Steve Conn: Iraq Isn't Vietnam ... It's Cambodia
[Steve Conn is an associate professor in the history department at Ohio State University.]
I saw a bumper sticker recently that read: Iraq is Arabic fo Vietnam
It is easy enough to make the analogy between the tragic folly in Vietnam and the chaotic disaster unfolding now in Iraq. Both were wars of choice, not of national necessity, and both were begun under a cloak of deception and misinformation. And in the future, both will serve as the dictionary definition of the word "quagmire."
The Vietnam analogy, however, only goes so far. By the time the war had escalated, the North Vietnamese had already established a working government in Hanoi, and their goal to consolidate the country enjoyed considerable support among the populace. When American forces were finally defeated, Vietnam experienced a mostly uneventful transition to peacetime and certainly didn't spiral into civil war.
By contrast, in Iraq right now, American troops are not fighting a single national organization or even organized rebel group, but dozens of factions. Nor in Iraq is there any group that commands enough widespread public legitimacy to be able to govern once American forces leave.
Historical analogies should never be drawn too tightly, but as Iraq descends further into fratricidal violence, it may be Cambodia, rather than Vietnam, that Iraq will come to resemble. And the Cambodian experience should make us feel even more grim about the mess we have made in Iraq.
Cambodia's fragile neutrality began to unravel in 1969 when President Nixon ordered secret — and almost surely illegal — bombing raids on Cambodia in his effort to chase North Vietnamese troops hiding across the border. For nearly three years, Cambodia became a theater in the Vietnam War. In 1973 alone, American bombers dropped more explosives on Cambodia than had been dropped on Japan in WWII, and after that stopped, Cambodia degenerated into a vicious civil war. In 1975, at virtually the same moment Americans left Vietnam, Khmer Rouge forces entered Phnom Penh triumphant.
The Khmer Rouge, under its leader Pol Pot, flew into a systematic, prolonged, genocidal rage, as it took its revenge against former opponents, imagined enemies and ordinary Cambodians for no reason at all. By the time the nightmare was over, perhaps as many as three million Cambodians were dead. Thirty years later, Iraq begins to look like Cambodia in several disturbing ways. Cambodia was, in the words of one journalist, a "sideshow" to the Vietnam conflict and to the struggle against Communism. Likewise, Iraq should never have been more than a sideshow in the so-called war on terror.
And both invasions have had the effect of strengthening the position of our purported enemies. By rescuing Cambodia from Pol Pot, Vietnam, the country we fought bitterly for more than decade, wound up exercising control over Cambodia for a generation. In the absence of a legitimate, widely supported government in Iraq, it doesn't take too much imagination to see Iran, the major menace in the Middle East, marching in overtly or covertly to provide the stability and order in Iraq that Americans clearly can't....
comments powered by Disqus
Mark Hirsch - 9/27/2006
Vernon Clayson is correct. [Name removed], you should start thinking for yourself and don't cut yourself short either. Clayson is correct in pointing out that we are fighting religious zealots, not oil business. Also, America is spelled with a capital "A."
Vernon Clayson - 9/25/2006
[Name removed], is that Welsh? It seems the only language that comes to mind with the proper inflection to pronounce it nicely. That aside, to get to the point, the US is far too embroiled in this war for it to be just about oil. War for oil is an old and lame reason thrown up by by naysayers who lack the imagination to address the multitude of reasons for this war. No specific country can be pointed out as our enemy while multitudes of persons of a religion, Islam, obviously consider the US, and Israel, as their enemy. That is unlike any war known to Americans, we do not have a boogeyman in the person of a national leader of a nation or state to fault, rather there seems to be a number of individuals eager to earn credit by counting coup on us - at the cost of their followers lives. For lack of an actual leader, we have struck on using a now half-mythical Osama bin Laden as the boogeyman which seems strange because he is so removed from view we do not know whether he is alive or dead. Back to oil, if it were just about oil we could outbid anyone for it, wherever it is, what other nation has the wherewithal to outbid us? Oil is a business, what competitor in business sends men to their deaths to prove a point? It wasn't businessmen that crashed into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, it was religious zealots. Businessmen did not blow up our embassies in Africa or the USS Cole, sure enough, it was more religious zealots. Merryn, you can do better than faulting oil, how about religion and culture, freedom and closed societies?
Maia Cowan - 9/23/2006
The comparison of Iraq to Cambodia definitely has merit.
(1) Striking a target that isn't the real enemy. (2) Illegal. (3) Creating anarchy and mass death where there had been stability.
Heckuva job, Bushie.
Name Removed at Poster's Request - 9/23/2006
Comment removed at request of the poster.
- Five Things You Need to Know to be a Better Digital Preservationist
- Book on Losing British Generals Wins American History Prize
- Stanford scholar explores civil rights revolution's positive impact on the South's economy
- Harvard Historian Nancy Koehn on Amazon's Tentacular Reach
- Q&A with historian and author Nick Turse