Just Like Vietnam, Except It's Not

A gentle reader has directed SWNID's attention to Sen. Chuck Hagel's weekend remarks comparing Iraq to Vietnam. It's apparently significant that Hagel is a Republican and makes such remarks contradicting a Republican President.

Before SWNID responds to the substance, let's remember the politics. Hagel's political identity is "Republican Maverick," like fellow Vietnam vet John McCain. For this reason and this reason alone the press pays attention to him: as a maverick, he makes statements that are good stories. His record in the Senate is otherwise entirely undistinguished.

Now to the substance. Iraq is like Vietnam, except that it's not.

It's like it in that:

• It's far from the United States.
• They didn't attack us directly.
• We're taking casualties.
• It's taking longer than we'd like.
• The war is opposed by the antiwar left.

So, the US is "bogged down" per Hagel. At least he didn't use the "q" word.

As SWNID is eager to point out on every occasion where similarities between any two things are noted, one must also note differences. These are some that come to mind between Iraq and Vietnam:

• The insurgency in Iraq has no superpower backing.
• Iraq is not a jungle.
• A substantial majority of the Iraqi population support the stated goals of the American military (despite the alleged growth in the insurgency, Iraqis in large numbers support peace and the establishment of a new, democratic Iraq).
• The US has allies active on the ground in Iraq, more than the ever-faithful Australians, the only nation to fight alongside the US military in all of its armed conflicts of the 20th century and now the 21st.
• The enemies of the US military in Iraq have no real "army" and cannot engage in a pitched battle.
• The enemies of the US military in Iraq control no territory.
• US casualties in Iraq are a small fraction of those in Vietnam, despite the recent uptick in the last month.
• The US began the war with a plan to quickly acquire and hold territory, a strategy that succeeded beyond anyone's expectation, and all the territory remains in US control.

Those who need a parallel should think of the Philippine-American War that lasted from 1899 to 1902 and was followed by forty-four years of American administration of the Philippines and a generation of independent dictatorial rule before the fall of Marcos. Now that was a "quagmire." But would anyone see that action as less than necessary for the long-term interests of the US, or less than beneficial for the long-term well being of the Filipino people?

Well, of course some would. But SWNID will continue to hold otherwise.

And because it's Monday morning, we offer an additional observation, mildly apropos. The mainstream media has two kinds of major stories (where X represents any subject whatsoever):

1. X is another Watergate.
2. X is another Vietnam.

So don't be surprised whenever the MSM draws either parallel. They only history they know occurred between 1968 and 1974.