The LuLac Edition #104, Dec. 4, 2006

PHOTO INDEX: PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON AND PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH.


TALE OF TWO WARS

TWO TEXANS

TWO PRESIDENTS

Many have asked me if there really is a true comparison between the Vietnam and the Iraq War. The answer is YES. Let me count the ways:

THE GENERALS

In Vietnam, the Generals misled President Johnson and had him convinced that military success was possible. With Iraq, President Bush misled his Generals with what he wanted to do, fight terrorism and continue his search for weapons of mass destruction.

INTERNAL STRIFE

In Vietnam, North Vietnam killed the South Vietnam forces as well as the U.S. forces. Even though there were snipers and citizen sympathizers, the enemy was defined. There were rules of engagement, hills to take, areas to patrol and cities to conquer. In Iraq, after the defeat of the Republican Guard and the Iraq Army, the peace keeping has become deadlier than the actual war. While North Vietnam and South Vietnam fought, they did not kill each other in their own countries. With Iraq, each religious sector is killing each other for a set of beliefs that goes back centuries. Plus, this war has ceased to be a regular war. Enemies now use terrorism and methods of assassination to eliminate their enemy. The smartest thing for any U.S. military person or private contractor over there is to just get out of the way.

DEFENSE SECRETARIES

There are many comparisons between Robert MacNamera, President Johnson’s Secretary of Defense and Donald Rumsfeld, President’s Bush’s choice. MacNamera kept fighting for the objectives of the war, even though he knew it was a doomed effort. He was replaced in 1968 by Clark Clifford, a Democratic party elder from the Truman administration. It was thought that Clifford’s ability to broker some kind of negotiations with the North Vietnam officials would slow down the war. With MacNamera going to the World Bank, Clifford was regarded as a reliever coming in from the bullpen to help the Johnson Presidency.
Rumsfeld has been the biggest booster of the Iraq war and up until recently has been seen as being the architect of a failed policy. His replacement, Robert Gates is being viewed as Clifford was in 1968 as a new set of eyes that would bring fresh perspective to the war effort. The latest news that Rumsfeld warned Bush a few days before he resigned is being taken two ways. The first being that the Secretary was covering his tracks for his legacy or the fact that Bush, is indeed solid in his belief that this war could still be a success.
Both MacNamera and Rumsfeld were lightening rods for the policies of their Presidents in two controversial wars.

TREATMENT OF SOLDIERS

The men and women who fought in Vietnam were regarded as “baby killers” and “thugs”. They were certainly not welcomed with open arms and in effect were belittled for their service. It was until there was an examination of the war that the Vietnam veterans at least were acknowledged if not fully honored. A special bond of unity formed for the brethren, support groups became available for the Veterans who seemed united against the world.
The Iraq veterans were given unprecedented support and popular acclaim. That was good, given what happened to the soldiers in Vietnam. However, it got to the point in this country that if you opposed the war, or the way it was handled, you were immediately labeled as being against the troops and being unpatriotic. When I pointed out to a co-worker how much money was being spent and how many lives were lost, I was deemed as a “person against the troops”. There was a knee jerk reaction that if you were against the war, you hated the troops. Not so. But the disturbing part of this is the disunity of the troops. NPR did a two part story on how soldiers who are not disabled with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome are telling their fellow soldiers with that diagnosed medical issue that “they are cowards” and not “being manly”. Some have even accused the sick soldiers of making excuses not to return to service. It should not surprise us that a war that has divided this country has also divided its fighting force.

DEALING WITH THE LEADERS

President Johnson did his best to deal with President Thieu of South Vietnam, urging him to make certain that his troops would be trained to fight. The policy of “Vietnemization” that was a cornerstone of the Nixon administration, failed because after the U.S. pulled its support out, the troops lacked the will to fight. In Iraq, Prime Minister Malicki has different issues than Thieu. There are people killing each other, armed militias that are working at cross purposes and many mixed signals about just how much support and power Malicki has. Thieu’s undoing was the weakness of his troops and the resolve of the North. Malicki’s might not be the weakness of his own countrymen but the resolve of their individual segments to keep fighting and killing each other.

THE PEACE

Johnson began efforts to bring the warring parties to the peace table. He succeeded. But when talks stalled in 1972, it was Richard Nixon’s Christmas time bombing missions that brought the parties to an agreement. President Bush cannot bomb Iraq, because there is no defined target or enemy. The peace process will have to be resolved by partition or the emergence of a “strongman” or a neighboring country who can take control of the madness.

THE MEN

Both Presidents, Johnson and Bush got themselves way in too deep over issues that took valued resources away from the national agenda. Johnson’s “War On Poverty” and Civil Rights successes were obliterated by the Vietnam War. Bush’s strategy to keep America safe after the terrorist attack on Sept. 11th took a dreadful wrong turn that needs to be corrected.
Unlike Johnson, Bush’s political warriors have seemed to thrive on the war as an issue. Perhaps it was the “Us against Them” strategy of Carl Rove or the fact that at some point, Americans believed that Iraq was a true terror threat. But with the current election results, that supposition is all about gone. In the uncertain days ahead, President Bush must put political calculations aside and poise himself to get this country and Iraq on an even standing. History will tell the true tale but for now, there has to be some action that will separate this war from the main comparison of Vietnam: abject failure.