Matt was one of my best friends in High School. He still is today, despite the fact that he took a civilian job at a military base on the other side of the country after graduating from college. Our friendship is helped (though certainly not contingent upon) the fact that he’s a loyal Democrat, and has been ever since we both voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election.
I have a lot of fond memories of Matt, so, as you can imagine, I greatly enjoy hearing from him. Wednesday evening, I was pleasantly surprised when he sent a reply to a fundraising e-mail I sent on behalf of a different friend who is working for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Imagine my horror when Matt’s e-mail turned into a recitation of right-wing talking points on both the Vietnam War, and the war in Iraq.
Matt’s e-mail started out pleasantly enough, with the usual "how are you, I haven’t heard from you lately" type small talk that’s ordinary for two friends who haven’t been in communication for several months.
The shocking point came when Matt’s discussion turned to the Iraq War, and, specifically, the Democratic plan that Bush vetoed:
i was curious as to your opinion on this whole troop supporting bill that will be vetoed by bush.
i'd have to say, if i were a congressmen, i'd probably be one of the few to side with the republicans. i see a lot of similarities between this and vietnam. it looked grim then too, but as you know public pressure eventually forced a policy change. i did some reading (though nearly not enough to know the whole scope), but it seems as if the Tet Offensive which really was a public relations hammer blow to the US (though a US military victory) was the turning point, and that hanging in longer would have crumbled the Vietcong. Pulling out gave them breathing room, time to regroup, and ultimately prevail.
I see a similar thing could happen to Iraq. I don't agree that the war was justified (of course), but then when a decision was made, a country should follow through. I don't think it's being handled properly, and i think more of the blame lies in Iraq's hands rather than Bush's -- something that just now is coming out with Iraq leadership issues failing to stem violence.
Not everyone wants this war to end, and i believe that those few who make profit from it, will do their best to keep the fire raging. ---- At the same time i see that their needs to be opposition to Bush, because things aren't going right and someone needs to be accountable. It just seems to me that maybe it should be directed more at his policy of increasing troops and seemingly ignoring the political problems that continue to plague iraq with violence.
what do you think. for this new bill or not so much??
I couldn’t believe my eyes. "Hanging on longer would have crumbled the Vietcong?" "More of the blame lies in Iraq’s hands rather than Bush’s?" Could my otherwise intelligent friend really be parroting stale - and unbelievable - conservative talking points on both Vietnam, and the Iraq War?
I do know a little bit about history, and about the current situation in Iraq. I tried to use my knowledge to put together an intelligent reply. I wanted to address not only issues that Matt raised, but, also, possible other GOP talking points that may be "making sense" to him. However, I fear that I might not know enough, and that I may have missed some key points that I should have hit upon.
My reply is as follows:
Matt,
The whole "hanging on longer could have crumbled the Vietcong thing" is a myth. One that's propagated by conservatives and various elements of the military as a way of blaming the "media" for "losing" Vietnam when they did their job and actually reported what was going on.
I'm CCing a copy of this e-mail to my Dad, in the hopes that he'll share with you some of his personal experiences of the war. He served there in the late 60s, and he pretty much thinks it was a lost cause. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and authoritarian, and had no support among the people. The South Vietnamese inability to rally their own people, combined with U.S. military tactics that forcibly removed people from their villages into "strategic hamlets" (so they could be better controlled... We'd go in, force them out of their homes, burn their villages, and forcibly "relocate" the populace to another, fortified village, as a way of keeping them from being influenced by the Vietcong) contributed to widespread support of the Vietcong.
The fact of the matter: We worked ourselves into a position in Vietnam that was totally and completely strategically untenable. The military and various presidential administrations had been saying for years that the Vietcong would "crumble" in only a few more years, yet it never happened. It never happened because, no matter how many Vietcong we would kill, they'd always recruit more.
At the same time, we should never over emphasize public disapproval as our reason for getting out of Vietnam, as there were other reasons as well. For example, staying in Vietnam had a brutally detrimental affect on our military, to the point where we needed a major reorganization after leaving. What also must be taken into consideration is the fact that consistently bombing a country that was so much less technologically advanced than us hurt our abilities to fight the "propaganda war" aspect of the Cold War. It was especially to our detriment when dealing with emerging "third world" nations that could go either for us, or for communism, but felt sympathy for the much less advanced country that was having the ever-loving shit bombed out of it by the U.S.
Historical situations in Iraq are different from Vietnam in some aspects, but the same in others. One key similarity, I feel, is that, like Vietnam, we now find ourselves in an untenable military situation, where staying can only hurt our abilities on the broader foreign policy front, while providing more deaths and casualties that we, frankly, don't need. I am not alone in this belief. Many generals feel the same way. In addition, William F. Buckley, the "intellectual founder" of modern U.S. conservatism, has recently stated that he himself feels that the Iraq War is lost, at least insofar as U.S. efforts are concerned.
The Republicans attack time lines for withdrawal by saying that "Al Qaeda will follow us home." However, the majority of insurgent groups in Iraq are not Al Qaeda. At the same time, Al Qaeda in Iraq mostly consists of Iraqi insurgents who were not part of Al Qaeda prior to the invasion. The "mainline" members of Al Qaeda who have been trying to attack the U.S. remain outside of Iraq, and focused on attacking the mainland U.S. All the Iraq War has done for Al Qaeda, according to a CIA report a few years ago, is provide a means of recruiting more members, as they can now advertise the fact that the U.S. is an "occupying force" in a Muslim country. At the same time, it keeps U.S. forces depleted and tied up in a country that has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. It also keeps us less capable of responding to any new military threats that might arise. Which is all the more reason to get out, and as soon as possible.
It just seems to me that maybe it should be directed more at his policy of increasing troops and seemingly ignoring the political problems that continue to plague iraq with violence.
I agree that the problems in Iraq are more political than military at this point. The problem with your statement, though... Doesn't it contain a certain amount of arrogance?
You seem to be assuming that we can just "shift gears" away from the military aspect of the Iraqi conflict, and somehow "solve" the Iraqi's political problems for them. So, a question: How do you think the U.S. would feel if an occupying power were to try to solve our domestic political conflicts for us? How would we feel if China, for example, were occupying our country, and tried to dictate to us a solution for our debate over abortion? How would we feel if we were being occupied by Russia, and they tried to dictate a solution for us over our debate on race? How likely do you think we would be to seriously accept such solutions, when dictated by, or even originated from, an outside power?
I personally think that we'd reject such solutions, and hold out for a chance to determine our own solutions. I don't think the Iraqis are any different.
The Iraqis have to solve their political problems on their own. Permanent solutions in Iraq have to come from Iraqis standing on their own two feet. And, That will never happen as long as the U.S. keeps troops in Iraq. Indeed, most Iraqi politicians know that the U.S. will not be in Iraq forever. This means that, for them, the incentive is not to accept any solution dictated by the U.S., but, rather, to delay and hold things up in the hope of being able to reach a settlement that is more amicable to them, and their specific religious/ethnic group, after the U.S. leaves. In the mind of most Iraqi politicians, leaders, and sectarian groups, all they have to do is wait. Even if it takes 30 years.
If our troops were to withdrawal from Iraq, that situation would change. The Iraqis would suddenly be completely responsible for their own destiny, and, I suspect, we'd suddenly find them a little more willing to work for a permanent political solution.
That political solution may very well not be something that the U.S. finds palatable itself. It may involve an oppressive Shiite government that keeps control of things through absolute authority or something close to it. However, the key point of this is that it would be an Iraqi solution, that they're responsible for.
No solution to the Iraq War is very palatable. Given our options, however, I think we'd be better pulling out now, or at least setting a deadline for withdrawal. We'd be better off stopping the depletion of our military, and the horrible deaths and casualties that we're facing. The longer we stay there the less capable we're going to be of dealing with Al Qaeda in the broader world, the less capable we'll be of dealing with any new military threats that arrive, and the more problems and long term financial burdens we're going to face from physically and emotionally traumatized troops who are returning home.
The Iraqis may face a sharp upswing in violence after we leave. However, experience with other countries (go here to see someone who very astutely cataloged those experiences) who have been occupied by foreign powers seems to indicate that this upswing will be temporary, perhaps only a few years, as a new Iraqi government faces the fact that they have to live "on their own" and organizes itself. The Shiites were out of power in Iraq for decades prior to the U.S. invading, and they're not about to give up power now. When it's clear to them that they're on their own, I think they'll eventually form a stable government that can curtail violence.
The Iraqis must stand on their own two feet. They must solve their security problems on their own, without outside interference. They must come up with Iraqi - not American - solutions to their political problems. This fact is reflected by a majority of the Iraqi populace, which now feels that the U.S. should leave their country.
Iraqi responsibility for Iraq's future can be the only permanent solution to the conditions in their country.
Reading Matt’s e-mail was difficult for me. It was hard not to get upset. Not at Matt, but, rather, at the degree by which conservatives have dominated the public perception of why we "lost" in Vietnam, and how they’re now trying to use their dominance there to keep us in another brutal, ill advised war.
I think it’s easy for us to forget, sometimes, how vulnerable the vast body of Americans are to the Republican noise machine. Most Americans – and, importantly, most Democrats – do not read DailyKos. Nor do they follow any of the other political blogs that help to assemble a strong, Democratic (and reasonable) narrative on the issues. This means that, for them, the Republican narrative that is articulated by conservative commentators, and repeated by conservatives at work, at family gatherings, and while out with friends, remains, all too often, the dominant political narrative that they find themselves exposed to. Lacking access to an alternate viewpoint, and, confronted with conservatives who very aggressively press their case, many "non-political" Democrats find it all to easy to simply "cave" to Republican "logic."
I feel like I did the best I could to bring Matt around, and I’m hoping that Dad might clear up some of Matt’s misconceptions about our earlier war. I have no idea whether I’ll be able to get through to him, or whether he’ll continue to stick with a stubborn president whom he himself dislikes on the vast majority of issues.
What are your views on handling support for the Republican position on the Iraq War? Specifically:
~What did I do right?
~What might I have done better?
~Did I explain things as well as I could?
~What key points do you think I might have missed?
~What do you think is the best way to "frame" the Vietnam and Iraq wars?
~What sources might I point Matt to, so that he can become better informed on both Vietnam and Iraq?
~How do you talk to otherwise "sane" friends who have fallen victim to GOP talking points on Iraq?
~For that matter, how do you discuss Iraq in a reasonable fashion with Republican friends, who might be willing to coming around?
We need to put together a coherent, and consistent, argument on why the U.S. needs to leave the future of Iraq in the hands of Iraqis. One that can be used not only against the Republican "poisoned Kool-Aid drinkers" who are out there, every day, trying to rally support for an unpopular and ill advised war, but also on our friends and loved ones who have fallen victim to their efforts.