. The United State went to war with Iraq under the justification of the second definition which has no legal status in the United Nations. Due to the absence of a world government there is no one that can say much about it. There were several countries who did not agree with the United States justifications of invading Iraq. The other legal justification the United States used for the invasion of Iraq was the laws pertaining to humanitarian intervention. (just war) The expert in the Just War Theory article said that this would have been the United States strongest justification if they had met all of the requirement, but again the United States did not manage to legally do this. The law states that humanitarian intervention applies to ongoing crimes against humanity, or as stated in the article “acts that shock the moral conscious of mankind.” Also as the article states this is usually applicable to genocide or near genocide, and also discussed in the “Just War Theory” article while Saddam did act against the Kurds, and indiscriminately kill the common people his actions were not of a high enough degree to call for humanitarian intervention. The United States said Saddam was committing acts against humanity, but according to the law excepted by the United Nations, he was in the clear.
All wars have similarities throughout their durations. The Vietnam war and the Iraq war have some qualities that other wars did not. One aspect of the war that lasted throughout both wars was the difficulty soldiers had and continue to have in identifying the enemy. During Vietnam the North Vietnamese looked no different from the South and would often disguise themselves as South Vietnamese soldiers. Often the enemy Vietnamese would act as civilians during the day and attack at night. This made it difficult for the soldiers to be able to trust anyone. It also caused problems because if ever there was a mistake made, which was easy to do, the soldiers were criticized harshly. There are also accusations of United States soldiers killing people who are obviously civilians out of cold blood. One incident that stand out and was considered a very dark point tin the Vietnam war was the massacre at Mai Lai. United State soldiers attacked a village of civilians killing all the residents. The soldiers had been directed to take out the sect of Mai Lai.(direct essays) What they were not told was what to do with the civilians. So the soldier took out the civilians as well as the opposing soldiers. In Iraq there was a similar situation. In the city of Haditha United States marines were charged with the cold blooded murder of fifteen civilian Iraqis. Allegedly in days previous a roadside bomb had killed several civilians and one marine. Following this, the marines attacked several homes in Haditha. There was a lot of controversy over the attack because nobody’s account on what happened matched up. Though there seems to be more support of the incident being killings out of cold blood then it not. According to MSNBC news three officers were decommissioned and twelve soldiers were put under investigation. A problem the soldiers in Iraq have had to contend with is the people attacking them come in all forms. There have been incidents in Iraq were children will walk up to the soldiers with bombs on them. The soldiers often don’t realize this until it is too late. So this makes it difficult for the soldiers to discriminate who to take out and who to trust as really being civilians.
In both wars there was a point where there was a drastic increase in troops. In Vietnam it was apart of escalation in Iraq it was the surge. Both of them had similar effects. In Vietnam escalation allowed the us to not only take more control but keep the areas that they had taken. It also allowed the united states to better attempt to control the Ho Chi Mihn trail. The ho chi men trail was north Vietnams main supply trail that ran through Laos. But after escalation there was success for a little bit but then because of the distaste for the war things started to turn for the worst. The surge was a similar situation. During the surge there was a apparent decrease in violence and the casualty rate decreased noticeably. But there were some negative effects to the surge. There was the issue of displacement. According to the “Just War Theory” article displacement is the United Nations law stating that if a country upsets another, and in upsetting the one country, puts people out of place either internally or puts them out of the country, the country that caused the upset has an obligation to stay and reestablish peace. The “Just War Theory” article states that throughout the duration of the war two million Iraqis have been displaced internally and two million have been displaced externally. The United States is now using the displacement law as an excuse to occupy Iraq. There are many countries in the United Nations that do not agree with the actions the United States has taken but because of the displacement law, there is nothing that can be said against it. The “Just War Theory” article it states that the United State doing this is the first time an intervening group has used humanitarian outcomes to justify their actions for something that was primarily started for non-humanitarian reasons. Many feel that the United States is using displacement as an excuse to accomplish a larger agenda.
But with all the similarities with the Vietnam war and Iraq the biggest question is still that we know how the Vietnam war ended what does this say for the Iraq war? In Vietnam toward the end of the war Vietnamization was implemented. Vietnamization was the process in which the United States taught the South Vietnamese to defend themselves. During Vietnamization the success was apparent, so the United States began to leave, but continued funding for the south Vietnamese. Unfortunately once funding was cut the south Vietnamese lost control and hundreds of thousand ended up dying as the North Vietnamese took over. The United States did attempt to take some of the South Vietnamese out of the situation, but there was not much that could have been done. The same ideas used in Vietnamization are being used in Iraq. But the wars are not exactly the same and there are a lot of complications. One being the people are very different in the two countries. The south Vietnamese were very accepting of the help the United States offered. This is not so much the case in Iraq. The Iraqi people did not want the united states there to begin with and that feeing has continued to the present. Some people look at Iraq and seeing the similarities to Vietnam say that Iraq is a lost cause because Vietnam was. Other people say the wars are completely different and Vietnam should not determine how to handle Iraq. Liberals and democrats usually will look at Iraq and Vietnams similarities and say the war in Iraq is of no merit. It will end just as Vietnam had, in failure. While republicans and conservatives usually take the approach of the wars are different wars and Iraq cannot be compared to Vietnam. Though some republicans conservatives will recognize the similarities and say that the U.S can use the lessons learned from Vietnam and change the outcome in Iraq. The popular idea following the ideas of correcting the mistakes from Vietnam to win Iraq is to teach the people on our side to defend themselves and continue to fund them in their efforts while the United States pulls out. But all sides agree that the Iraq war is over due for a conclusion. The public is tired of hearing the excuses of those calling the shots. Hindsight is 20/20 has become a cliché used mainly by those trying to excuse bad outcomes of the decisions they make. For the rest hindsight is 20/20 seems ridiculous because it was obvious what was going on. Which causes questioning on the governments part. It seems that the ones in power will go to any extent to see that their agenda is met regardless of what happens on the side.
