No Similarities to See Here . . . Move Along, Move Along

Hyman recently claimed that there are absolutely no parallels between the Vietnam War and the invasion of Iraq. None--save that those who opposed the conflicts don't understand history.

This position is, to say the least, a bit shaky.

Let's start with the most obvious problem: Hyman's suggestion that it is only critics of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, many people have suggested parallels of various sorts between the conflict in Iraq and Vietnam, including those who are at the very least neutral on the topic, if not administration supporters. Henry Kissinger has drawn some parallels, as has the military itself. Then there's Joseph Galloway, a longtime war correspondent and currently a columnist on Military.com. Not exactly a bunch of lefties among these folks.

But apparently Hyman knows more than all of these folks, since he says only people ignorant of history would draw any parallels at all between Iraq and Vietnam. He must also know more about the Vietnam War than, say, Republican Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, who has openly suggested ominous parallels between the two conflicts.

Obviously, there are a number of parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, from the trumpeting of election "successes" in the two countries to the construction of communism/terrorism as forces that must be faced abroad lest they come to our shores to the policy making practices that led to both conflicts and the ambivalence of Americans toward using military force in each country.

Hyman's right that there are many specific, tactical issues that are markedly different, and even those who draw parallels between the two conflicts acknowledge that there are more differences than similarities. But to point out differences (as Hyman does) is not to say that there aren't significant parallels (which is exactly what he claims).

The relevant questions are these: what are the parallels and are they significant?

Even a casual glance at both conflicts reveals some similarities that are troubling. These similarities don't mean the conflicts are identical and will end in the same way (any more than pointing out the obvious differences means that the conflicts are nothing alike and won't both end up as tragic failures). They are, however, worth noting for their own sake.

My particular interest is in the similarities involving the way the conflicts were/are discussed publicly. A short list of the rhetorical parallels between the Vietnam conflict and the invasion of Iraq follows:

Both the Vietnam conflict and the war in Iraq were based on faulty information, if not outright lies, that policy makers refused to acknowledge (Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs).

In both conflicts, American politicos equated imposing American-style democracy on a people with allowing them the freedom to govern themselves.

In both conflicts, those who opposed or even questioned the war were labeled as "un-American" by supporters.

In both conflicts, opposition to the war started out small, but grew as casualties mounted and the truth about the motivations and rationalizations for the war emerged.

In both conflicts, when the majority of the American people disagreed with government policy, apologists for the policy still attempted to portray those who were against the war as an out-of-touch minority.

In both conflicts, those who advocated sending young people do die in large numbers also claimed that they were "supporting the troops" and that those who advocated bringing troops home were "giving comfort to the enemy."

In both conflicts, the media paid relatively little attention to the horrible toll civilians were paying in the course of their "liberation."

In both conflicts, policy makers and their supporters argued that, once all other rationales for the conflicts had disappeared, we needed to stay the course in order to "honor" those who had already died.

In both conflicts, members of the Bush family vocally supported the war, but no one in their family actually served.

And in both conflicts, supporters of the wars insisted that "history" was on their side.

Nope, no parallels at all, are there?

And that's The Counterpoint.

Hyman Index: 3.50