Obviously the Vietnam War was started to contain communism from spreading throughout Asia. Communism was the "greatest enemy" of the United States during the Cold War and during the Vietnam War but that view changed to a less apathetic viewpoint on communism as the war dragged on. As the war lasted longer than any one previously, people started to become less interested in containing communism. It didn't seem to be a direct enemy to the US in Asia, and most people back in the US figured there was no real reason we needed to be killing the Vietnamese people and letting our soldiers die for the same reason.
This less apathetic viewpoint on war seems to be apparent today regarding the Iraq War. Not only do people claim that "we do not know who our real enemy is" but also claim that we have spent too much time in Iraq as it is. When President Bush ordered troops into Iraq in 2003, he had an approval rating 0f 96%. But as the war has raged on for 6 years, people are less concerned about "containing" terrorism and more interested in bringing the troops home.
Although it could be argued that we are winning in Iraq and that we should stay there, the general consensus with people at home is to bring the troops home (also the viewpoint of our President). To me, the Iraq War seems even more "mirky" as Ed described the Vietnam War to be. We are less aware of our enemy and it is getting harder for us to fight them in urban environments. I don't know if any of this makes sense to you guys, but I'm basically trying to compare the issue of communism to terrorism and how people originally supported fighting it, but when things got ugly, we turned our backs on the soldiers and supporters of the wars. Basically, was communism and or terrorism a palpable issue to fight against?
9 comments:
I think we can all see the obvious parallels between America's two "Wars on Concepts". However, I think another similarity between Vietnam and Iraq can be seen. Not only have things simply gone poorly in Iraq, as they did in Vietnam, but seemingly, the enemy has grown stronger. In Vietnam, the intervention of American forces sparked a greater opposition, in the form of the Viet Cong. In Iraq, American intervention has sparked the formation of Al-Qaeda- in Iraq. In both cases, our presence has simply worsened the situation in each country.
This brings up war against a concept. Again, I don't think a war like this can be won. Tess expanded on it in another post, a concept is like a virus. If you don't kill it initially, it gets stronger. And the question you ask is also important, "how do we know who our real enemy is?" Well, we can try and find them like in Vietnam and Iraq, or we can't at all. But you run the risk of doing more damage. It is virus or a disease you cannot see, one that is not palpable, that is more likely to kill you or destroy a nation.
I agree with the two previous comments, which stated that what you wrote is basically about the idea of waging war against a concept. I dont really know if you can truly compare communism and terrorism due to the fact that communism is a political ideology whereas terrorism is a form of striking terror through different means into a selected group of people. I agree that the two can be spread, which is why the US felt that they needed to get involved in military conflicts regarding both (i.e. Vietnam and Iraq), but I do not feel that you can compare the two head on. That is only my feeling on the comparison of the two.
Will, I really like the idea of your post, however I feel that some of your comparisons are faulty. One, in the beginning of the War in Iraq, I wouldn't go as far to say that we entered Iraq to contain terrorism. I feel that that may have been our ultimate goal, but following Sept. 11, we knew that someone had to take the fall for the attacks, and that happened to be Iraq. Two, I don't think that throughout wars, we become disinterested with our enemy and the cause, I'd say we become disinterested with war itself. Early in the war, we were all for it. However, billions of dollars later and thousands of lives lost, I can say that we still hate terrorists. We still dislike our enemy, but it's the costs of war the fall out of favor with society.
Currently it seems that America does not understand its enemies in the Middle East and this lack of preparation is comparable to America's actions during the Vietnam War. America failed to learn from its past mistakes in Vietnam and relied too heavily on their military force and technology. Similar to Vietnam, America once again is much more powerful in terms of weaponry and economics than Iraq and Afghanistan. America's failing comes from its pride and ego that they are the most dominant force in the world. Research and preparation are not signs of weakness, but rather necessary precautions.
I agree on we do not know exactly who this enemy is in the War on Terror as well as we are fighting against a concept. Since the United States (well Bush in particular) has put us in such a DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP hole, and started this war craze, we might as well finish the job to the best of our ability. Like I have said in earlier comments back on earlier blogs, what we have done and probabaly only can do is add a bandaid to "terror." Now we can wrap the bandage up and put it in a cast, but it's just not going to heal. So we should continue to have presence in Iraq and Afghansitan and hopefully flush out the terrorists in Pakistan. Good luck USA
I think the reason it doesn't make total sense to me is because "apathetic" means not caring. When you say people are getting less apathetic and then say they don't care I get confused. But I would agree that as wars without a clear purpose drag on people lose interest. Its funny how wars in the modern day are almost required to be so short. I mean Troy lasted like 9 years, and what about the 100 years war? How do people put up with those for so long?
Both Iraq and Vietnam were basically wars on concepts. Trying to fight against them only makes others want to join them and leaving them be allows them to culminate into a bigger force. Terrorism and Communism are different though. While one cannot learn to live in a world with Terrorism, is there really any problem in learning to coexist with a communist nation?
I have to disagree with the comparison you made. I feel that communism was a completely different opponent than the one we are facing today. Not only was communism a visible (literally) opponent, they also were not proven to attack. Terrorists have. And perhaps that is the reason we took so long to attack them in the first place. The government perhaps dubbed them a moderate threat similar to the later views of communism, when they attacked, openly and viciously, they became the scariest, most palpable enemy of American history. Not to mention the fact that they despise our "innovation" and anti-traditionalist sentiments.
Post a Comment