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.