Vietnam on the mind: Congress jockeys for position on Bush’s new plan for Iraq
There’s an awful lot of speculation on what Bush’s new plan for Iraq might be. The consensus is that it will take the form of the “go big” option: the so-called “surge.”
The details–just how large that surge will be, how long it might last, and what other policies or plans it will be tied into–remain to be seen. The plan is not just a strategic one for Bush and for Iraq, but it presents members of Congress with strategic dilemmas and decisions as well. They not only have to take a position on the merits, but in the time-honored way of most politicians, they have to decide what’s in it for them in terms of re-election.
Bush, after all, has been released from that particular consideration. He only needs to take into account his own “vision” and plan for “success” (derided here by Fred Kaplan of Slate); Bush is exempt from serving another term. So, as Kaplan writes, “He’s playing for History (most definitely with a capital H), which, he seems convinced, is on his side.”
That’s for history (or History) to decide. But history isn’t written in the present, much as some would like to think it can be. Therefore the Democrats and Republicans trying to decide right now whether to support a surge in Iraq only know what has happened in the past, in distant times and places that may or may not be analogous; try as they (or we) might, they can’t foretell the future.
John Keegan, a British writer who specializes in the history of war, opines that a surge could well be helpful in Iraq if it consists of a force of at least 50,000 troops and takes the war to the enemy rather than waging it defensively. Robert Tracinski, a disciple of Ayn Rand and head of The Intellectual Activist, thinks the only worthwhile approach would be to wage war–literal, not metaphorical–against Iran (this option is probably not going to be part of Bush’s “go big” plan–he’s thinking big, but not that big).
The jockeying for position goes on among members of Congress, with McCain being a major proponent of the “surge” policy, some Democrats (and a few Republicans) such as Biden saying a definite nay, and Democrat Carl Levin, new chief of the Armed Forces Committee, taking a middle, noncommittal, road:
While he would oppose an open-ended commitment, Mr. Levin said, he would not rule out supporting a plan to dispatch more troops if the proposal was tied to a broader strategy to begin reducing American involvement and sending troops home.
The dark shades of Vietnam hover over the proceedings, of course. Those who remember history know that US fighting forces had left Vietnam for several years when the US Congress pulled the financial plug on the South Vietnamese, against the will of then President Ford. Can, and will, there be a repeat?
As Kaplan points out, in this case it would be much more difficult for Congress to accomplish similar ends in Iraq:
…the Democrats are still plagued by the charge that they lost [Vietnam]. If Congress cuts off, or sharply cuts back, funding for the Iraq war, and if things subsequently get worse, who will be blamed in 2008 and beyond? The question answers itself. Purse strings are unwieldy instruments for such purposes, in any case. Few legislators of either party favor a total, immediate pullout from Iraq. Yet even if Congress somehow collectively decided how many troops should be withdrawn or redeployed, and what those left behind should do, it would be another task entirely to translate that decision into budgetary terms””and politically all but impossible to do so while the White House and its supporters sternly warn from the sidelines that the cuts will “hurt the troops.”
In Vietnam, it was relatively easy to cut funding to the ARVN. Because Vietnamization had been successfully accomplished, in the sense that there were no more US combat troops there (and had not been for years), Congress’s betrayal of the South Vietnamese to their fate was part of a foreign policy appropriations bill, the Foreign Assistance Act of December 1974, which was vetoed by President Ford but overridden and passed by the hugely Democratic Congress of the time.
Since Iraqization is far from complete at the moment, and American combat forces are most assuredly still in Iraq, appropriations for this war don’t come under the heading of foreign aid. Any withdrawal of funds would be part of the appropriations for the military as a whole, and that probably wouldn’t be a popular stance in this post-9/11 world, even for most Democrats, except those whose constituencies are profoundly and markedly liberal/Left.
And so Congressional leaders who might want to withdraw funds to Iraq and stymie Bush’s “go big” plans are in an interesting position, lacking the tools used by their Vietnam-era predecessors–although, if Iraqization were successful, it paradoxically would give Congress the power it had (and exercised) in late 1974, the power to abandon the country for which so many had previously sacrificed, when the cost had shrunk down to a relatively bearable one.
Hopefully, Saddam’s execution will get the “fence-sitters” in Iraq to get with the program.
Keegan link please? You’ve linked instead to a barking dog.
Keegan:
“[T]he neo-conservative vision of turning Iraq into a Western-style democracy was totally alien to the wishes of the Iraqi people.”
Anony, quoting Keegan: “[T]he neo-conservative vision of turning Iraq into a Western-style democracy was totally alien to the wishes of the Iraqi people.”
How, I wonder, would Keegan know this? Has he seen the results of a secret ballot? And what exactly is “Western-style democracy”, as opposed to … what? Soviet-style?
More deeply, what does it even mean — that in Keegan’s view the Iraqi people don’t wish to have their wishes considered? In which case, why should anyone care about their wishes? If, on the other hand, the Iraqi people do wish to have their wishes considered, then in what way would they not want democracy?
And the neo-conservative vision of turning Iraq into a Western-style democracy was totally alien to the wishes of the Iraqi people.
Gee, it seems to me that the “Iraqi people,” considering their enthusiastic participation in “Western-style” DEMOCRATIC elections that have been held in Iraq, might consider the neoconservative “vision” of Democracy less alien than Keegan wants to admit. “Totally alien”? I think NOT. Not if turnout for DEMOCRATIC elections is any gauge.
Interesting speculation with regard to Bush’s ineligibility to run for a third term.
FDR faced a similar decision in 1940. War had begun and Roosevelt was extremely pro-Britain, although the country was still divided on intervention of any sort.
Would history have been different if FDR were working under the present rule? As it happened, the Republicans nominated an interventionist, Wendell Wilkie, but who would have been placed on the ballot by the donks?
Lend-Lease, anyone? The Draft, guys? Destroyers for bases, ladies and gentlemen?
The mind reels…if it weren’t for interventionist northeastern Republicans, including GWBush’s grandfather Prescott, history would still have been different.
These speculations are what make History a fun game…
Is Kaplan serious about that? I have yet to see it mentioned except as a point of pride by the Democratic Party and/or the Modern American Left.
Links corrected.
I echo Sally’s post.
As to pulling funding, Iraq is not fighting another nation funded by even more nations as was North Vietnam. It’s fighting (mostly) internally, though I know Iran is helping. Once it is militarily capable of controlling its own borders and affairs internally, it should be able to sustain itself with or without our funding. In fact, according to Iraqthemodel, its GDP is now higher than at any time during Saddam’s era, and with more money going back to the country than to, say, palaces and the like.
I know Bush says that the goal is for Iraq to sustain itself, but that isn’t what the overall strategy in the war should be for Iraq. Bush is nearsighted, he can only see to the extent to which his anti-colonial and anti-nation building desires allows him to see.
And so Congressional leaders who might want to withdraw funds to Iraq and stymie Bush’s “go big” plans are in an interesting position, lacking the tools used by their Vietnam-era predecessors–although, if Iraqization were successful, it paradoxically would give Congress the power it had (and exercised) in late 1974, the power to abandon the country for which so many had previously sacrificed, when the cost had shrunk down to a relatively bearable one.
That is why Grim’s strategy here, Neo, is much better than anything the politicians can or has come up with.
In response to your pod cast.
If it is as Shrink says, then doesn’t that mean Republicans aren’t evil? That racism isn’t evil? It seems like doublespeaking really, saying there isn’t evil, but acting as if there is if you go with Shrink’s path.
Projection, Neo, is the counter-part to discipline.
Hehe, hate, Neo. Coming from, Siggy. Don’t let Co**ed hear that, he might accuse you of being “radicalized”. I think it is a two fer because you can feel good that Saddam is dead or punished, and you can feel good because you don’t have to get your hands dirty, only the US has, and since the US is impure, well that is just the natural order to the Left.
Siggy is right about that death penalty thing. They just really believe that one life is equal to another, but they aren’t willing to kill one person to save the lives of a million.
Iraqis are barbaric and chaotic enough not to really care and be plagued by the virus of democracy, Neo. Their chaotic society has other problems, true, but everything has benefits and disadvantages.
Well, Neo. It isn’t insanity, so much as it is weakness. Some people are just weak, Neo. You can’t count on them for anything, not even to defend their own lives, let alone yours.
As Pat says, it is the sympathy for the powerful. What does the victims offer the Left? No money, no glory, and no power. But Saddam, riches and power he has, if you side with him.
Assad is just the enemy of the Left’s enemy. The age old political process, Neo, functions again.
I remember Ozymandias. After all, the duty of evil is to destroy and die. The duty of the good is to protect and to build for the young and the defenseless.
You should read the Grim’s analysis of Iraqi tribes contained in the link, because it explains how the Arab world works. And how you might resolve some of the problems with their honor and shame culture.
Of COURSE the Dems lost Vietnam after it had been won. “Annoying old guy has trouble with his memory and facts.See verbatim below. This is called history,and the lestist Dems want to lose another war for us now.
Address by President Gerald R. Ford Before a Joint Session of the Congress Reporting on United States Foreign Policy
April 10, 1975
“A vast human tragedy has befallen our friends in Vietnam and Cambodia. Tonight I shall not talk only of obligations arising from legal documents.
Under five Presidents and 12 Congresses, the United States was engaged in Indochina. After years of effort, we negotiated, under the most difficult circumstances, a settlement which made it possible for us to remove our military forces and bring home with pride our American prisoners. This settlement, if its terms had been adhered to, would have permitted our South Vietnamese ally, with our material and moral support, to maintain its security and rebuild after two decades of war.
The chances for an enduring peace after the last American fighting man left Vietnam in 1973 rested on two publicly stated premises: first, that if necessary, the United States would help sustain the terms of the Paris accords it signed 2 years ago, and second, that the United States would provide adequate economic and military assistance to South Vietnam.
Let us refresh our memories for just a moment. The universal consensus in the United States at that time, late 1972, was that if we could end our own involvement and obtain the release of our prisoners, we would provide adequate material support to South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese, from the moment they signed the Paris accords, systematically violated the cease-fire and other provisions of that agreement. Flagrantly disregarding the ban on the infiltration of troops, the North Vietnamese illegally introduced over 350,000 men into the South.
In the face of this situation, the United States-torn as it was by the emotions of a decade of war-was unable to respond. We deprived ourselves by law of the ability to enforce the agreement, thus giving North Vietnam assurance. that it could violate that agreement with impunity. Next, we reduced our economic and arms aid to South Vietnam. Finally, we signaled our increasing reluctance to give any support to that nation struggling for its survival.
Encouraged by these developments, the North Vietnamese, in recent months, began sending even their reserve divisions into South Vietnam. Some 20 divisions, virtually their entire army, are now in South Vietnam.
The Government of South Vietnam, uncertain of further American assistance, hastily ordered a strategic withdrawal to more defensible positions. This extremely difficult maneuver, decided upon without consultations, was poorly executed, hampered by floods of refugees, and thus led to panic. The results are painfully obvious and profoundly moving.”
President Ford then requested emergency funds to assist a
If Keegan is wrong in his evals of Iraqis, then he loses some authority in his surge advice. I think that was the point.
We’ll see how the surge goes. I’m betting 25 K, tops.
Overiding a veto takes a two thirds majority. Do you really think that was just Democrats who wanted to end that war???
As someone who is old enough to remember it, EVERYONE was tired of propping up the corrupt S. Vietnames government.
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our ‘surge’ will not include too many of these types…
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html
Steve – clarification. I think annoying old guy’s point was that the Democrats didn’t think they were “plagued” but were congratulating themselves still.
Everyone:
Follow that Keegan quote link, BTW. Anonymous lifts out a single quote to create a particular impression.
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military
disgraceful.
What is disgraceful is we have enemy propagandists that are actually believed by Americans.
The Assistant Village Idiot is correct. It’s the “plagued” that I found unbelievable. Are not the modern comparisons to Vietnam of the war in Iraq effectively endorsements of having turned all of Vietnam over to the Communists, that the surrender was the proper resolution? If the Democrats were really “plagued” by the loss, would they bring it up so often that it’s practically their leifmotif for the war?
“. In fact, according to Iraqthemodel, its GDP is now higher than at any time during Saddam’s era”
Which, in and of itself, is a good reason not to trust anything on that sham site. The facts show that the Iraqi economy has collapsed. Oil exports are barely a quarter of 1990 levels.
ITM is run by the Pentagon isn’t it?
“ITM is run by the Pentagon isn’t it?”
Yep. And your comments are generated by the Supreme Islamic Council in Iran, aren’t they?
You don’t even read the site. It’s run by local Iraqis who have had their fair share of complaints against the US government as well. Idiot.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=65
You see, Justaguy, while oil exports from Iraq have dropped off from 1990 levels, the price of oil in real dollars has gone up significantly since then. In addition, other aspects of Iraq’s economy have been able to flourish- entrepreneurs and the like. (Why do I feed the trolls?)
Iraq’s GDP in 1990 was $77 billion in real dollars.
Greg Daniels: In the 1974 Congressional election, here were the stats: the House was 66.8% Democrat, and the Senate was 60% (to 38% Republican; there was one Conservative and one Independent). I don’t have a record of the actual voting, but there didn’t have to be a whole lot of Republican crossover to have overridden the Presidential veto, if the Democrats were solidly behind the funding cutoff as a bloc.
Here‘s an article that goes into some of the voting history, although it doesn’t contain a breakdown of the Democrat/Republican divide.
Everyone:
Follow that Keegan quote link, BTW. Anonymous lifts out a single quote to create a particular impression.
More Keegan, from the same article:
“[Rumsfeld’s] biggest failing, though, was his inability to provide adequate numbers of troops to control post-war Iraq, and his disastrous decision to allow the neo-conservative elements of the Pentagon — many of whom occupied quite senior positions — to take control of the post-conflict administration of Iraq.”
As usual, this particular Anony hasn’t the slightest idea of what the word “neo-conservative” might mean.
Any closer to figuring out how Keegan, or anyone else, might know the wishes of the Iraqi people without actually asking them, Anony? Any closer to figuring out, in other words, how you can even consider the wishes of the Iraqi people without implicating yourself in “democracy”?
Hmm?
What’s that you say?
Well, the best way has to be to ask them – and then you can discard whatever Keegan thinks in the trashcan where it belongs.
Check it out.
“The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group.
The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak.
But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as “liberators” or “occupiers,” 71% of all respondents say “occupiers.”
That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him.
The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters.
The findings come as the U.S. administration is struggling to quell the insurgency and turn over limited sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government by the end of June. Interviews this week in Baghdad underscored the findings.
“I’m not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein,” says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. “But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye.”
‘I would shoot … right now’
Bearing the brunt of Iraqis’ ill feeling: U.S. troops. The most visible symbol of the occupation, they are viewed by many Iraqis as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country’s people, religion and traditions.
POLL METHODOLOGY
The USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll of 3,444 Iraqis, the largest and most comprehensive poll in Iraq since last year’s invasion, was administered by the Pan Arab Research Center of Dubai.
Interviews were conducted between March 22 and April 2, with the exception of the governate of Sulaymaniya where interviews ran through April 9. All interviews were conducted in person in the respondent’s home, with an average interview length of 70 minutes. The cooperation rate — the percentage of those contacted who agreed to be interviewed — was 98%.
Two of the three governates in the predominantly Kurdish region, which has its own administrative agencies and has been largely independent from Baghdad for the past decade, did not participate in the poll. To have a full representation of Kurdish views in the poll,
The only thing worse than governing and leading by polls, is formulating military occupation strategy on polls.
None of the polls actually matter. Because with enough power, you can formulate any belief you wish amongst the populace. Because giving the people what they want, ala Athens, is never really wise. Because most people, let alone Iraqis, don’t have the time to figure out the long term ramifications of their actions. Which were one reason why the Iranians hailed the mullahs as liberators and what not, and then realized they made a small and slight mistake.
The true fire way to win Iraqi loyalty is still as described by Grim at blackfive. None of this Western decadence and hair pulling over “occupation” as opposed to the so called positive “liberation” perspective, has anything to do with true loyalty.
“We like what you did but we don’t like you.” The Arab world is full of contradictions. Let them have a generation of studying logic and math instead of just the Koran and then see how they view the world.
But if you ask the Iraqi people what they want, Anony, isn’t that getting dangerously close to “democracy” — which the Iraqi people are not supposed to want? Are you only supposed to ask them by means of a poll (accurate 19 times out of 20) rather than a ballot? Or are you only supposed to ask them once, then never again? Or are you only supposed to ask them about Americans, but nothing else? Why, in fact, don’t you ask them whether or not they want democracy? Or ask them, whether by poll or ballot, whether or not they ever wish to be asked what they want? Hmm?
Any closer to figuring out how Keegan, or anyone else, might know the wishes of the Iraqi people without actually asking them, Anony? Any closer to figuring out, in other words, how you can even consider the wishes of the Iraqi people without implicating yourself in “democracy”?
Hmm?
What’s that you say?
What Keegan wrote:
“[T]he neo-conservative vision of turning Iraq into a Western-style democracy was totally alien to the wishes of the Iraqi people.”
fyi …
Murhaf Jouejati, adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, said it was obvious that most Iraqis were thrilled at throwing off the yoke of oppression, but that the looting and chaos that has followed provide an ominous sign of the kinds of violent forces the war has unleashed, and how hard it will be to contain them.
“There has not been a single day of democracy in Iraq in its history,” he said. “It is still a tribal and clan-oriented society. Democracy needs a social infrastructure that does not exist at all in Iraq, or elsewhere in the region.”
Judith Kipper, the director of the Middle East Forum at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said that there was, in fact, growing pressure for change in the region, largely from the exploding numbers of frustrated young Arabs with few prospects of good jobs or the kind of education that could provide one. Experience has shown, though, that this has never translated into a yearning for a Jeffersonian upheaval, she said.
“There is a real craving for something better — to have jobs, entertainment, education,” she said. “But they don’t want Western-style democracies. Absolutely not. We should get it out of our heads that their societies are going to start looking like us.”
David Ransom, a diplomat who spent his career in the Middle East and was U.S. ambassador to Bahrain during the Clinton administration, said that open elections, if they could actually be staged, might produce even grimmer results, because many alienated Arabs would choose fundamentalist regimes if given a chance.
“I firmly believe that even if we could get democracies there, we aren’t going to like the results,” said Ransom, now a scholar at the Middle East Institute. “I spent 30 years looking for grassroots democratic movements in the Middle East and I didn’t find any.”
James Sterngold. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif., Apr 13, 2003.
See also:
Can Iraq Become a Democracy?
Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution
Rethinking Iraq:
An American Ambassador’s Experience in Baghdad
Edward Peck
Policy Brief, Middle East Institute
Messy Democracy
Washington Post, Apr 8, 2003
Editorial
In Vietnam, it was relatively easy to cut funding to the ARVN. Because Vietnamization had been successfully accomplished, in the sense that there were no more US combat troops there (and had not been for years), Congress’s betrayal of the South Vietnamese to their fate was part of a foreign policy appropriations bill, the Foreign Assistance Act of December 1974, which was vetoed by President Ford but overridden and passed by the hugely Democratic Congress of the time.
First of all, Gerald Ford did not veto the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. He signed it on Dec 30, 1974 with some reservations expressed in his signing statement. You can go the
Library of Congress Bill Summary and Status search for the 93rd Congress, change the search from ‘word/phrase’ to ‘bill number’ and enter ‘S.3394’. If you click on ‘Major Congressional Actions’ link, it will show you that this bill was passed in the Senate on 12/4/1974, passed in the house on 12/11/1974 and signed by the president (Ford) on 12/30/1974. I have seen this claim elsewhere that Ford vetoed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, but it just is not true.
In Ford’s Signing Statement he expresses some concern that Congress had reduced economic assistance to South Vietnam. There is no mention of ending military assistance. If you go to the CRS summary link in Library of Congress search on this bill, you will see that the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 “Provides that after June 30, 1976, no military assistance shall be furnished to South Vietnam unless authorized under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign Military Sales Act.” I could not find the full text of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 online, but this summary from the library of Congress indicates that the so called “cut off of military assistance” to South Vietnam was not going to happen until more than 1 year after South Vietnam fell in April 1975. Furthermore, this language is not a cut off of military assistance at all. It simply says that after June 30, 1976 any military assistance to South Vietnam has to be approved by Congress. It does not cut off all military assistance at all.
It looks to me like the whole claim the Democrats in Congress cause the collapse of South Vietnam by passing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 is even sillier than what I previously thought is was.
I think it is time we stop trying to find people to blame and admit that South Vietnam collapsed like a house of cards in 1975, because it had a corrupt and incompetent government and military. The US military stopped the North Vietnamese from taking over South Vietnam, but they could not create a government in South Vietnam that could defend itself.
It’s too bad the enemies of America doesn’t share mikeca’s views, because they were certainly able to create a government in North Vietnam that could conquer not only South Vietnam but invade Cambodia as well.
So, Anony, you’ve found some self-styled “experts” on what the Iraqi people are supposed think and want, few of whom are actually even Iraqi themselves. And these “experts” agree that the Iraqi people don’t want to be consulted, or have a say, in what they want, yes? Why, then, should we, or anyone else, care what they want, when they don’t care enough to even wish to be asked? Hmm?
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our ‘surge’ will not include too many of these types…
I followed the link & viewed the videos – 2 of soldiers teasing children, which the commentor apparently finds ominous. The 3rd was of some soldiers punishing looters by crushing their getaway car. Contrary to what appears to be the commentor’s point I think there is a need for MORE crushing of looter-cars. In fact I think we need to shoot adult looters on sight instead of merely destroying their transportation.
Yeah Sally, you’re right, forget I mentioned it.
And of course, mikeca, once the corrupt Vietnamese government fell, the Vietnamese people prospered under their new masters (except those who were killed by the allegedly uncorrupt new regime, or sent off to be re-educated, but they were probably just whiners and malcontents, who didn’t appreciate the joys of Communisn.)
Yes, the Vietnamese lived happily and safely in the new Peoples’ Paradise, joyously liberated from corruption and incompetence.
This must be why so many of them escaped from said government, sailing across sea in leaky boats, and why we have “Little Saigon” in California, today.
Oh, how some can read things and see only what they wish amazes me. Still.
“Furthermore, this language is not a cut off of military assistance at all. It simply says that after June 30, 1976 any military assistance to South Vietnam has to be approved by Congress. It does not cut off all military assistance at all.” – Mikeca
Yes. Now explain to me how you provide military assistance without funding? The pursestrings are how congress killed our support of the VietNamese. You’re just playing semantic games. Go on, keep denying reality.