You're going to ask at this point why we went into Iraq if it was not a haven of radical Islam under Sadam. But the truth is that it was an easier nut to crack than Iran, having already been weakened by sanctions and the prior war. It's positioning is ideal for putting pressure on the problem countries all around it. Plus, as it turned out, all the terrorists in the Middle East conveniently decided to come to Iraq so we could kill them a handful at a time until they run out of brainwashed trigger men from impoverished countries like Yemen and Sudan to throw at us. So ultimately, even unexpectedly in many ways, Iraq has proven to be the perfect place to focus our efforts to break the growing power of Radical Islam.
Iraq is not Vietnam. In Vietnam we fought for a principle. In Iraq we are fighting for much more practical and pragmatic reasons and with a concrete, identifiable goal.
Dave
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Leoniceno
Good article. I'm so tired of people trying to predict what will take place in Iraq based on comparison to Vietnam. It's a false analogy.
2 - Dave Nalle
Exactly, Leon. Not only is it a different kind of country and a different situation, but we're a different country as well. Our objectives and our needs are radically different. I don't think we'd ever fall into the trap of a real Vietnam-like situation again. We CAN learn from experience.
Dave
3 - RJ
We haven't lost too many troops since the January elections.
We are clearly WINNING.
4 - Dave Nalle
Yes, the body count is down substantially in the last two months. And have you been following the raids on terrorist hideouts which the Iraqi security forces have been making? Pretty impressive. They caught 80 terrorists in a single raid last week and there are raids every week. At that rate there won't be enough terrorist left to cause much trouble.
Dave
5 - alienboy
If by Communism, we mean that society should do more than make the trains run on time, then it seems only natural and right that the state should get involved, for the good of all.
If by Communism, we mean the overbearing intrusion into people's lives that went on in Russia and China, then obviously that was a bad thing.
I can't believe that ANY sane person wants to see the homeless and other vulnerable people suffering in the streets of our lovely homes, so it just comes down to the question of how are we going to deal with the people who lose in the great capitalist ratrace. There are too many of them to ignore...
6 - alienboy
RJ: The most heavily armed nation on earth versus some peasants that have been bombed back to the Stone Age, and you're WINNING!?!?
Way to go, well done there, real solid achievement.
7 - andy marsh
They were already in the stone age!
8 - alienboy
i prefer the stoned age personally
9 - Dave Nalle
The Iraqis and Al Quaeda are hardly stone age people. Al Quaeda coordinates their activities with satellite phones and through the internet - wow, just like the cave men!
Dave
10 - Dean
While I agree with your comments on not viewing the Iraq war through the prism of the Vietnam experience, but I'm not sure you can equate radical Islam and Communism.
First, bluntly, the good old USSR was a far more potent and devestating threat to the West than radical Islam has ever been. Yes the USSR eventually collapsed under the strain of matching western capabilities, and the system in place ein the USSR was(and still is) highly corrupt but they were miles ahead as an enemy then anything radical Islam can field.
Is Radical Islam a threat? Hell yes! Keeping WMD out of their hands is a serious security concern but let's keep it in perspective. This is a still relatively weak and powerless foe - which is why they do not seek direct confrontation or battle, battle through proxies, bomb civilian targets etc.).
Can it still kill people - yes. Will it continue ad infinitem - yes. The reality is that you cannot stamp out radical Islam through military force. Often military force will accelerate and radicalize a struggle far moreso than not applying the force.
Is democracy the answer? - Maybe. Partially. Democracy by itself may not improve matters. What are you going to do if a nation (like say - Algeria) holds an election and democratically elects a radical or fundamentalist Islamic majority? In order to effectively move to negate the influence and role of Radical Islam, you need to work to bring economic opportunity and change to the vast, impoverished mass of people current disenfranchised and economically crippled across the Middle East. The appeal of radical theocracy will diminish over time as economic opportunity grows.
11 - Dave Nalle
I think I more compared radical islam and communism than equated them, but you bring me to that point when you point out:
"The appeal of radical theocracy will diminish over time as economic opportunity grows."
And that's exactly right. But those same economic forces are what encouraged third world nations to move towards Communism 50 years ago. You bring to mind a parallel between radical islam and communism I hadn't really considered until now.
People who are in dire economic circumstances look for a solution outside of themselves to make decisions, solve their problems and take responsibility for advancing and improving their conditions. Both Communism and Radical Islam fulfill this role perfectly. They provide centralized authoritarian leadership which promises to move the whole society forward to the benefit of all.
It really makes more sense to compare Communism to a theocracy than to any other political system. Adherence to Communism has always been more a matter of faith than of reason, and the tenets of communism are usually expected to be taken on faith and revered ritualistically - consider Mao's Little Red Book.
So in a lot of way the two function similarly and they certainly appeal to the same 'market'. It's something to ponder on.
Dave
12 - Dean
I've always found a circle to be a more useful political "map" then the traditional "left" and "right" spectrum. My experience has been that the extremes, whether left or right, have far more in common then not. Communism and facism share many similar characteristics and traits, not the least of which is intolerance of dissent, systemic use of violence and the threat of violence, loss of political freedoms, massive use of propaganda and misinformation, authoritarian government, high levels of militarization, and a narcassistic love of gaudy uniforms...
I do think you need to differentiate radical Islam as a political force from religion entirely. It is, in my mind, a politicized entity/ideology that has suborned the protection of Islam as its excuse. Radical Islam leverages the Islamic faith for its attacks on the power structure. I think that we in the more secular west forget that politics and religion are often inextricably entwined (anyone recall the Reformation?) and there is a tendency to try to apply comparative models that are often not directly comprabale. That's not to say it isn't useful to cmpare them, but keep the differences in mind while doing so.
13 - SFC Ski
"I do think you need to differentiate radical Islam as a political force from religion entirely."
Part of the problem with this statement is that for many Muslims, there is no distinction between the religious, legal, and political. I am oversimplifying to a great extent, but to radical Islamicists, the personal is political and all is centered around the Koran, the Sharia Law, and the Hadith, the life of Mohammed. There is an entire Muslim scholarship centered around finding the answers to Muslim modern living based on these sources. It is a bit more complex than can be explained here, but I hope you can understand that there is no divorcing the political from the religious for many Muslims.
14 - Dave Nalle
>>Part of the problem with this statement is that for many Muslims, there is no distinction between the religious, legal, and political.<<
That's certainly the message the theocrats are pushing. And I can see the appeal. There's a certain attractiveness to the idea that a single, unified philosophy can cover everything from your home life to your business practices to your government and law. Pity the document they chose to base that philosophy on was that compilation of contradictory lunacy known as the Koran.
Dave
15 - Eric Olsen
what of the concept that even Vietnam wasn't "Vietnam"
16 - SFC Ski
Dave, it's comments like the last that pull your threads away from something worth continuing into sidebars on unrelated topics. Taken at face value, no religion makes sense.
17 - Dave Nalle
Religions are all based on faith, Ski. But have you read the Koran? It's a pretty rough mess to swallow.
But I agree, we've got other places to discuss fundamentalist Islam and religious lunacy.
I'd like to see Eric expand on the idea that even Vietnam wasn't 'vietnam'. I've heard that idea before, but it seems highly subjective.
Dave
18 - Dean
"It is a bit more complex than can be explained here, but I hope you can understand that there is no divorcing the political from the religious for many Muslims. "
I agree. I think we are actually saying pretty well the same thing (except, damn you, you phrased it much better!). The fact that Islam and politics are inseperable in this manner allows the Bin Ladin's of the world to hijack the religious direction in pursuit of political goals. I think it is important to understand the connections in this case to have the capability to effectively and strategically fight against the fanatics.
19 - Eric Olsen
in a nutshell, the "Vietnam Syndrome" of extreme reluctance to interfere in the internal squabbles of other nations isn't based on a realistic understanding of the actual facts of the war
20 - Dave Nalle
We've certianly seen that in action. During the Clinton administration it was manifested by the desire to go into warlike situations and an unwillingness to commit to them fully and completely. In a way the fear of another Vietnam makes half-hearted interventions into lots of mini-Vietnams.
Dave
21 - Mark
This posting contains an interesting attempt to clarify our discussion of communism by distinguishing communist theory from the “communism” of totalitarian states that called themselves communist. Further, the author points out clear differences between our “enemies” in Vietnam and Iraq making the point that the conflicts are apples and oranges. He should have stopped there. Instead, he proceeds to make unsubstantiated claims similar to those presented by Administration representatives to justify our position in Iraq.
>
>
Some examples:
<
What evidence supports this belief? Have the religious teachers in Saudi Arabia stopped their inflammatory rhetoric? Is the pool of radicalized Muslims not growing? Why believe that they are all going to Iraq? What if only a small handful of them are going while the rest try to organize destabilizing events elsewhere?
<
What does this statement mean? Vengeance and resentment are reactions. What are the actions linked to these reactions. Without filling in the blanks, the statement is adds nothing to the debate.
Might Islamic terrorist organizations develop in response to occupation? Russia occupied Afghanistan; Israel occupies whatever it is that you want to call that territory; the US occupied Iran economically through loans and construction projects under the Shah and now occupies Saudi Arabia directly with our military bases and economically through the Royal Family; terrorist beheadings began in Iraq after the US occupied the area. At least this is an idea to discuss. Perhaps the radicals are more rational than the author would have us believe.
[Radical Islam's position] << does not respond to reason or diplomacy, but only to clearly demonstrated superior force. >>
This is an optimistic though baseless belief. Will radical Islamic terrorists fold in the face of superior force? TE Lawrence pointed out that Bedouin strategic logic is that of the dessert warrior - a logic of hit and run and patience that we became familiar with later in Vietnam. (So there might be some similarities, after all.) Radical Arabs have that to teach to their fellows.
The author might consider restricting himself to critical analysis and leave the propaganda relating to the war to the Administration.
22 - Eric Olsen
agreed Dave: GW's breakthrough was a willingness to fully commit
23 - Mark
Good grief. The quotes are:
"as it turned out, all the terrorists in the Middle East conveniently decided to come to Iraq so we could kill them a handful at a time until they ran out of brainwashed trigger men"
"Radical Islam and its terrorist agents ... want to destroy us out of pure vengeance and resentment"
24 - Dave Nalle
Mark wrote:
>>What evidence supports this belief? Have the religious teachers in Saudi Arabia stopped their inflammatory rhetoric? <<
They are actually getting quieter for fear of a government crackdown, yes.
>>Is the pool of radicalized Muslims not growing?<<
Certainly not in Iraq.
>> Why believe that they are all going to Iraq? What if only a small handful of them are going while the rest try to organize destabilizing events elsewhere?<<
The evidence doesn't support this. A vast number of terrorists flooded into Iraq in the wake of the war and have systematically been killed and arrested since then. Yes there are other terrorists elsewhere, but Iraq did become a magnet for many of them and an opportunity to neutralize those particular terrorists.
>>What does this statement mean? Vengeance and resentment are reactions. What are the actions linked to these reactions. Without filling in the blanks, the statement is adds nothing to the debate. <<
Resentment of wealth. Vengeance for supporting Israel. I would have thought these things were obvious. When I write an article I do assume the reader has a basic knowledge of current affairs.
>>Might Islamic terrorist organizations develop in response to occupation? Russia occupied Afghanistan; Israel occupies whatever it is that you want to call that territory;<<
Well sure they can develop that way. But the Taliban and Mojehedin in Afghanistan started out as genune freedom fighters, not Terrorists. Terrorists don't attack occupiers, they attack innocent third parties to attempt to draw attention to their cause.
>>the US occupied Iran economically through loans and construction projects under the Shah and now occupies Saudi Arabia directly with our military bases and economically through the Royal Family; <<
Really debatable. And can you argue that people in Iran were not better off under the Shah? Hundreds of thousands of expatriots would disagree with you.
>>terrorist beheadings began in Iraq after the US occupied the area. At least this is an idea to discuss. Perhaps the radicals are more rational than the author would have us believe.<<
So you agree with my point that our invasion of Iraq drew the terrorists there, then?
>>[Radical Islam's position] << does not respond to reason or diplomacy, but only to clearly demonstrated superior force. >>
This is an optimistic though baseless belief.<<
This is a belief held almost universally by those who have studied the history and present political dynamics of the region.
Dave
25 - Mark
Where your reply to questions is responsive it is based on an appeal to authority and to the "obvious" without citing sources. Hardly appropriate even in blogworld. Also, you need to work on the art of constructing straw dogs. eg: Who said that the people of Iran are better off under their present government than under the Shah? Who said that the war brought no Islamic terrorists to Iraq?
There is inconsistency in your idea of just who is a terrorist. You say, "Terrorists don't attack occupiers, they attack innocent third parties to attempt to draw attention to their cause." Then you claim that terrorists flodded Iraq to after the war to attack ... who? Were they all looking for innocent heads to cut off? So are the terrorists who come to Iraq freedom fighters now because they attack the occupier? In your attempt to clarify, your idea became more unclear.
Just who do you think our war on terror is really against? Is it terrorists, freedom fighters, or radical Islamics generally?
Mark