After reading the below article, answer the following questions:
1. Do you concur with the lessons learned?
2. What role did domestic politics play in current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Remember to comment on 2 other students blogs.
"The Vietnam War in Hindsight"
Defense, Southeast Asia, National Security, Foreign Policy
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2000/0427southeastasia_haass.aspx?p=1
Richard N. Haass, Vice President and Director
April 27, 2000 —
Twenty-five years after the ignominious American withdrawal from what was then South Vietnam, this much is clear: the United States lost the war, but won the peace. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how things could have turned out much better if we had won the war. The United States remains the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. alliances with such critical states as Japan, South Korea and Australia are robust; U.S. relations with China are extensive if not always warm. Even U.S. relations with Vietnam are now proper and improving. The region is mostly democratic, wealthy and at peace. And despite gloomy predictions to the contrary, "dominos" did not fall to Communism after we lost in Vietnam.
Also worth noting is that some 15 years after the flag came down over the American Embassy in Saigon and the helicopters flew away from its roof, the Cold War ended. In this case, though, the United States and the West won the war. This outcome resulted not just from Soviet shortcomings—exacerbated by the Soviet "Vietnam" in Afghanistan—but from American perseverance. The U.S. failure in Vietnam did not trigger the wholesale retreat from responsibility into isolationism that many feared would result.
Still, the wrong war
None of this changes the reality that the Vietnam War was the wrong war—an unnecessary war. This in no way cheapens or in any way detracts from the sacrifice by so many Americans. Rather, the judgment is a strategic one: The American commitment to Vietnam exaggerated its importance. What happened on the ground in that country could not alter the basic shape of the strategic competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was a distraction, one that wasted resources of every kind. The notion that the war fundamentally affected U.S. interests everywhere proved mistaken.
Moreover, the United States misread the threat. Washington was slow to see the growing divide between Moscow and Peking. Communism was not monolithic. Nationalism counted for more. This was true as well in Vietnam, where the Communists in both the North and the South were more nationalists than instruments of the Soviet Union or anyone else.
Why did we get so involved then? More than anything else, it was domestic politics, and the concern of John F. Kennedy—and to an even greater extent Lyndon Johnson—that the American people would not forgive the politicians or the party that "lost" Vietnam. Both remembered the price paid by Democrats charged by Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) and others with "losing" China.
The irony, of course, is that Johnson paid an enormous price for prosecuting the war as he did. His attempt to build the Great Society went unfinished. He himself did not stand for re-election. And Richard Nixon was elected, ushering in more than two decades of Republican domination of the White House interrupted only by the fallout of Watergate.
Learning lessons
The lessons from that war are still applicable today: not permitting domestic politics to determine foreign policy; asking hard questions about history and culture before the United States commits its prestige and its men and women in uniform; not underestimating the power of local forces in global politics.
The Vietnam War was not simply the wrong war; it was also fought in the wrong way. Military force should only be used decisively, not gradually. Civilian officials should set basic policy but allow the professional military to run wars without micromanagement. Quantitative measures—how many bombs are dropped, how many enemy troops killed—may be irrelevant to the course of the battle and should not be taken as proof of progress. Airpower alone wins few campaigns. High technology is no panacea and cannot in and of itself defeat a committed adversary. What is worrisome about this cataloguing of lessons is how many of them have been violated in such faraway places as Somalia and Kosovo.
The good news, though, is that the American people seem ahead of their leaders in not forgetting Vietnam's lessons or repeating its mistakes. It remains possible for the United States to commit itself and to fight high-cost military interventions so long as American people believe the stakes justify them. It is also possible to sustain commitments where the stakes are low so long as the costs of intervening are kept modest. What the American people will not stand for, however, are interventions where U.S. interests are modest, but the costs in human and financial terms are high. This principle, as much as anything else, is what Vietnam has to teach us—and what we would only forget at great peril to ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, I agree with the lessons learned and as to why it can and will improve wars going on now and future wars. First and foremost, during the Vietnam War, the government tried to control the situation half way around the world which we know as micro-managing. What they needed to do was let the military run its operations without interference from civilian officials. How can the government (civilian)officials really understand the concepts of the operations if they themselves weren't placed in that situation? Plus, when the officials would receive news or events that would happen, the information wasn't being passed fast enough because technology wasn't as advanced; information is now seconds away and in real time. So during the Vietnam War, a decision was to be made and then relayed back to the military. One failures and lesson learned of the Vietnam War was to allow the Field Commanders to have complete control. A war is quick decisions and reactions on the battle field to survive and complete a mission.
ReplyDeleteAs for our role in domestic politics in Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe we are doing what we set up to do. Primarily, we have outlined a general policy as to why we're in those regions and importantly we have laid down time lines as to accomplish our missions and goals. We have helped the countries and formed them into Republics where there is much more liberation among the people. Now, one mission of ours is to mentor the Afghanistan National Army (NAN) as we have done in Iraq, and hopefully we will remove ourselves from combat operations all together as we have done so already in Iraq.
LISA MARIE FONSECA
If we learned any lessons from the Vietnam war it is that we should never underestimate our enemy. The old question that is on everybody's mind - was it worth?, is harder to answer. Yes, we learned that domestic policy and foreign policy should be kept separate, but our domestic problems shape the success of our foreign involvement. The war protesters could not see beyond the thousands of lost lives, money that was spent, and the little or no progress of the war in Vietnam to prevent communism in the South. The U.S. Army had the most qualified and trained Army and was equipped with great air power from the B-52 bombers. Nevertheless, the unknown terrain was a big obstacle for the Army and proved to be the downfall of some Army operations on the ground. We found similar obstacles both in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the ground conditions were better in terms of the enemy being more observable - a desert compared to a jungle - but Afghanistan has large mountains which limits visibility and mobility.
ReplyDeleteOur objective in Iraq was the search for weapons of mass destruction and the liberation of the people of Iraq. Our objective in Afghanistan is to defeat al-Qaida, the Taliban and the ultimate capture of Osama Bin Laden. Our domestic problems at the moment are much of the same as during the Vietnam war. The concerns about the money spent on these two wars, the lives lost, and a final end to these wars is on everybody's mind these days. Combat troops are out of Iraq and more troops are being requested to fight in Afghanistan with an exit date to be sometime next year - only time will tell if the military will be able to succeed and leave the Afghanis to defend their own country against the insurgents.
Andrea
I absolutely concur with Mr. Haass’ opinion about our lessons learned. However, as the author suggested to, the American people seem to understand these lessons better than our politicians. We definitely don’t want to let domestic politics determine whether we go to war and how long we stay at war. In Vietnam, no politician or political party wanted to be blamed for losing the war in Vietnam; therefore, our elected leaders at the time decided that we needed to stay in Vietnam, a war which dragged on for over 8 years and cost America the lives of over 58,000 young men. With the Bush administration, it seemed that domestic politics drove our foreign policy a little more than the current Obama administration. While Bush was in office, he clearly stated that he would not set a timeline for withdraw from Iraq, and said that America would be present in Iraq for as long as takes. In other words, he was willing to commit America’s soldiers and tax dollars to the Iraqi war regardless of the costs. Was the motivation to protect his legacy, his political party, or was it in the interest of our national security? On the other hand, Obama clearly outlined a timeline for withdraw and has stuck to it. His major campaign appeal to the American people was the Iraqi war costs were too great versus the benefit of staying in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other lessons learned about understanding the region, culture, and not underestimating our enemy, I again agree with Mr. Haass’ evaluation; however, our entry into the Iraq war seems to prove that our leaders again didn’t seem to fully appreciate these lessons. Clearly, we entered the war with not enough troops to properly secure and police Iraq after Saddam’s government collapsed. We also didn’t expect the local people to start rising up and attacking our troops. As for understanding the culture, our government didn’t fully understand the deep mistrust and division between the Shia, Sunnis, and Kurdish Muslims in Iraq. The civil war that nearly broke out in Iraq after our invasion proves this point. We should have clearly understood the massive undertaking of trying to have a joint government between these three major ethnic groups. If we clearly understood these facts, our leaders probably would have not entered the war in the first place.
I agree with what Bahar said....The previous administration was going to send over troops to Iraq at any cost. The Bush administration did not think about Vietnam and how we underestimated the enemy.
ReplyDeleteIn Iraq, we are in the process of helping them develop a government similar to ours. In Afghanistan, the process is more difficult. Over time, we have had coorporation with the Afghans fighting against Al-Qaida, but we are losing more soldiers everyday.
Gilberto Molina
Like Andrea, I believe that our mission in Iraq was to find weapons of mass destruction. However, there were no weapons of mass destruction. In fact, Americans were fooled by false intelligence that led our country to claim that the Saddam Hussein regime possessed weapons of mass destruction. As for liberation of the people of Iraq, I don’t believe that the Iraqis appreciate their freedom. Again, this goes back to the lessons that we should have learned from Vietnam. In Vietnam, most of the people there didn't appreciate democracy and freedom; instead, they just wanted to be rice farmers. The same goes for the Iraqis, they didn't fight for their freedom and don't have a foundation to understand the value of freedom and democracy. For over 50 years, Iraqis were occupied by dictatorship and have had no taste of freedom. Although there are some people in Iraq who understand this and want to rebuild their country, the influence of other Muslim neighbor countries such as Iran and Syria will make this process much harder. Again Andrea, you are absolutely right about the concerns about the money we spent on these two wars, the lives lost, and a final end to these wars being on everybody's mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lisa that our technology is much better today than during the Vietnam War. Through teleconferencing and day to day battle analysis’ the military has a better chance to keep the president, his advisors and ultimately the public informed of operations outside the U.S. Therefore decisions both politically and publically can be made immediately and public support can be achieved. At the moment the public still supports our involvement in Afghanistan which will help our economy and ultimately our domestic politics.
ReplyDeleteAndrea
I agree with Bahar, our government should learn that the lessons from the Vietnam War have to be our understanding of the culture and the people of the country we are fighting in. We were successful in Iraq as soon as the Sunni leaders stopped fighting the Americans and joined them against al-Qaida. If we are successful in Afghanistan with a similar strategy, is uncertain.
ReplyDeleteAndrea
Lisa Marie, I agree with your statement that our government officials shouldn't micromanage our military commanders. Instead, our government leaders need to give our military commanders strategic guidance, not specific battle plans. On the other hand, I have to disagree with your comment in regards to technology and the speed at which information was delayed back to our leaders in Washington. In fact, Vietnam was basically our first televised war. Nightly Americans would get updates on the war and daily they would literally hear about and see the blood lost by our soldiers. I think our politicians in Washington were getting regular updates on the war, but just because they had the information did not make them qualified military decision makers.
ReplyDeleteThe lessons learned in Vietnam, the U.S. took over a war from another country (France), who could not defeat the Vietcong. In Afghanistan, the U.S., so to speak, is taking over from the Russians, who could not defeat the Afghanis.
ReplyDeleteIn Vietnam, the U.S. had very little understanding and knowlege of Vietnamese culture and history – and language. In Afghanistan, the U.S. has very little understanding of Afghani culture, history and language.
In Vietnam, the U.S. was constantly fighting an inhospitable geography – the jungles, the muck, the highlands, the monsoons. In Afghanistan, the U.S. is constantly fighting an inhospitable geography – the high mountains, the snowy winters, the lack of infrastructure.
In Vietnam, the U.S. tried to win the hearts and minds of the native population, while it bombed their villages with napalm, Agent Orange, and cluster bombs. In Afghanistan, the U.S. is trying to win the hearts and minds of the native population with its yellow-packeted food drops, while it continues to mistakenly bomb their villages and hospitals and food warehouses, sometimes with cluster bombs.
In Vietnam, the U.S. depended on its high-tech weaponry in fighting guerrillas who for years, decades, centuries, had found a way to disappear into jungles, caves, tunnels, and then drive the invaders from its soil. In Afghanistan, the U.S is relying heavily on its high tech weaponry in fighting guerrillas who for years, decades, centuries have found a way to disappear into caves and tunnels, and then drive invaders (British, Soviets) from their soil.
In Vietnam, the U.S. (unsuccessfully) tried to prevent the truth of what was happening there from being reported by the American news media. In Afghanistan, the U.S. military doles out the news it wants to have reported.
Armon Lee