Applying The Lessons Of
Vietnam To The War On ISIS
Why
It's Important To Get The War
Against ISIS Right
This is the continuation of a story begun on our November 2014 Home Page. To
go to an archived version of that page, click here:
November 2014 Home Page Archive. To return to this
month'sactual Home Page, click on the Signal Corps
orangeHome Page menu item in the
upper left corner of this page.
Unfortunately, the answer to
these questions is not
important; not any more
important than how did the
factors that brought us to war
in Vietnam come to be. What’s
important is this: the
cumulative effect of sloppily
managed global socio-political
issues can drive a nation to
war… and that is one of the
things pushing America to war
with ISIS, just as happened in
Vietnam.
In the case of the mess the
Middle East is in today, the
sloppy handling began with
George Bush Jr. and his merry band
of culturally bereft
half-thinkers, continued with
Obama bowing to the King of
Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State
Clinton having no clue how to do
her job and rather than trying
to prevent wars from starting,
spent her time chasing equal
rights for women — and the
missteps continue today. The
mismanagement, mishandling, lack
of a cohesive policy, and
cumulative blunders and errors
boggles the mind. Of more
importance to us than this
however is that this
lackadaisical handling of events
as they happened has layered
each event’s missteps, one on
the other, like a snowball
gaining girth as it rolls down a
hill, until the overwhelming
weight of the mistakes made has
brought on a situation that now
forces America to once again go
to war in the same damned place
it already fought two
wars.
Yet that’s not the end of how our leaders go about
letting causal factors develop
into one mini-crisis after
another. Since
most countries respond on a
global scale to socio-political
factors related to their
particular values and
principles, let us add yet
another Failure Factor that
operates in parallel with
Failure Factor #1. Let us call
this new cause Failure
Factor #2, and let us
define it as the lack of
recognition that the values and
principles a nation stands for
can put pressure on that
nation’s leaders to act on the
political stage on minor
matters, as though they are
world shattering… and in the
process set in place a path that
will one day cause that country
to be forced to go to war just
to maintain its global “face,”
in light of the challenges other
countries mount to that
country’s principles.
This is
especially the case when those
values or principles are
explained to the world
individually, but presented as a
combined value set that defines
the country and therefore must
be accepted as a whole. In a
case like this, the cumulative
effect of a country having to
adhere to this value set at a
time when Failure Factor #1
comes into play can drive that
country to war… simply to make
the case to the world that it
stands behind its principles and
values.
What kind of values and/or
principles, you ask? Name any of
the principles that America
stands for and you will be
naming one that, if America does
not carefully govern its efforts
in supporting that principle
around the world, could force the
U.S. into a war where it does
not belong, for a principle(s)
that will likely never be
achieved anyway.
How about the principles that
drove George Bush Junior to
unseat Saddam Hussein? George
Bush was willing to shed
American lives for the principle
that people like Saddam Hussein
should not own weapons of mass
destruction. Yet President Obama
quite willingly lets President
Hafez Assad freely walk the
earth after not only owning but
using poison gas on his own
people.
Where’s the consistency
in American policy? Do we
believe in this “principle” that
dictators should not own and
have available for their use
weapons of mass destruction or
don’t we? Is this a fundamental
value America wants to uphold
around the world to the extent
that it is willing to go to war
over it, or is it not? Can you
see the problem? America’s
leaders pick and chose those
values they want to promulgate
globally, and then (during their
Administration) set about doing
so… and in the process trap us
as a nation into having to
maintain their value heritage
for Administrations to come. Not
America’s value heritage, mind
you, but theirs.
In the end it matters not how
good our President's intention was, the
fact is that as each one
sets about to change the world
to his liking he in the process
causes America to have to
sustain his views during
successive Administrations, or
risk causing America to look
like a fool on the world stage.
What we know is this: the
purpose of a President being
elected to office is to
administer the country he is put
in charge of… not change it (or
the world for that matter). Yet
that’s what Presidents do… they
come into office thinking that
the vote that elected them gives
them a mandate to put into
effect their own idea of how the
world should be.
Administer the government you
are elected to preside over,
yes. Change it or the underlying
nation, no thanks.
We say again, this is a Failure
Factor: Administration after
Administration failing to
recognize that the values and
principles they set about to
force on the world—during their
Administration—creates a
situation where America cannot,
in the future, back away from
the force of history these
seemingly good actions set in
motion. Often, the result of
this is that America finds
itself slowly walking down a
path that leads it to war, a
course it never saw coming and
had no idea it was playing a
hand in creating.
Yet here too, this is not the end. There is yet one
more Failure Factor related to
numbers 1 and 2 above. That is
the Failure Factor that comes
into play when a nation is
engaging in both of these
actions at the same time. Let’s
call this Failure Factor #3 and
define it as the cumulative
impact of engaging in two
activities that by themselves
have negative propensities. In
such a situation, the cumulative
impact of two such Failure
Factors will amplify the effect
of both, causing even more risk
to the country involved and
pushing it even more unavoidably
towards war.
How does all of this relate to
Vietnam or America’s problem
with ISIS today? While there was
no fixed beginning date for our
favorite war, there is little
doubt that there was an
incremental slide towards it…
and that slide began when
America made its case to the
world that certain principles
held dear to America required
that she act. Specifically, in
May 1950, President Harry S.
Truman authorized a modest
program of economic and military
aid to the French, who were
fighting to retain control of
their Indochina colonies: Laos,
Cambodia and Vietnam.
What were Failure Factors #1 and
#2 that Truman was falling afoul
of? In reverse order, Failure
Factor #2 resulted from Truman
feeling that America must stand
behind its ally from World War
II, France, and help it rebuild
itself after that war... no matter
what. While Failure Factor #1
was not recognizing that the
follow on effect of his
upholding this most prosaic of
American values (i.e. standing
by an ally by providing it with unreserved economic aid to
help it rebuild itself, post war) would cause other
factors to take place that would
one day drive America to war.
On the surface, helping France
economically seemed like the
right thing to do, after all,
she had been on our side during
WWII… or her freedom fighters
were, anyway. The problem was
that by trying to help this ally
from WWII rebuild itself after
the war, the carry on affect of
what France did with the help
America gave it caused ripples
in another part of the world—ripples that eventually led
America to war in that part of
the world.
More specifically, at the time
of Truman’s throwing America’s
economic weight behind France’s
efforts to rebuild itself post
WWII, France was on its knees.
This was in 1950, and France,
having just come out of WWII,
had an economy that was in
shambles. On France’s part, it
felt that it needed to retain
control over its former colonies
if it was to have any chance of
resurrecting its economy, and in
doing so spent the money and aid
America gave it on those
colonial possessions. Her aim
was to leverage those former
possessions as a means of
generating revenue for itself.
Truman tacitly agreed to let
this happen by saying nothing to
the contrary, opting instead to
provide financial support and
aid to France in a series of
steps which began in 1950 and
carried through all the way up
to 1965.
Again, the purpose of the
economic help was to help France
rebuild itself from the damage
it suffered during the Second
World War. And again, not
rebuild as in roads and bridges,
but rebuild as in “right its
broken economy.” And one more
time, since so much of France’s
wealth and economic power prior
to WWII came from its
colonies—as is the case with all
Imperial countries—France opted
to use much of the money America
gave it to rebuild its colonial
past… laying claim once again to
being the overlord of Vietnam,
Cambodia and Laos, and using the
money America provided it to
reinstitute a series of
“landless tenant” plantations
(rubber, rice, sugar cane, etc.)
the profits of which would be
exported globally, with the
proceeds going to France,
not the colonies.[1]
There was only one glitch: as we
now know, the landless tenants
and peasants of these countries,
having just seen so many other
countries of the world come out
of WWII as free nations of their
own, could see no reason why
they should continue to be
captive colonial subjects under France’s
control, not receiving their own
independence as so many other
nations had.
One of the first of those to see
this imbalance and wrongheaded
way of thinking was Ho Chi Minh.
Three Lessons From The Vietnam
War
Going back to the causes of the
Vietnam War, we can learn three
things from how these events took
place back then:
First, the beginning of the
Vietnam War can not be
pinpointed in time. It can only be defined
in terms of a period of time,
not a specific date. That period
started in 1950 and continued up
to at least 1965… but as we will
soon see, this “Periodicity To
War” did not stop there.
Second, America should be
careful which “values and
principles” it decides to
unequivocally support around the
world, even via its allies. This
is so because once America takes
a global stand on a matter of
principle—even one seemingly as
basic as standing behind an ally
by providing them with
unrestricted economic aid—it
becomes impossible for America
to disclaim responsibility for
what that ally does with the aid
provided. Worse, many times this
responsibility leads to America
having to come to the rescue of
the ally it originally tried to
help.
Third, we now know that the long
term impact of today’s seemingly
minor socio-political acts on
the global stage may come back
to bite us tomorrow. This is the
case because with each
successive Administration that
comes into office the potential
exists for the policy decisions
of the prior Administration to
be unknowingly changed in a way
that causes negative outcomes,
if not knowingly or purposely
bastardized along the way. In
other words, incrementalism
creeps in as Administration
after Administration makes
changes to the policies of each
prior Administration, until the
final result is a
socio-political foreign policy
that bears no resemblance to the
original intent that drove
America to act in the first
place. The lesson we should
learn from this? Be aware that
policy changes from one
Administration to the next can
cause an incremental slide
towards war. In other words:
watch out for incrementalism.
(See "The failure of COIN in
Iraq, below right.)
How does this relate to
President Obama and ISIS? With
respect to Iraq and the Middle
East and the naissance of ISIS,
the hawk like actions of
Administrations prior to
President Obama’s, when layered
over with the dove like actions
of his own Administration, has
created a fertile ground for
America’s opponents to undermine
the good that may have been done
in that part of the world during
both Administrations… if in fact
any good has been done at all.
Further, the cumulative impact
of America supporting and then
not supporting one American
value after another has made
America responsible for the mess
that finally grew to exist, and
is forcing it today to engage in
warfare as a means of righting
the wrongs that we have done…
again… to that part of the
world.
President Obama must be cautious
therefore not to become a
further victim to Failure
Factors #1, #2 and #3, which are
playing out on his watch as you
read these words. Why must he be
cautious? Because the cumulative
effect of one Administration
having started America down the
path we are now on makes it
difficult if not impossible for
a successive Administration—such
as the Obama Administration—to
disown America’s prior
activities.
In the case of Truman and
France, it might have been
possible to avoid the morass
America was heading towards in
Vietnam if Truman had said
something to the effect of
“France is mishandling the
financial and material support
we are giving it, by using it in
Vietnam for purposes that stifle
the freedoms of that country’s
peoples… by trying to carry on
and resurrect once more the
earlier colonial-master relationship
it had with the people of
Vietnam. It’s time that this
approach on France’s part
come to an end, and for the
people of Vietnam to be set free
to govern themselves.”
But Truman didn't say that... he
said nothing at all, and so
America's slide towards becoming
involved in the Vietnam War
picked up speed.
In the case of ISIS, the cards
President Obama must play are
still on the table. We will have
to wait and see what he does
about the fact that—with the
exception of its gloried and
praiseworthy history as one of
the cradles of the world’s
civilizations—Iraq as a nation
today is no more real or
deserving of a continued
existence than the one ISIS
claims it has established and is
governing. In other words, after
all of our efforts, Iraq today
is a failed state; and while it
is true that America put Iraq in
the state it is in, it's what
America does from this point
forward that will determine
whether cumulative conditions
push America towards a war it
never imagined it would be the
instigator of back when it was
making what it thought were good
decisions in terms of promoting
American values and principles
in the Middle East.
So we find ourselves at a place
where, like the early decisions
Truman made with respect to
France, America’s early decisions with respect
to Iraq created a tar baby that
today cries for war, the
enjoinment of which it will be
difficult to escape or avoid.
With the Vietnam War there was
no starting date. And with ISIS
the same is true. Both wars
began as a result of American
policies that allowed Failure
Factors to incrementally push
the United States into the
situation it found itself in
back then in Vietnam and today
in Iraq. In both cases there is
no one to blame for the
occurrence of these Failure
Factors other than ourselves.
Yet that does not change our
point, and because of this it is
important to understand how
Failure Factors can impel a
country towards war.
So let us look at how Failure
Factors come to be, and ask the
question: are there any other
Failure Factors that we should
be aware of, other than the
three already mentioned?
The answer, unfortunately, is
yes.
The next Failure Factor that
shares a common interest in what
happened in Vietnam with what
Obama is facing with ISIS today
relates to what America does
when one of our erstwhile allies
fails to do its part in keeping
conditions on the ground under
control. In the case of Vietnam,
losing control of local
conditions on the ground took
place for France, our ally, when
the Vietnamese Nationalist,
along with the Communist-led
Vietminh army, defeated the
French at Dienbienphu. With that
defeat in 1954 the French, who
as far as we were concerned we
were backing only to the extent
of providing economic relief to
help them rebuild their own
economy, suddenly dragged us
into the entire equation
relating to their effort to
maintain colonial control
over French Indochina. Without
even recognizing what was
happening, America suddenly
found itself standing beside the
French, with nary a thought to
the fact that France was clearly
on the wrong side of history in
trying to maintain sovereignty
over Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
What on earth compelled
America’s leaders at the time to
side with the French? What were
they thinking? Here, in one fell
swoop, America went from
providing something as simple as
economic backing to the French
to help them rebuild their own
economy, to backing their claims
to suzzerainty over their
Southeast Asian conquests of a
century earlier.
The defeat of
the French at Dienbienphu was a
disaster for America, as it
forced both France and America
to consent to the creation of a
communist country north of the
17th parallel. This in turn
forced America’s hand with
regard to France, as we could no
longer continue to support their
claim to be the rightful
Imperial administrator of the
newly formed country of South
Vietnam. And this in turn left
America in the awkward position
of having to help France extract
itself from the mess it had
created by offering to step in
and ensure the political
integrity of the new child
country France’s mismanagement
of the events on the ground had
created. This is where Failure Factor #4 comes in.
Failure Factor #4
relates to that condition that
exists when a country finds that
for its own global reputation it
must involve itself in a
situation on the ground created
by the inept management of an
ally it has been supporting,
where that situation bolsters in
a subtle but undetectable way
the country’s incremental slide
towards war. As the reader can
readily see, this happened in
the case of France and Vietnam,
and is happening at this moment
in the case of Iraq and both how
it governs itself as well as how
it deals with ISIS.
Are Events With ISIS Following
The Pattern That Vietnam Took?
Synopsizing what we have learned
thus far as regards our analysis
of the causes that led America
to war in Vietnam, and trying to
apply them in the case of Iraq–ISIS:
• The
ally that America was supporting
and that led us into the Vietnam
War was France; Iraq is playing
the role of France in the case
of the war on ISIS.
• The American principle and
value that we were trying to
uphold at the time, the one that
caused us to get involved with
France in the first place, had
to do with helping her rebuild
her country via economic aid
which we would provide. With
Iraq, America's prior act of
tossing Saddam Hussein created a
broken country. As in the case
of France, America feels
obligated to fix that broken
country.
• The hazard that sprouted by
America performing this
idealistic gesture to an ally
came about because we failed to
see the incremental and
cumulative obligations that
would inure to us if we did not
attach conditions to that aid.
By not ascribing conditions as
to when, where and how France
could use that aid, we
inadvertently caused ourselves
to be a subscriber and supporter
of everything and anything
France did with the aid we
provided. Thus, when France used
the economic aid we provided to
re-plant itself as the governing
authority over French Indochina,
we became unwitting accomplices
to her 20th century continuation
of the 18th century colonial practice of
Imperialism. In its most simple
sense, what we did was say "do
what you want..." and walk
away... not realizing that in
the end we were responsible for
how France conducted itself as a
country. The same is true with
Iraq today.
• All of this came to a head
when France lost control of
events on the ground (Dienbenphu), forcing us
to take a stand on a matter we
never should have been involved
with in the first place. In
Iraq, the same is true. Iraq's
loss of control of events on the
ground to ISIS forces America to
go in to fix the mess the Iraqi
government has created.
For each scenario above a
Failure Factor can be defined.
In Vietnam's case, the outcome of these little
historical facts was that the
cumulative impact of Failure
Factors #1, #2, #3 and #4 put President Eisenhower in a position where he had
to again come to France’s
rescue. After all, France was an
ally, and America did not
abandon its allies.
For Eisenhower—this time—standing
beside France meant seeking a
way to help her out of the
dilemma she had created for both
of us, in such a manner that
America was not left with egg on
its face for having not stopped
France from trying to continue
its colonial–Imperialist ways in the
first place. Eisenhower did this
by telling the world that
America refused to accept the
arrangement of a communist held
North Vietnam, with a South
Vietnam still under French
colonial domination. A mixed
signal, it was clear that he was
saying that France had to exit
the picture… but what did that
mean for the newly established
South Vietnam… and what too did
it mean for the newly
established North Vietnam?
In one way his actions were
good… as he was finally calling
for an end to France’s quest to
hold on to her colonies in
Southeast Asia. But in another,
his actions were a disaster, as
they followed exactly the line
being created by the Failure
Factors we have looked at to
date: the line that slowly,
inexorably, substituted
America’s involvement in an
evolving socio-political mess
for that of its ally.
The reader can see this
happening in the case of the
march towards the Vietnam War,
with the U.S. getting pulled
deeper and deeper into the
disastrous state of affairs
France had created. But can he
also see the same working today
with Iraq? Iraq’s
elected leaders… only too
anxious once America had left
and they were in charge to fight
among themselves to see which
partisan religious party would
rule the country … have made a
dog’s breakfast of the
management of Iraq, such that
ISIS was able to step into the
vacuum they created and now runs
more of it than the real Iraqis
do.[2]
Again, Eisenhower’s response to
the declaration that there would
now be two Vietnams was to tell
the world that the United States
would no longer accept France’s
domination over Vietnam on the
whole. But what did this mean
for the two countries created
out of these events?
That answer he gave in
1954
when he said that he would step
in and build a real nation in
the South, out of the sham,
specious political entity that France
had allowed to lay claim to
South Vietnam. He said America
would do so by constructing out
of whole cloth a new government,
taking control over from the
French, while also dispatching
military advisers to train a
South Vietnamese army to protect
the new country until a
functioning government built
along American lines could be
established. To make sure that
the North did not try to
interfere with America’s efforts
to stand up a new government in
the South, he added a little
heft to his plan by letting
loose the Central Intelligence
Agency, to conduct psychological
warfare against the North to
keep it at bay.
And so things progressed until
1961, when Failure Factor #5
raised its ugly head. The fifth
Failure Factor that comes into
play when countries like America
dabble at nation building
(dabble… as opposed to seriously
committing itself to the task,
as it should, when it involves
itself in places like Vietnam
and Iraq) has to do with that
point in time when a local,
third party nation, opposed to
the outside country’s
involvement in the subject
country, begins to mount what
seems like a series of minor
kinetically driven protestations
to the outside country’s
involvement in the region.
Obviously, in the case of the
Vietnam War, the “local, third
party nation” we speak of was
North Vietnam, we were the
“outside country,” and South
Vietnam was the “subject
nation.” In the case of the War
with ISIS, ISIS is the local,
third party nation… or has at
least declared itself as such…
America is still the outside
country, but now Iraq, Syria,
the Kurds, and parts of Turkey
comprise the subject nations.
What happens when Failure Factor
#5 comes into play is that the
"local, third party nation"
practices incremental warfare by
mounting small kinetic actions
against the "subject nation,"
rather than engaging in a
concerted effort to wage a
serious war… against either the
"subject nation" or the "outside
country."
In South Vietnam this
took the form of insurgent
bombings, kidnappings and
killings of village leaders, conducted inside
of the territory of the new South
Vietnam, by North Vietnam. In
Iraq incremental warfare—i.e.
insurgent activities—initially took the form
of car bombs, IEDs and the like,
but have now graduated to forced
conversions to Islam,
evacuations of entire cities,
beheadings, burying women and
children alive, and more. While still
short of a full-on war (you
can’t fight a war if no one is
fighting back at you…), the way
in which these activities build
slowly usually traps the outside
country—in both cases, the United
States—into sending small
contingents of military advisors
and personnel to the region,
rather than declaring and
mounting a comprehensive war
effort against the local third
party nation.
With this in mind, we can define
Failure Factor #5
as the pressure created by
kinetic events initially barely
recognized as happening, but
over time becoming more apparent
and unacceptable, to bring in
soldiers from the outside
country to quell these
disturbances and put an end to
this trend... if only to save
the soul of the subject country
and safeguard its citizens.
By now some of our readers are
saying "that's the purpose of
COIN... to fight these kinds of
insurgencies...". To that we
would respond that if the U.S.
had not subject itself to
Failure Factors #1
–
#5 there would be no insurgency
that needed to be fought. We
would also add that in our view
COIN is i) nothing more than a
delaying action and ii) a poor
substitute for what should
really happen.
What should really happen? Try
this: the U.S. should step in
and force a functioning
government onto the country in
question until the people of
that country get the point that
life in a peaceful world is much
better than in one filled with
crazed zealots reigning terror
on them... at which point they
might actually try to form a
functioning government and
take control over their destiny
back from America... all while
America's military fights the
insurgents on the ground with
one hand, while with the other
it works with the better
elements of the country in
question to bring peace and
security to the land. As we said
in the insert at right, "For
references regarding the
successful application of this
policy: see Japan, South Korea
and/or Germany. For references
of the failure to even attempt
to apply this policy, see
Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq."
Returning to Vietnam, in 1961 President John F.
Kennedy responded to the
terrorist activities picking up
in Vietnam by secretly sending
400 Special Operations Forces
(Green Berets) to teach the
South Vietnamese how to fight
what was at that time called a
counterinsurgency war. The war
they were to teach the South
Vietnamese to fight was to be
against Communist guerrillas
that were either indigenous
citizens of South Vietnam who
were rising up in response to Ho
Chi Minh’s call to action, or
were sent there by North
Vietnam.
The fact that the people
mounting the insurgency were
only mildly—if at all—communists
seemed to have been either
completely missed or purposely
glossed over by the CIA… so that
they could stay engaged in this
excellent adventure. What the
people mounting the insurgency
were were nationalists… that is,
they wanted to run their own
country, not have it run by
France. Ho Chi Minh in
particular detested those in
charge in China, and wanted
nothing to do with communism
unless it was the only means by
which he could push the French
out. He detested China and
communism so much that he actually
approached the U.S. to ask for
help in tossing the French out.
When we rebuffed him, he did
what any good insurgent leader
would do; he swallowed his pride
and cozied
up to China. In his view, the
objective was that the French be
tossed out, and he didn’t care
who helped him do it. Never in
his wildest dreams did he think
that America would step in to
replace the French.
To be fair to Eisenhower, he saw
it as a simple equation: if the
French can’t maintain control
over its possession, then we
need to help it. In Eisenhower’s
case he opted to do so via what
we will define here as “military incrementalism”.
A month and a half ago, in
mid-September (2014), President
Obama faced the same Rubicon in
Iraq. He had to either let
things continue to deteriorate
in Iraq by allowing ISIS free
reign to do what it wanted, or
start sending in American
troops. Seemingly taking a leaf
out of Eisenhower’s book on
Vietnam he opted to respond to
ISIS’s insurgency by sending
American aircraft to fly high
above the insurgents, dropping
bombs on targets of opportunity.
But he added one element to this
that Eisenhower added only
later, when it was clear that a
full-on war was unfolding. Obama
sent Secretary of State Kerry
out to the Middle East to try
and assemble a coalition of
nations to provide some sort of
diminutive contingent of
military support to America’s
goal of “degrading and
destroying” ISIS.
Notice two things: i) targets of
opportunity, and ii) use of the
term diminutive. Wars cannot be
won by attacking targets of
opportunity. It’s a futile,
stupid way to spend a country’s
money and kill off its youth.
As for the latter item, note
again: incrementalism takes
center stage... and as we have
said before, it is
incrementalism that drags a
country into war. In the case of
Iraq and what President Obama
seems to be doing at this time,
he seems to be subjecting
himself to military
incrementalism.
Thus we find America today in
the position of, rather than mounting a fully
fledged war against ISIS,
opting to do the least
necessary to respond to the
terrorism ISIS is forcing on
Iraq and the world. Rather than
take ISIS on, we are opting to provide
air power supported by a minimum
number of forward observers and
advisors on the ground, all
supported by whatever and
whichever kind of help the other
nations that Secretary of State
Kerry claims are on our side
will provide.
At
the time of this writing this is
what the rest of the world is
offering in the way of help to
America in "degrading and
destroying" ISIS:
Australia:
Australia has deployed to the
United Arab Emirates eight Royal
Australian Air Force F/A-18
combat aircraft, an E-7A
Wedgetail airborne early warning
and control aircraft and a
KC-30A multirole tanker and
transport aircraft. Australia
says it
will also help to stem the
humanitarian crisis that appears
to be unfolding. If America
asks, Australia says it will
also send military advisers to
Iraq... but it is quite clear on
the fact that Australian combat troops
will not participate in any
ground fighting, in any way.
Great Britain: The
U.K. will help arm Kurdish
forces, support the Iraqi
government, and supply
humanitarian help and coordinate
with the United Nations to
battle ISIS.
France: France
will provide reconnaissance
flights over Iraq, plus
contribute 18,000 rounds of
.50-caliber ammunition in the
fight against ISIS. France has
not publicly stated so, but it
appears that its air force was
also part of a recent operation
in the Iraqi town of Amerli. The
operation pushed back ISIS
fighters. France is also
providing humanitarian aid
drops in Iraq.
Germany: Germany
has done little except ban
activities that support ISIS,
including making it illegal to
fly the trademark black flag of
the Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria. It is considering sending
German paratroopers to provide
training and military assistance
to the Kurdish region to fight
ISIS, but no decision has been
made at the time of this
writing.
Netherlands:
The Netherlands seems to be more
interested in curbing the flow
of foreign fighters coming into
the Netherlands to cause
internal strife than it is in
fighting ISIS in the Middle
East. Dutch leaders have
proposed changes to an existing
national law that would revoke
citizenship to those who work
with terrorists.
Canada: Canada
is telling the world that is is
providing "tangible equipment
and ammunition" to the effort to
fight ISIS. Our response to
that: Whoopie!
Turkey: Turkey
says it will cut the flow of
money to ISIS and deny entry to
or deport several thousand
foreign fighters heading to
Syria to join the extremists.
Jordan: Jordan
said it won’t commit ground
troops in the fight against
ISIS. "The U.S. will have to
take the lead in providing
military strikes," the Jordanian
Foreign Minister said.
Nevertheless, it considers
itself a part of the coalition
and will provide intelligence to
the West. It’s Foreign Minister
stressed that Jordan's
intelligence on ISIS is "second
to none," and so Jordan’s role
should not be seen as diminished
in any way.
Saudi Arabia:
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince
Saud al-Faisal said that Saudi
Arabia has offered to train
rebels on its soil. He also said
that Saudi Arabia has "always
taken initiatives with regard to
a firm position towards
terrorists and against them. So
there is no limit to what the
Kingdom can provide in this
regard." The U.S. has pointedly
asked Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
Egypt to use Arab television
networks to spread anti-ISIS
messages and encourage more
clerics to speak out against the
group. Saudi Arabia has also
given $500 million to U.N.
humanitarian aid agencies in
Iraq.
Egypt: Egypt
has done little more than cause
its grand mufti to issue a
public statement saying that he
condemned terrorism and that
ISIS’ actions are not in line
with Islam.
Qatar: Qatar is
using its civilian airlines to
fly humanitarian flights in
support of the West’s efforts.
Iran: Iran has
rejected the possibility of
cooperating with the United
States "because (the) US has
corrupted its hands in this
issue" the Supreme Leader
Khamenei said. Instead he has
accused the U.S. of planning to
use military action against ISIS
to "dominate the region."
Iraqi Kurdistan: Leaders
of this semiautonomous region of
Iraq are already sending their
Peshmerga forces to fight beyond
their borders. They have asked
for the U.S. to put together a
comprehensive international
strategy quickly. Good luck on
that.
Others: Other
countries are taking a wait and
see attitude towards joining the
coalition John Kerry is trying
to set up. These include Italy,
Poland, Denmark, Albania and
Croatia, who may opt to provide
equipment and ammunition, as
well as New Zealand, Romania and
South Korea, who are looking at
providing humanitarian
assistance.
On one hand, what the list of
countries above are offering in
the way of support for this
venture leaves a lot to be
desired. On the other, by
signing on to
Obama’s Dutch
Treat War Protocol they are making
themselves subject to incrementalism too, and
unknowingly then trapping
themselves into coming along as
this thing slides towards an all
out war, whether they want to or
not. That is, if this tar baby
turns into a real war, with
American boots on the ground,
America may not be the only
country falling victim to
Failure Factors #1 – #5.
Incrementalism Creates False
Hopes That War Can Be Avoided
So what do we have then? What we
have is a situation where no one
is providing the impetus to go
to war to put an end to the
havoc ISIS is creating for both
Iraq and the world. Instead,
under America’s leadership and
urging, all that is being asked
of the world is to join us in a
piecemeal air and missile war,
with a bit of humanitarian aid
thrown in for good measure. The
fact that so many years after
the Vietnam War America is still
falling victim to Failure Factor
#5 is astonishing.
What can we expect if President
Obama continues to march in the
same direction he is heading? By
1963, when Kennedy was
assassinated, his early
contingent of 400 advisors on
the ground in South Vietnam had
grown to more than 16,000 U.S.
military “advisers”, of which
more than 100 had already been
killed. President Lyndon B.
Johnson, his successor, barely a
month or so into office after
Kennedy’s assassination,
swallowed hard and committed the
United States to something just
short of all out war.
Lobbying
Congress for support, by August
1964 he was ready to move
forward as he obtained from
Congress something that, while
approximating a declaration of
war, wasn’t one. A bill that
historians today call a
“functional declaration of war”,
it was at that time called the
Tonkin Gulf Resolution and it
authorized Johnson to begin the
sustained bombing, by U.S.
aircraft, of targets north of
the 17th parallel. Presuming
that the planes that would do
this bombing would take off from
South Vietnam, to protect the
air crews that would be needed
to support them, on 8 March 1964
Johnson dispatched 3,500 Marines
to South Vietnam.
Does all of this sound familiar?
The President of the United
States announcing that he is
authorizing the use of U.S.
aircraft to bomb, "degrade and
destroy" ISIS; but that other
than the few troops required to
support the air campaign no
ground troops would be sent to
fight this enemy? Has Failure
Factor #5 come home to roost
again?
Yogi Berra would be pleased:
it’s déjà vu all over again.
Regardless, legal declaration of
war or not, Johnson’s actions
put the United States at war in
Vietnam, as are Obama’s actions
with regard to ISIS. The problem
in both cases is that it’s just
more incrementalism, and in our
view incrementalism leads to
failure. For America,
incrementalism breeds a tendency
to pull its punches. That is,
America
doesn’t make the hard decisions,
with the net result being that
in the end America ends up
following a path that can easily
cause it to lose the war
it refuses to admit it is
fighting.
What kind of hard decisions
should America make in these
circumstances?
In Vietnam’s case the U.S.
should have stepped in and
replaced the entire corrupt,
nepotism centered government of
the South, while the U.S. and
ARVN militaries went about
holding back the VC and NVA
until a proper government could
be formed. It also should have
invaded the North and rooted out
the NVA at their source:
downtown Hanoi, rather than
wasting its time bombing the Ho
Chi Minh Trail. Who ever heard
of trying to stop an enemy’s
supplies by bombing the route
they come over when you can just
as easily dismantle the source
from which they come, by invading
and occupying the
offending country itself?
The same is true with respect to
ISIS. While President Obama’s
caution to date in determining
how to engage ISIS has been
praiseworthy, he is getting
dangerously close to pulling his
punches. If the government of
IRAQ can’t get its act together,
replaced the entire corrupt,
religiously partisan thing.
America shouldn't stand around
with its hands in its pockets
waiting for the leaders of Iraq
to decide among
themselves which religious sect
is going to get what spoils
after the war is over… instead
it should replace
the whole damned lot of the
politicians that run Iraq today…
under military force if
necessary... and put in place as
a counter a locally elected
government where those elected
are told that if so much as a
hint of corruption
becomes attached to any one of
them they will be pulled from
office... by the U.S.
military... and exiled to
western Anbar Province for the
next 10 years, or until the case
can be proven one way or the
other.
If we are going to
get involved in wars that
require nation building, then by
God let’s build the nation
properly instead of pussy
footing around. And if you are
wondering what nation building
has to do with ISIS, it’s
because of our failure to
rebuild Iraq—as a functioning
nation—that ISIS came into
existence and became the problem
it is. Iran is right: we caused
this mess by mismanaging our escapades
in Iraq over the past 10 years.
As to the concept of a limited
air campaign degrading and
destroying ISIS, the American
public should not fall victim to
this farce and begin believing
that such an outcome is
possible, no matter what our
leaders in Washington tell us.
The only thing that will be
degraded without troops on the
ground in Iraq is America’s
wallet. If we want to degrade
and destroy ISIS America must
put some U.S. soldiers on the
ground, point them in the
direction of Syria and order
them to “dismantle the source
from which [the enemy] comes by
invading with troops and
occupying the offending
country.” Or put another way, if
a non-functioning state like
Syria is one of the contributing
factors to the
turmoil happening in that part
of the world, and America is
suffering from that turmoil,
then America should step in and
overthrow the government of
Syria, clean the streets of the
rebels and fundamentalists that
see armed rebellion as their
route to power, and rebuild that
country too. Period.
Right about now some of our
readers are thinking, this guy
is crazy. What he is promoting
is that every time we get
involved in war we rebuild the
government of the country we
take ground in.
Yup. That is right.
First, win
the war. Don’t mess around with
incremental kinetic games, go in
and win the damned war by taking
the fighting to the source,
occupying the safe harbor the
enemy’s leaders practice their
craft from, and obliterating
their existence.
Second, once
the war is won put in place a
functioning government able to
defend itself against both other
nations and locally inspired
counterinsurgencies,
economically grow the country,
such that it becomes a useful part of the
confederation of nations that
blanket the earth.
As our lead-in to this story
says: it’s important to get the
war against ISIS right. And
while President Obama’s caution
about engaging in this war is
laudable, as the Failure Factors
of Vietnam show, taking too
incremental an approach can
cause a country—like America—to
lose the wars it finds itself
sucked into. This
was the case in Vietnam, and it
may well be the case in the
fight we are ramping up against
ISIS.
Cleaning Up The Loose Ends
Finally, let us complete our
analysis of how America found
itself in the Vietnam War, and
tie up the lose ends as regards
the causal factors involved and
their relationship to what is
happening with ISIS today.
As we have shown, there was no
start date to the Vietnam War
per se. Instead there was a
starting period. This is
important because it complicates
our efforts to describe the
causes of the Vietnam War.
Astute readers will understand
that it is this difficulty to
see the impetus towards war as
it is occurring and unfolding
that makes it so difficult for a
President to know that his
actions are incrementally moving
America towards war… a war
he risks losing.
In Vietnam
the U.S. went to war for a
number of reasons, all of which
evolved from prior actions, as
well as shifted over time...
most of which were barely
observed, and when they were
observed, understood. One of the
biggest was that nearly every
American President considered
first the Vietminh, and then its
1960s successor the National
Liberation Front (NLF), as well
as the government of North
Vietnam as finally led by Ho Chi
Minh—as agents of global
Communism. Believing that
Communism was an illness that
the world did not need, America
failed to see that by taking the
side of the French she was
lining up on the wrong side of
history… by supporting continued
Imperialism. She also failed to
see that by backing the French
America was inching itself
closer to getting involved in a
war in Vietnam on her own part.[3]
It should be understood then
that while the key reasons why
Truman gave aid to the French in
the 1950s was to help France
rebuild its economy, a secondary
reason was that he was hoping
that France would shore up the
less developed, non-Communist
nations in Southeast Asia and
prevent them from going over to
China’s side… that is, becoming
Communist countries themselves.
This same scenario played out in
what America did when George
Bush Senior got us involved in
the Middle East, albeit for a
different reason. George Bush
Senior used Iraq War #1 to toss
Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait,
but never set the local fabric
right before America left the
scene. This led to Iraq War #2,
which in turn led to the
formation of a series of
incompetent governments in Iraq,
which in turn caused the country
to become a failed state, which
in turn opened the scene for the
Kurds to seek autonomy, Turkey
to become angry with America for
the mess it created in its back
yard, Israel to become more
militant in order to send
warnings to its neighbors to
stay away and leave it alone,
Syrian rebels to take to the
field to try to create an
Islamic state in that country,
Iran to probe the region in
search of its own windows of
opportunity, and ISIS to
eventually form out of this
miasma of competing
interests—which America
created.
In the case of Vietnam,
America’s response was to commit
our country bit by bit to the
various conflicts that were
developing in the region… trying
to slowly pick them apart and
put them to bed. In the case of
Iraq in the early days… before
Obama, if you will… the same was
true. Yet because things were
not properly “put to bed” in
either case, Vietnam or Iraq,
matters in both countries got
worse.
In Vietnam as things went from
bad to worse (as they are now
doing in Iraq) American leaders
forgot their original goals and
reasons for involvement and
instead opted to try to fix
things by, among other things,
bringing more players into the
picture. The goal in Vietnam was
to get as many other countries
on board and behind America as
possible… to support our new
program… whatever it was.
You
can see the same thing happening
in Iraq today. Things in Iraq have
steadily gone downhill since the
beginning of Iraq War #2. As
that has occurred, America’s
goals have changed. Now that
things are at an absolute low,
America is frantically trying to
sign up allies to get behind our
new plan and program… whatever
it is.
The problem is that there is no
plan. There wasn’t one in
Vietnam and there isn’t one for
Iraq either… just a plan to have
a plan. And so as more and more
countries signed on to
America’s leadership in Vietnam,
so they are doing today
in Iraq. The problem is that without a plan
inertia will push the coalition
in the direction of everyone
agreeing that the coalition must
stay the course, gear up, prepare for war, and engage the
enemy directly on the ground in
the long slog of a battle… something
the coalition is today vowing it
will not do... but will soon
find itself forced to do.
Why must this become the
outcome? Because the only other
alternative is to withdraw from
the region and leave it to its
own devices.
That’s what happened in Vietnam
and it’s what is happening today
in Iraq with ISIS. Each of the
five Failure Factors has done
its part to pressure the
U.S. into feeling that it has no
choice but to go to war
against ISIS. To make sure it is
not the only fool at this party,
America is frantically running
around the world trying to sign
up other countries willing to
don costumes of care too.
In Vietnam, each American
President, one after the other,
believed that a U.S. withdrawal
would result in a Communist
victory. Has the same happened
today with President Obama? Does
he feel that by turning his back
on the Middle East ISIS will
win, and there will be an
“Islamic victory”? That the
radical elements of this new
form of Islam will soon be on
our doorstep… threatening to
turn America into an Islamic
Caliphate?
Back during the early days of
Vietnam Eisenhower was convinced
that the local people wanted a
Communist government… just as
many in the world think the same
is true in the Middle East—the
people in that part of the world
want an Islamic government.
Eisenhower said in 1956 that if
elections been held as was
scheduled by the U.N. “Ho Chi
Minh would have won 80% of the
vote.” Isn’t that strange? The
people of the region wanted the
French out, and they wanted the
ability to rule their own
country. We on the other hand
wanted our chosen
surrogate—France—to rule the
country… simply because we
feared Communism.
Is that happening in Iraq today?
Do we want our chosen
surrogate—the government
currently in power in Iraq—to
rule the country… when perhaps
the people of that country want
someone or something else? Yes,
ISIS should not be allowed to
rule Iraq, but after we go and
expend American blood and
treasure to defeat ISIS, who
will end up ruling Iraq? If the
problem of building a
functioning government and
economy is not addressed, then
all the fighting it takes to
degrade and destroy ISIS will
be for naught. A plan is
needed…. something more than
“hey world, join us in bombing
ISIS so that we can degrade and
destroy them.”
Is Political Legacy At Play
Here?
Then there is the matter of
political legacy. One of the
weaknesses of our political
system is that elected leaders
do things to 1) keep themselves
in office, 2) hold on to and
increase their power, and 3)
burnish their legacy. In the
mean time
we the people suffer
as they make decisions not for
the good of the nation, but for
their own good.
Back in the early days of
Vietnam the big worry was that
if we did not help the French
sustain their suzerainty in
Vietnam we would be accused of
“having lost Vietnam.” More
specifically, whichever
President that was in office
when this occurred would be
tagged with the label of having
lost a country to Communism. At
the time one of the big
questions banging around the
nation was “Who lost China” to
Communism?
That being the case, no one
wanted to be accused of having
lost Vietnam to Communism too... and
thus becoming the first
President to tip over the first domino
in the stack.
The result of this kind of
thinking was
that it served to further
reinforce incrementalism by
causing each Administration to
pass on to the next the rational
that Vietnam had to be saved at
all costs. Almost without
recognizing it, this concept
soon became an American value:
America does not walk away from
its commitments. Truman,
Eisenhower and Kennedy all gave
their word that the United
States would stand by its South
Vietnamese allies. If the United
States abandoned the South
Vietnamese, its word would be
regarded as unreliable by other
governments, friendly or not.
America’s own credibility would
thus become suspect.
The result was that this
stubborn determination to stay
with a lost cause continued
America’s slide towards war in
Vietnam. Is the same thing happening
today with Iraq today? Is Obama
afraid to be pegged as the
President that lost Iraq? The
Middle East?
How About Personality And
Temperament?
Finally, we come to the issue of
the experience, personality, and
temperament of the Presidents
that rule our country. In their
own way, these factors too play
into the five Failure Factors we
have outlined. Because each
President is different, their
personality and personal belief
systems play an important role
in pushing America towards what
might be called unwavering
commitments to causes that only
they can explain to themselves.
Yet when this happens, the
causes our Presidents’ have that
cause them to be committed to...
become our causes.
Dwight Eisenhower, having
commanded soldiers in battle,
knew of the risks of war and the
difficulty of winning them. His
personal feeling was that the
U.S. could not fight and win a
land war in Southeast Asia, and
so he acted to restrain
America’s involvement in what
France was doing in Vietnam by
encouraging France to act on its
own. Unfortunately, because
America was providing the money
and material that France was
“acting with,” this had the
impact of supporting France and
thus tying America’s credibility
to France’s actions.
George Bush Senior acted with
the same sort of caution as
Eisenhower did when he set about
tossing Saddam Hussein out of
Kuwait. What he did not suspect
however was that this would set
up a scenario where his own son
would have to go in and finish
the job the son felt that the
father had left undone. Or at
least, that was the way it was
portrayed. Either way, the five
Failure Factors played their
role by linking these two family
member Presidents' actions in
such a way that their combined
effect created a momentum
towards the war we now face with
ISIS.
John Kennedy, full of piss and
vinegar but coming out of one
foreign policy blunder after
another, felt he had to prove
his resolve to the American
people and especially those he
considered his Communist
adversaries: Khrushchev and Mao
Tse Tung. Because of this, while
he was extremely reluctant to
involve America in any war
efforts in Vietnam, even going
to the extent of stating that
the South Vietnamese would have
to win their war for themselves,
still sent more American
soldiers into the country,
allowing them to accompany ARVN
soldiers into battle.
If he had lived, Kennedy might
have stopped the momentum the
five Failure Factors were
bringing about in driving
America towards war… but he
didn’t. And so when Lyndon
Johnson came into office his
personality took over. A tough
and somewhat uncouth man
himself, he made no bones about
the fact that we were at war in
Vietnam. On a personal basis, he
saw the Vietnam War as a test of
his own mettle. Supremely
confident of America’s
greatness, it never occurred to
him that the enemy was more
dedicated to getting things
their way than he was in winning
the war. His confidence was so
great that he exhorted those of
us fighting in-country to “nail
the coonskin to the wall.” To
President Johnson, Vietnam was
just a hunting expedition.
Bringing the lessons of that era
back to today’s dilemma,
clearly, Lyndon Johnson and
Barack Obama are different
people. For one thing, Johnson’s
personality is the opposite of
Barack Obama’s. Yet consider
this: President Obama’s
popularity rating is at its
lowest level ever. Because of
this, there is a decent
likelihood that his party will
lose the next Presidential
election and the Republicans
will win.
If that happens, we can almost
certainly expect a hawk in
office… perhaps another Lyndon
Johnson… someone who will want
to put an end once and for all
to the existence of the Islamic
fundamental radicals roaming the
Middle East and causing havoc
around the world. If that
happens, the five Failure
Factors will have accomplished
their goal: America will be
fully committed to and engaged
in a full scale war in the
Middle East. A war it never
planned for, but as certainly as
anything our country has ever
done, inexorably rode a warhorse
towards until it could no longer
be ignored.
We wish President Obama well in
choosing his options with
respect to taking on ISIS. We
encourage him to act with
caution. But most importantly,
we implore him to get the war
against ISIS right. If there is
going to be one, let’s not make
it another Vietnam War where we
stay on our side of the fence
while they get to go home to
regroup whenever they need to.
Put troops on the ground and
send them wherever they need go
to find and exterminate the
enemy: Iraq, Syria, Iran,
Jordan, Saudi Arabia… wherever
the enemy is, we need be. If our
President won’t do this, then
don’t start this war.
Thank You
Footnotes:
[1] After all, that’s why countries tend towards
Imperialism, because by doing so the people of the
Imperialist country can live off of the backs of the peoples
of the subjugated country. For proof, see: Russia today,
Vladimir Putin, and his actions w.r.t. Ukraine. - To return to your place in the text click here:
[2]Admittedly, Iraq’s leaders have had the
chance to turn their focus away from running the country
towards bickering with each other for control because
America was only too anxious to pack up and leave the
country in the first place. Thus, while the blame exists
with them for not paying attention to the needs of their
country, and instead jockeying among themselves for control,
the blame rests with us for allowing this to happen by
leaving before the nation was ready to govern itself.
- To return to your place in the text click here:
[3] Back then U.S.
policymakers, and, because of the propaganda they broadcast
to the U.S. public, most Americans, regarded communism as
the antithesis of all we as a nation held dear.
We were told that China's communists abhorred democracy, when in
fact the truth was that politically Chinese communist
leaders practiced localized
forms of democracy that elected leaders at the national
level, who were then granted dictatorial power for the
length of their term of office. Little different from
parliamentary systems that are subservient to Kings and
Queens (see: England today), what the American people were
told was a distortion at best.
We were also told that communists violated human rights. If
you were a rich “landlord” running a farm that forced
serfdom upon the local villagers so that you could produce
crops, sell them and keep the profits for yourself while
your serfs starved to death, then
it’s true. In a case like that your rights were violated when the
communists forced you to sell your land to them, so that it
could be redistributed to the peasants that farmed it. (see: Pearl S.
Buck, This Good Earth).
We were also told that communists pursued military
aggression. This too was true, if your country was backward,
full of starving peasants and being run by corrupt oligarchs
that lived in luxory while the other 96% of the
country dressed in rags and... again... starved to death.
With a death rate from starvation
running into the tens of
thousands each day, as was the case in China in 1946, the communists
felt that turning
to military means to force the existing government out of
office made perfect sense.
We were also told that communists created
closed state economies that barely traded with capitalist
countries. Here we beg to differ. What the communists
actually did was practice central planning. Central planning
is not a form of politics. It is a form of economic
management. On that basis, it is accurate to say that
communists practice a different form of economics than the
U.S. does. But our question is, since when has that been a crime? England did
back when the world saw communism as a threat, and still does.
Ever since the end of WWII England has operated as a
quasi-socialist country. So too has Australia... and it
still does. And so too does most of Europe. As to communist
countries not trading with the west, this complaint sounds
suspiciously like the same one England, Germany, France and
Portugal used when they invaded China and took control over
Hong Kong, Macao, Weihai, Shanghai, and several other
cities. They said they had to take control of China's
territory because China refused to trade with them.
Our point is that back in the 1950s - 1960s the only people
whose purpose was served by the hysterical propaganda that
was spread about how bad
communism was for America were the American leaders who sat
in office and would do and say anything to keep themselves
in office. They portrayed communism as a contagious disease, saying that
if it took hold in one nation it would spread to others too…
like dominoes. What no one paused to ask was the question as
to why a people of a country would welcome a new form of
government, if the one they had was giving them all that they
needed? Americans would not swap what they had for
communism, so what was the worry? As to whether China,
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos or some other Southeast Asian
country would… well, if it brought those people a better
life, then why not? In 1949, when the Communist Party came
to power in China, Washington feared that Vietnam would
become the first domino in Asia (the next ones would be
Thailand, Australia and the Philippines), and in the process force
France out of Vietnam.
Looking back now, we should have let them.
- To return to your place in the text click here:
Like
this article? Let us know by helping us with our scholarship fund efforts. A
$30.00 donation
to our
/span>
Scholarship Fund
will help us get one step closer to helping another deserving High School
graduate attend college. Your donation is tax deductible and your kindness
will go father than you think in making
it possible for another young American to fulfill their dream of a college
education. Thank You!
Original Site Design and Construction
By John Hart, Class 07-66. Ongoing site design and
maintenance
courtesy Class 09-67.
Content and design Copyright
1998 - 2014 by ArmySignalOCS.com.