Victory in Iraq: Getting beyond comparisons with Vietnam
December 12, 2005
Fred Hutchison
RenewAmerica analyst
American troops won every battle in the Vietnam War, but lost the propaganda battle waged on the streets, in the media, and in Congress. A democracy must win the battle for people's minds, or it cannot win a war.Fortunately, the propaganda defeat that denied victory in Vietnam does not have to be repeated for the Iraq war, because the political and ideological environment is different today.
For one thing, the liberal mainstream media no longer dominates news and commentary as it did in the sixties and seventies. Through cable news channels, radio talk shows, web sites, blog sites, and other venues, the conservative viewpoint now claims a significant share of news and opinion.
Another difference: the Democrats occupy a materially smaller number of seats in Congress than they did during the Vietnam war
Finally, the President has realized that he must aggressively use his "bully pulpit" to answer critics, explain the progress of the war, and articulate our way ahead to victory. He is doing a rather good job of it, at last
Tell us why, Herr General
Americans have always insisted upon being told what is going on. During the War for Independence, General Washington brought Baron Von Steuben from Prussia to drill the troops. Von Steuben gave them orders and they asked why. The baron had never heard of such a thing in Europe. However, these were Americans, a new breed of men, with all the traits that mark those accustomed to freedom. They wanted to fight because they loved their liberty and were disproportionately drawn from some of the fiercest warrior tribes of Europe. As free men, accustomed to thinking things through, they needed to know how and why. "Tell us why, Herr General!"
Americans are no different today. They want to fight, but the president must tell them why and how it is to be done. The more he levels with them and uses straight talk, the more enthusiastically they will support the war. This is precisely why the liberals are wickedly trying to impugn Bush's integrity and honesty. If the people stop listening to the Commander-in-Chief, the war is lost. The same was true for all of America's wars.Against all odds, the Americans won the War for Independence because the faith of the troops and the people in General Washington never wavered. When he rode by, men took off their hats and said with awe, "There goes the great Washington." We can win a difficult war if the people respect the president. We cannot win an easy war if the people show disrespect to the president.
Bush sits in the Office of Commander-in-Chief that Washington established. It is high time that the liberals stop talking maliciously about the president and give him some respect. "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." (Acts 23:5)
Americans get restless during a long military stalemate without communication from the president. Americans love a fight and love to win, but are impatient with stalemate. That is precisely why the liberal propaganda machine has consistently characterized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as "quagmires" since the opening days of both wars. They have repeatedly and falsely claimed that the president has no plan. To counter this mindless broken-record of defeatism, the president must repeatedly describe the real progress of our troops, explain our military advantages, articulate the most current version of the plan, and describe the new opportunities and successes in Iraq as they occur.
American adaptability
One of the most promising aspects of the American military is that it learns from its mistakes and adapts to new situations. We won some of our wars in the past because of American versatility and adaptability. This adaptability was wonderfully exhibited by the American army during World War II in the Pacific theater. The Japanese troops were among the toughest, bravest, and most disciplined troops Americans have ever had to face, but they were foiled time and again by American resourcefulness. The Japanese suffered horrible conditions in the jungles of New Guinea, but the Americans were resourceful Boy Scouts, endlessly creative in bringing the comforts of home to their camps. They were excellent scroungers, foragers, and trail blazers in the jungle, with a little help and a few tips from the British and Australians.
The Japanese mobilized to meet General MacArthur with a crushing blow, and they had the means and will to do it. MacArthur bypassed their strong positions in New Guinea and attacked weak positions in their rear. He cut off their supplies and left their powerful armies to die on the vine.
As we shall see, American adaptability was demonstrated in the remarkable work of the Special Forces with native tribes in Afghanistan. Major changes in American tactics during the last year in Iraq represent an ability to learn from our mistakes that is not common among major powers.
American hatred of evilAmericans are a religious and moral people as a whole, and they hate evil and are willing to fight it. Our nation has rarely faced more wicked enemies than Saddam Hussein's regime, the Baathists, the Taliban, and the al-Qaida terrorists. In terms of the indiscriminate murder of the innocent, these four groups of malefactors come very close to the kind of cosmic evil that animated Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. If Americans clearly understood the evil of our enemies, there would be no faltering in public opinion about the war. For that reason, the best way to discourage Americans from fighting is to persuade them that their enemies are not evil.
Some anti-war liberals do not believe in the existence of evil, and some realize that they cannot undermine the war effort unless they discredit the idea that our enemies are evil. Therefore, they consistently paint a "moral-equivalence" between America and her enemies, a very astonishing equation considering the genocidal practices of Saddam, the Baathists, the Taliban, and al-Qaida.
Unlike mainstream liberals, the more extreme far left calls the forces of good evil and the forces of evil good. A few nights ago, I listened to a televised debate in which Noam Chomsky, a leader of the American left, heaped high praises on Castro and the Palestinian terrorists, and execrated America and Israel. He identified every American war as "terrorist" or "genocidal." Chomsky is such a complete and perfect liar about the realities of history and the nature of good and evil that he must be the envy of Mephistopheles.
With leftists like Chomsky vigorously practicing the big lie technique, a stalwart conservative voice must say "no" to every lie. This is precisely why the president must consistently say that our enemies are evil and explain why they are evil. Bush has a great advantage over Chomsky in that he is an honest man and will be telling the truth.
Vietnam mistakesJust as there are political differences between Vietnam and Iraq, there are also military differences. In Vietnam, President Johnson's political decision not to close the port of Haiphong enabled supplies from Russia and China to pour down the Ho Chi Minh Trail to support the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. Johnson's decision to allow the enemy to have safe sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia enabled enemy troops to escape the battle, to rest, get re-equipped, and plan new offensives. Johnson's timid policy of gradual escalation to match the enemy's build-up made a quick victory impossible. We were able to escalate far more rapidly than they could, yet stupidly refused to use this advantage.
The lack of cooperation of the local South Vietnamese also denied to the Americans crucial information about where the guerilla fighters were hiding, a problem that prolonged the war. Finally, America withdrew from the war suddenly because of an abrupt decision by Congress, leaving the South Vietnamese government without American supplies and without giving their troops sufficient time to adapt to fighting alone. As we shall see, some of these Vietnam mistakes are not being repeated in Iraq.
Blood purges
These adverse factors had the effect of making Vietnam a long war ended by American impatience and followed by a blood purge of millions of people. When America fights a genocidal enemy, the worst consequence of defeat is the blood purge.
During a campus debate in 1970, I quoted from a now forgotten source, that if America precipitously leaves Vietnam "...a curtain of silence will descend and the 'night of the long knives' will begin." The crowd of students visibly flinched when they heard these words. Every Communist takeover by force has been followed by a blood purge. The only variable was how long it took the Communist dictators to consolidate their power and deal with other pressing issues before they cranked up their death machine.
The actual blood purge in Vietnam and bordering states was far worse than what my morbid imagination had conjured up to scarify the students. At least two million were murdered by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in the small country of Cambodia. The movie The Killing Fields includes a hair-raising escape from a prison camp and the physical difficulty of walking across fields covered with skeletons. At least three hundred thousand people were interred in the concentration camps of South Vietnam, and presumably most died. Ho Chi Minh's curtain of silence was more sound-proof than Pol Pot's, so we have more accurate numbers for the genocide in Cambodia than for the genocide in Vietnam.Most of the men, women, and children who were killed outright or died in concentration camps in Vietnam and Cambodia committed only one crime. They were guilty of belonging to the wrong socio-economic class. Their alleged collective guilt made them the scapegoat of Karl Marx's depraved conspiracy theories and a stumbling block on the road to Marx's mad delusions of utopia. When Stalin was asked about the mass-murder of moderately wealthy farmers, he answered, "When a craftsman makes a piece of fine furniture, some chips will fly, but the finished piece of furniture will be beautiful." I am sure that the families who faced extermination did not regard themselves as chips of wood to be shaved off and burned, or the waste products of socialist social-engineering.
Congressional Democrats and the defeatist press have never accepted moral responsibility for their role in facilitating the Vietnamese and Cambodian holocaust. If the Democrats force us to retreat prematurely from Iraq, and the Islamo-fascists take over, there will be another blood purge. Once again the Democrats will almost certainly refuse to accept responsibility for their action.
American impatience
The fatal flaw in the American character is impatience. We are not good at fighting long wars unless our survival or vital interests are at stake. After only three years in Iraq and 2,000 deaths, compared with eight years in Vietnam and 58,000 troops killed, the patience of some Americans is already growing thin. However, contrary to the reports of the anti-war mainstream media, the military situation during the last year has improved dramatically. Contrary to the Vietnam myths of the left, several of the special military liabilities unique to the Vietnam war do not apply to Iraq, as we shall see. Therefore, it is realistic to hope that victory in Iraq can be achieved before American patience runs out.
The cooperation of local people
To defeat a guerilla insurgency, America requires a certain amount of cooperation from the local people we are defending. Otherwise, the guerilla fighters can strike at will and quickly fade from sight and hide amidst the populace. If the people support the insurgents, the enemy has a chance for victory if they are willing to outwait the impatient Americans.
However, if a significant portion of the populace opposes the insurgents, they can inform the Americans as to where they are hiding. Let me offer two examples from the Indian wars on the American frontier.
The Indian warsDuring the Comanche Wars in Texas, the Comanche warriors on horseback could suddenly strike and burn the homes of settlers. By the time the Texas Rangers gathered to fight the Comanches, the settler's homes were in cinders and the Comanche warriors were resting in their secret hideaways. For twenty years, the Texas Rangers were stymied by the Comanche hit-and-run tactics. According to F. H. Fehrenbach, author of Lone Star, the string of pioneer settlements in Texas was pushed back 200 miles in some places. The Comanches were as much of a threat to Texas as Santa Ana had been a generation before.
Suddenly, however, the tide turned, and the Texas Rangers won the Comanche War in a single year. Indian tribes who were bitter enemies of the Comanches served as guides to the Rangers and led them to the Comanche hideaways. The first thing the Rangers did at the hideaways was to release the Comanche horses. The Comanches were the greatest warriors on horseback in history, with the possible exception of the Mongols but without horses, they were stripped of power. The Comanches could ride bare back while clinging to the side of the horse shielded from the view of the Rangers. From this seemingly impossible position, they could hang on at full gallop and shoot arrows at the Rangers from underneath the horse's neck. Their skills compare favorably with modern Olympic acrobats.
Single shot guns were inadequate to compensate for the acrobatic virtuosity of the Comanches when they fought on horseback. However, late in the Comanche war, the Rangers obtained six-shot revolvers. A Ranger could ride into a group of Comanches and take out six of them before reloading. The six-gun radically shifted the balance of power in favor of the mounted Rangers.
As a young man, Winston Churchill participated in the very last Calvary charge of the British Lancers. The British were in the Sudan fighting the "Mahdi" (meaning, "he who is guided aright."). The Mahdi was the prophesied leader who would appear in the last days as a Muslim messiah, of sorts. Churchill was cut off from the British forces and was surrounded by the Mahdi's troops. He threw away his lance, pulled out a pistol with a clip full of bullets and blasted his escape route through the Mahdi's horsemen. The dashing young Churchill reproduced the feat of the Texas Rangers as they fought the Comanches.
General Custer was defeated by Sioux Warriors who had superior numbers and superior firepower. The Sioux had some repeater rifles, and Custer's troops had only single shot carbines. Custer's men had to dismount so they could efficiently reload their guns, but the Sioux could fire repeated shots from horseback.The Sioux were not a tribe, but a Confederacy of tribes that dominated the northern plains. The embittered tribes that the Sioux had displaced from their lands were eager to help the army. They regarded the white man as just another tribe, albeit a weird and eccentric one. The Indian allies served as trackers and guides to the Army as they pursued the Sioux for hundreds of miles through the Northwest Plains and mountains. This great marathon chase, led by expert Indian trackers following a clever and elusive quarry, was an arduous and breathtaking adventure amidst some of the nation's most beautiful scenery.
The moral of the story is that the Texas Rangers could not beat the Comanches and the army could not beat the Sioux without help from friendly tribes. The same principle was true of Vietnam and is now true of Iraq.
Local support: Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq
In Vietnam, most of the people bitterly resented French colonial rule. Ho Chi Minh, the Communist leader, used this resentment to defeat the French who were isolated within a hostile country and cut off from relief at Dien Bien Fu. The Americans could not be cut off from relief, because they had helicopters and superior air support. However, the Communists successfully used propaganda to depict the Americans as colonial occupiers like the French. Therefore, the Americans, to some extent, were denied the local assistance they needed to find where their enemies were hiding. American Special Forces did win some local cooperation here and there, but it was an extremely slow process.
In Afghanistan, American and British Special Forces on horseback were actually more agile and flexible than local guerillas. They learned the lay of the land like locals and were stunningly successful in mastering the language and the local culture. The special forces served as trainers, advisors, guides, and strategists for the coalition of friendly tribes of the Northern Alliance who were fighting the Taliban. The swashbuckling American and British Special Forces were the "Indian guides" to the Northern Alliance! The special forces ordered American air strikes for coordinated attacks during battles. Thus, America enjoyed a relatively quick victory in Afghanistan. In contrast to the Russian and British debacles in Afghanistan, the resourceful and adaptive Americans were remarkably successful.
The American military defeated the army of Saddam Hussein and advanced 180 miles while under fire, to occupy Baghdad in three weeks. This military prodigy was a feat more impressive than Patton's relief of Bastogne. However, the guerilla insurgency has continued for three and a half years since then. America and Britain freed the Iraqis from the oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein and are helping them to start their own democracy. As a result, a potentially deep well of local cooperation is there to be tapped.
In March 2005, over 400 intelligence tips were given by Iraqi civilians to the military. In August it was 3,300 tips and 4,700 in September. Two successful elections the latter involving the acceptance of a new constitution have dramatically turned the tide of local support. The election of December '05 will have Sunni participation and will include the Sunnis in the body politic. As the Sunni Arabs come to regard themselves as citizens and are integrated into the national culture, they will be less interested in supporting terrorists.
Iraqi security forcesMore than 212,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained and equipped, to date, in contrast to 96,000 in September of 2004. The Iraqi forces now outnumber the American forces. Contrary to pervasive misinformation by the mainstream media, 120 army and police battalions are now in the fight. 40 battalions can take the lead in an attack or fight on their own, and 80 battalions are fighting alongside the Americans. At a certain critical moment, American troops can pass the baton to competent Iraqi troops and begin a gradual phased withdrawal from Iraq.
(The Iraqi battalions under Saddam were typically composed of six hundred men. American battalions can range from 2001,000 men and typically consist of three fighting companies plus a headquarters company. A battalion is the smallest self-sufficient fighting unit.)
Formerly, when the Americans drove the insurgents out of a town, the Americans left and the insurgents came back. Now, a continent of Iraqi troops can hold such a town to keep the insurgents from coming back. Iraqi troops can more quickly and easily win friends and influence people in these towns than can American troops. Unlike what happened in the Vietnam War, the safe havens for the insurgents are being closed down.
American troops have cleaned up some of the small towns along the border with Syria, where terrorists infiltrate into Iraq. Other towns like Haditha, Ar-Ramadi, and Al-Fallujah, which were a string of way-stations for smuggling terrorists from Syria to Baghdad, have also been liberated. Iraqi troops are now patrolling these border towns and way-stations and have materially reduced the smuggling of al-Qaida terrorists into Iraq. As a result, a dwindling percentage of the insurgents are of international origin and have had training by al-Qaida. The flow of weapons and supplies into Iraq from Syria has also been stanched, and many weapons caches have been discovered and destroyed. The Americans were never able to close down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, but the Americans and Iraqis are closing down the al Zarqawi trail from Syria to Baghdad.
The insurgents
At the present time, there are three main categories of insurgents:1) The "Rejectionists" are Sunni Arabs who have not yet embraced democratic reforms, because they were once the privileged elite but now perceive themselves to be marginalized. They sat out the first election but are now politically active. Some may embrace the new government if some of their candidates are elected and they feel their rights as citizens are protected. Many Sunnis are already alienated from al-Qaida, because they are offended when they see terrorists blowing up Arab civilians. The Rejectionists are the largest enemy group in Iraq, but the most susceptible to persuasion. News reports have filtered through the media of negotiations between the Rejectionists and the Iraqi government. The December elections might encourage more of the Rejectionists to negotiate.
2) Saddamists, Baathists, and former regime loyalists. Saddamists want to restore the dictatorship. These folks cannot be won over or persuaded, but they can be demoralized as they gradually realize their cause is hopeless. Under the new democratic regime, they are likely to become increasingly unpopular and publicly marginalized. The publicized trial of Saddam can't help but embarrass the Saddamists. The frequency with which Iraqis report the plots of the Saddamists to the authorities will increase as the Saddamist prestige decreases.
3) Terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida. This is the smallest enemy group and most of them are from other Islamic nations. This radicalized terror-hate group, which I like to call "Assassins Incorporated," cannot be persuaded and can only be stopped by capture or death. Sustained anti-terrorist operations are required. American Special Forces and Iraqi SWAT teams are the most effective units for putting Assassins Incorporated out of business.
Al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida leader, has provoked anti-Zarqawi demonstrations in Jordan because of the al-Qaida suicide bombing of a Jordanian wedding. When we see anti-Zarqawi demonstrations in Baghdad, al-Qaida will be doomed in Iraq. They are foreigners and cannot survive without the sponsorship of local people. As noted, the infiltration of al-Qaida from Syria has already been reduced to a trickle.The Christian and war
Some good folks believe that Christianity implies pacifism. Pacifist Christians are an important source of anti-war sentiment A close study of the Bible contradicts this widespread notion. Consider Romans 13:1-7:
"Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resists the power, resists the ordinance of God; and they who resist shall receive to themselves a judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil. Will you not then be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and you will have praise of the same; For he (the ruler) is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil. Wherefore, you must needs be subject not only for wrath but for conscience sake. For this cause pay tribute (taxes) also; for they are God's ministers, attending to this very thing. Render, therefore, to all their due: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."
God ordains rulers and gives them the sword, an instrument of death. When a private citizen takes up the sword, it violates God's law and man's law. When the ruler takes up the sword, it is his divinely appointed duty to use it against the wicked as God's avenging angel. "...if you do what is evil, be afraid...for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath on him that does evil." The ruler may use the sword through the police powers of the state, through the justice system that has the option of executing criminals, or through the military to defend the public against attack from foreign powers.
Along with the authority to use the sword, God provides the ruler with wisdom concerning the nature of evil and the nature of power. God gives pastors a different kind of wisdom for the healing of souls. We have heard a lot of pacifist nonsense from the Catholic Bishops. They are naive about political power and war, precisely because they lack the wisdom that God gives to rulers. They have wisdom for their own office but not for the office of the magistrate or the general. We must give honor and obedience to rulers. In matters of faith, doctrine, and morality, the clergy is entitled to our respect, honor, and obedience in the areas of the biblical jurisdiction of the church. Without both the ruler and the Bishop in the full use of their powers, society collapses and evil prevails. That is precisely why the Apostle Paul says, "Whosoever resists the power, resists the ordinance of God."
Some think that to follow the loving ways of Jesus, we must be pacifists. However, Jesus spoke more about the sin of man, the wrath of God, and eternal damnation than anyone else in the Bible. He made terrifying prophesies about "wars and rumors of wars." He said, "Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." This phrase is strikingly similar to the Apostle Paul's command: "Render, therefore, to all their due: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor." According to the Apostle John, Christ shall return on a white horse with a sword and shall be called Lord Sabaoth (Lord of warrior hosts). Resurrected Christians will ride by his side. He shall rule the nations with a rod of iron (Revelations 12:5). Concerning the rebellious nations, "Thou shall break them with a rod of iron; thou shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessels" (Psalm 2:9). When Christ sits on David's throne in Jerusalem and rules the nations, we shall hear no more pacifist nonsense from the Bishops. After He shatters the rebels with his rod of iron, the whole world will be at peace, at last.
God wills it!The question of whether war is permissible for a Christian is different from the question of what is the will of God. No Christian can evade the issue of God's will, but finding God's will is sometimes tricky. Now then, is it God's will that America fights in Iraq? For the hard questions, I like to turn to history.
In 1095 A.D., Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade at Clermont, France, and the euphoric crowd chanted "Dieu li volt!, Dieu li volt!" (God wills it!, God wills it!). The crusades were a muddle, of course. God had not given Urban the office or wisdom of a ruler. Urban was marvelous at the healing of souls and the reformation of morals, but was not very wise or effective with issues of war and peace. He vacillated between pacifism with set times of armistice, which almost everyone ignored and militarism with crusades, which almost everyone was enthusiastic about. The crusades were extremely popular, but were a mistake. God probably did not will them.
However, there may be times when God moves the heart of a ruler to oppose a great evil in a foreign land. When such a ruler goes to war, I suspect that there can sometimes be a sense in which God wills it. As a ruler, President Bush is eligible to receive that wisdom which he gives to rulers. He was morally indignant about the genocidal crimes of al-Qaida and the Baathists. The president has wielded the sword, and has been a terror to evildoers and an avenger of wrath upon the wicked, which the Apostle tells us is his office. Surely the wrath of God stored up for the mass-murderers Saddam, bin Laden, and Zarqawi must be fearsome. There can be no decent place of peace and safety until the world is rid of the shadow of these monsters. It is within America's power to stop the genocide. We are there now, and it is our responsibility. Therefore, I deduce that for this particular war, God wills it.
RenewAmerica analyst Fred Hutchison also writes a column for RenewAmerica.
© 2005 Fred Hutchison
|
|