Vietnam, The Balkans, Iraq and The Sudan

Saturday, January 27, 2007



There has been much discussion, of late, regarding the similarities and differences between Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq and The Sudan. The first three, of course, are areas of the world in which the U.S. has set military boots on the ground. The last three are parts of the world where human rights violations have been alleged. Many theories and opinions are bandied about, espousing this or that foreign policy objective and one is often left defending a position that appears to be undermined by a divergent position given another conflicted state or region. More to the point, I often find myself in a position in which I must defend that position with respect to U.S. involvement. I thought it might be helpful if I delineated my position regarding all four of these countries or regions and set out MY understanding of why and how our government should or should not have become involved.

Historically, the Vietnam conflict developed out of the remnants of French colonialism. The legacy of 19th and 20th century European colonialism left many regions either in a state of disarray, often requiring arbitrarily designated borders, or with internal conflicts, which spawned nationalistic movements. The latter was the case in Vietnam. The French had been losing control abroad and the former hegemony they exercised over many foreign states was slipping away. U.S. concern in the region was concomitant with McCarthyism and the dissemination of the domino theory. Asia, specifically China, had undergone political revolution and communism was the apparent victor. To make a long story short, Ho Chi Minh, the native born nationalistic leader of those seeking an independent Vietnam, was, essentially, refused help in his efforts from the West. He turned to China. The U.S. interest was fomented in that very same age of McCarthy and the domino theory. We replaced the French, first with advisors, later with troops, in order to stem the communist tide.

Vietnam, therefore, was a nationalistic struggle and basically a civil war between those who were dissatisfied with French Imperial rule and those who were not. The leaders supported by the U.S….Bao Dai, at first, Diem subsequently, followed by Thieu, were all essentially puppets of the West. They were despotic, detached from the people, and were basically clueless regarding the nationalistic goals of its citizens. Had we given the Vietnamese and Ho Chi Minh the aid they had requested, it is certainly dubious as to the question of state communism predominating in North Vietnam.

History has shown that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was misplaced for a number of reasons. Perhaps first and foremost was the fact that it was a civil war; but of almost equal significance was the fact that this was a guerilla war, something with which American forces were completely unaccustomed. We add in the faulty premise of domino theory and the analysis should have been that we were not only NOT trained to win this war, but that it had been entered using false premises.

There have been schools of thought regarding foreign policy that posit the need for the United States to stay out of the affairs of foreign nations and regions. That was certainly the case with Vietnam and prevailing attitudes at home finally convinced the U.S. to get out and cut our losses. Yes…this is rather simplistic and pages could and have been written with more detail. Many factors led to our leaving Vietnam, not the least of which was the antiwar movement, the actions of Nixon and his administration, Watergate and a host of other things too numerous to cite. Suffice it to say that Vietnam was a conflict that was not only unwinnable, but indefensible.

Fast forward to the Balkans...a completely different scenario. The U.S. ostensibly entered the Balkan conflict because of the evidence of genocide and the actions of Milosevic. Should we have put American troops in? Were we obliged to enter a conflict in which the goal was to be the extermination of a people? The answer given by those who stated we have no business in the affairs of another nation was “No”. Most certainly a case can be made in that regard, but one is left with an ethical dilemma. Is it our moral responsibility to interfere in the affairs of another nation or region when we see the wholesale slaughter of a people to the extent we saw in the Balkans? Perhaps the correct answer would have been to support U.N forces or to work for diplomatic solutions. I will honestly profess an ambivalence in that regard. I can state categorically, however, that standing by and watching would, in my estimation, be entirely unacceptable. Again, we can let the debate rage between use of U.S. troops and deployment of U.N. forces, but to do nothing is a choice I was unable to condone. I believe this concept to be important and will come back to it in the discussion of the Sudan.

Iraq. Where does one begin? The first step might be to read some of what has already been written…Fiasco, by Ricks and State of Denial, by Woodward are two commendable selections. Others abound…there has been no lack for the written word in this regard. Simply put, we were given misleading interpretations of faulty intelligence delivered by an incompetent administration. Some of the ostensible excuses included that Hussein was building a nuclear program and posed a threat to the U.S.-not only NOT the case, but predicated upon cherry picked intel we now know was juiced up to create an air of fear that would allow the government to do as it wished. Bear in mind…the ideas had already been in place. The Project for a New American Century, the neocon “bible”, had set out its goals and ambitions and the sacking of Bagdad was top on the list!!

Another common excuse we were told was…Sadaam Hussein was a Very Bad Man…part of the “axis of evil” (also coined to play on 9/11 and fear of future attacks), and had gassed the Iranians in the Iraq/Iran conflict. In fact, he had gassed his own people!! Yes…there is truth in this statement…but it is not the entire truth. Our country (The United States) played both sides of the table in the Iraq/Iran conflict. How can we forget the arms we gave Iran so we could raise money that would be funneled to our illegal involvement in Nicaragua? And…how can we forget the arms, ammunition and chemical weapons we gave the Iraqis? WE gave some of the weaponry that Sadaam used on his own people to him!!! Furthermore, this country had a cozy diplomatic relationship with Hussein. We must always keep our eye on the ball…the REAL interest we had in Iraq…40 years ago…30 years ago…20 years ago….10 years ago…today and the future…is a three letter word spelled OIL!!!!

Again…volumes have been written…already…about Iraq. Suffice it to say that even though the Bush Administration has tried to make the case for Iraq as a nuclear threat, Iraq as a part of the axis of evil, Iraq as a country that is ruled by a despotic tyrant, Iraq as a country that needs our help with democratization, Iraq as a model of what is possible in the Middle East…the real reason we entered Iraq was to secure OIL. And…isn’t it a coincidence that this administration’s ties to oil are extensive? We are not so altruistic as Bush, et al, would have us believe. The reality is that the machinations of this administration have been quite more transparent than it had ever intended or believed to be possible.

Out last stop in this worldwide tour is The Sudan. No oil there…unfortunate, perhaps, for those who live in Darfur, although it is reasonable to believe that WERE oil to be an issue in The Sudan, this administration would have invaded it an turned it into rubble. Regardless, there are catastrophic repercussions from Sudanese civil war and humanitarian concerns, just as there were in the Balkans. No…I do not, nor do most others who are sympathetic to the refugees’ plight in Darfur, suggest a U.S. military involvement. We DO, however, suggest that this administration put greater pressure on the African Union, on the Sudanese government, and on factions within the United Nations to end the genocide taking place in that country. The victims are innocent men, women and children. Those who stray outside the camps, if they are men, are killed. If they are women, they are raped. The children are killed if they are little boys and raped and then killed if they are little girls.

Anyone with conscience would feel for these people. Anyone with a heart could not go untouched by the extent of the genocide. Granted, our clout in the world has diminished as a result of Bush Administration policy, but it has not disappeared completely. We still have economic and political pressures we can impose and we still have the ability to affect world policy, especially if it is in an area of the world where we do not stand to profit. That would be the defining characteristic, which would differentiate what we might do in Darfur from what we have done in Iraq.

I believe that, in retrospect, history will look at the Balkans and The Sudan as analogous conflicts that posed dire threats to civilians without the motivation of U.S. profit. In the other two country’s case I cited, the U.S. stood to profit in Vietnam through the economics of the war machine and in Iraq from the control of oil. Altruistic goals in the first two examples, self-interested profit in the latter two instances.

We cannot, as a country with the ability to wield powerful weapons… military, economic and political, allow that power to go unchecked. We must exercise foreign policy tempered by good judgment. Yes…we have the right to serve our own interests, but in a world which has been constantly shrinking, in a world wherein global communications and trade have become second nature, a world in which no country can maintain a sense of isolationism and a world in which one country’s actions can and do affect every other nation, we have reached a crossroads. We can serve our own selfish interests, we can let the reign of corporatism which feeds on greed go uncontrolled, we can lead the people of our country through a campaign of fear and paranoia.
Or, we can see the broader picture. We can look at the impact of environmental decisions, economic decisions, and military decisions and reevaluate our position. We can begin to understand that fossil fuels are not unlimited. We can better understand the implications of population growth. We can look to a world where hunger, disease, disenfranchisement and genocide have no place. We can replace the war machine with the art of diplomacy. No…we do not dismantle the military. It has always been necessary and will continue to be so. But, we temper the use of military force in favor of diplomatic resources and empower the realization that communication precedes compromise.

What kind of world do we really want? We have the power to choose…

trickster108