In Vietnam, from 1966 to 1970, we averaged 200 deaths a week, and "lost" the war.?

Question

In Iraq, we have averaged 16 deaths per week, and have a good chance of establishing Democracy and "winning" the war. Should we establish Democracy in the Middle East, was it worth it?

Good, thoughtful answers by all. Thanks and please vote! - Wego

Answer 1

It will not be an easy job. No one ever said it would be. Can it be done? I think so. How long will it take? Probably a long time. These people have been contrlled and brain washed for generations. It may take generations to undo it. Do Americans have the resolve to make it happen? I don't no. It seems as all of the Democrats and the media are against it. Is it worth it? Yeah... it is the most worth while cause in our lifetimes.

Answer 2

Dear Wego,

I think Vietnam was unwinnable and Iraq is too. The reasons are different in detail but similar in principle: in both conflicts, the US has no solid and legitimate position.

The reason for the Vietnam debacle was that the US insisted on seeing the Vietcong as a force of evil Communist rabble-rousers instead what it really was, which was a legitimate political movement with massive popular support. To an average Vietnamese, the Vietcong were continuing the millennia-old tradition of expelling foreign invaders out of their country. Ho Chi Minh was considered a national hero for lifting millions of peasants out of poverty and leading his country to victory against France, who had colonised Vietnam for over 70 years. The Vietnamese had repelled the Mongols, the Chinese and the French and they had no reason for considering the Americans differently.

And indeed why would they have? During the Indochina War (1946-1954) the US had provided financial and military assistance to France, the colonial occupier. The US deliberately subverted a democratic election legally agreed through the 1954 peace agreements because it feared a Communist victory in Vietnam. The US instead ended up illegally supporting a government in South Vietnam which was illegitimate, corrupt and oppressive. The US also fomented simulated acts of terrorism to manipulate Vietnamese public opinion into thinking these were the works of North Vietnam. From the standpoint of an ordinary Vietnamese, the US could not have been seen as anything else but a hostile, meddlesome foreign power.

In Iraq the reasons why the conflict cannot be won also pertain to issues of legitimacy. First of all, democracy means very little without peace and security first. To be sure, countless Iraqis must be glad to be free from the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. But what is that worth to them in a country suddenly rent asunder by terrorism and sectarian violence? Under Saddam Hussein, an Iraqi would have been in danger for speaking his views. But now, whatever his views are, he runs the risk of being blown up in a suicide attack anyway, possibly along with his family. Anyone would pick a heinous dictatorship that preserves law and order over a democracy that cannot.

The second reason why Iraq is unwinnable is simply that no one can force democracy onto another people. That is in fact a vicious perversion of the very concept of democracy because it means above all, and stands for, the people's will. As such, to somehow coerce it upon other people is ludicrous. The US will never be recognised as having any legitimacy in democratising Iraq because it simply had no right to be there in the first place - the US did not liberate Iraq from a foreign oppressor: it toppled one of Iraq's own. Local pride is always seriously offended by this sort of behaviour, no matter how undemocratic the overthrown regime is.

The US's record in the country does not help matters, either. Few in Iraq can ever be convinced that the US is acting for a noble ideal. After all, it was the CIA that funded Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and led it to victory in a coup d'etat in 1963 (as a way to contain Soviet influence and keep a grip on the country's oil reserves). All the way until the Gulf War the US remained a faithful partner of the Saddam Hussein regime. After the Gulf War, the US imposed severe economic sanctions which had no effect on Hussein's regime - but greatly impoverished the Iraqi population. Finally Iraqis, like all Arabs in the region, are sensitive to the Palestinian conflict and know full well that the US not an honest broker in that particular issue either, with its unconditional support for Israel.

I do not think that democracy can ever be imposed, nor do I think that the US has the right to do it, any more than any other foreign power does. Furthermore, I don't think the prospect has ever been any less likely than in this particular situation.

Yours truly,

Answer 3

All wars/conflicts have a military and a political component. An attacker has to succeed in both areas to win.

In Viet Nam the US military was able to overcome the military obstacles but never amassed the political clout to end foreign support for North Viet Nam. Neither did the US have the will to invade and occupy North Viet Nam for fear of having to fight China.

In Iraq and Afghanistan the US has achieved its initial military goals, what remains is for the US to politically achieve the goal of ending foreign support for the insurgencies (support coming primarily from Syria & Iran).

In my view the only way to measure whether this effort was "worth it" is to answer the question "Will the greater violence in the short term lead to less violence in the long term?" I think the only way to answer "yes" to that question is to stay the course already begun until democracy becomes secure in those nations. Should the US give up and pull out before democracy is secure the answer will be "No, it was not worth it."

Answer 4

Just kicking out Saddam does not mean Democracy. Jane Fonda, Kerry or any anti-war activists may be slated within USA for going against US Government interest but they are and will be adored by the rest of the world who believe in people's right. What is the value of establishing the so called Democracy if you kill thousands of people overnight? And let me ask, was or was not Saddam a product of American policy in the past? Since he went against US, US is launching a war? In Vietnam, US did not win and pulled back, letting Saigon fall. It was Communist victory, as History recognizes it.

Answer 5

Every engagement that i read about, the US armed services won. We signed an armistice in 74, or was it 75, anyway, the corrupt south vietnamese govt. could not maintain their frontiers, their officers and political leaders let the soldiers down. We bombed the infrastructure of N. Vietnam, and hobbled their economy. If it weren't for the politicians, we probably would've invaded the north and put foot soldiers in Hanoy and Haiphong. But lets just forget the whole war and try not to make the same mistakes of the past.

Answer 6

We 'lost' the Vietnam war because Leftists worked so hard to demoralize America, as they are now doing again. Militarily, we had won it.

When American forces pulled out of Vietnam, the Communists went on a murderous rampage, killing over a million innocents - more than the war had.

A similar situation exists in Iraq. Let's not let the Leftists defeat us again or Iraq will suffer horrors unimaginable to civilized people.

Our primary objective in Iraq is not to establish Democracy, though that has already happened with the public election of a Representative government. The mission was to eliminate Saddam's regime since he had rolled his tanks into two neighboring countries and had refused to abide by the cease-fire agreements. The primary mission is accomplished.

The only reason American troops remain in Iraq is to fulfill our Geneva Convention obligation to provide such forces until the country's new, legitimate government has sufficient military and police to maintain order on its own.

Answer 7

the war in iraq is not being won. just like vietnam was not 'lost'. both ground into a war of attrition. it's a stalemate. 3 years later and the civil services (sewer, water, electricity, oil production) being below pre-war/saddam hussein levels is not 'winning'. one leak is patched and another is springs up.
to leave would create civil war. staying only prolongs the stalemate. this will be a catch-22 for at least a decade.

Answer 8

the US lost in vietnam because they withdrew the troops. Bush didn't withdrew the troops in the middle east because he is dtrmined to take the oil fields. It is right to establish democracy in the Middle east .

Answer 9

Surprisingly enough they don't really want it.
The governments are traditionally tribal based and it will take more generations before they move away from that.
That's why the whole interference in the region is just making a bad situation worse.

Answer 10

It is always worth it,what would you say to the men who has already given their life for a noble cause "you know i dont think it was worth it"i would hope they would haunt you for the rest of your life.We have the world most powerful Nation because they gave their life,so you can have your freedoms of so many things including free speech.