Is Iraq Like
Vietnam?
Part 2 - Spreading Democracy
By D.W.
The current insurgency in Iraq and the war in
Vietnam are two very different conflicts with unique places in
history. Parallels do exist between these two conflicts but they are
not identical or even very similar. To claim that they are one and
the same conflict with different dates is nothing more than sheer
ignorance.
However, many in the media as well as various political pundits
have claimed that these conflicts are analogous for the sake of
political expediency or out of intellectual laziness. This practice
may allow for great political attacks but it also makes for terrible
public policy.
There are a number of profound differences between these two
conflicts and a significant one is the implementation of democracy.
Establishing a democracy in South Vietnam was never a major
policy objective of the U.S. Government throughout the Vietnam War.
The U.S. simply propped up and supported a series of ruthless
dictators. The U.S. generated this political fiasco when Colonel
Edward Lansdale set up the dictator Ngo Dinh Diem through a rigged
election. Diem was incapable of leading his nation and had little
genuine popular support. The Kennedy Administration eventually
considered him an obstacle and allowed his murder to occur in 1963.
After Diem, South Vietnam was led by generals, the primary one
being Nguyen Van Thieu. The Saigon Government never gained popular
support for their efforts because they were in many cases no better
than the communist alternative. They never made a great or sustained
effort to provide a compelling alternative to Communist rule under
Ho Chi Minh. This was especially the case in rural areas separated
from Saigon, like the Mekong Delta region.
The true hallmarks of democracy are accountability, transparency,
responsiveness and justice. These elements are what make democracy
work and lay the foundation for a truly free society and a
competitive economy. The South Vietnamese was not able to provide
this to the people and in many ways they were more corrupt than the
communists.
On the town and village level in South Vietnam the situation was the
same, corruption was ripe and there were few true believers in the
South Vietnamese cause. The only ideological weapon they had was to
denigrate the communist system, which is inherently evil. However,
this anti-communist campaign was not compelling enough to turn the
tide of victory.
The main U.S. goal in Southeast Asia was to check the advance of
world wide communism, not to spread freedom to distant lands. Thus,
supposed strong men were selected to lead under the premise that
their police states would crush communist movements. This assumption
was wrong and it paid off with disastrous consequences in South
Vietnam, leading to the fall of the government.
It is not certain that a serious democratization effort in South
Vietnam would have actually worked and enabled victory. However, we
never really attempted it and it could very well have strengthened
the legitimacy of the government and eventually eroded support for
the communists. The dictatorships in place were already weak so a
democracy could not have done any worse.
One excuse that has been forwarded for not establishing democracy
in South Vietnam was that Ho Chi Minh or a communist puppet might
win. Well, we could have just banned communist/socialist
participation on the grounds that they were bent on the destruction
of the country and unfit to lead the nation. The United States used
the same justification to deny American Communists from
participating in the U.S. political process.
The fundamental premise that the U.S. started out with in Iraq
was that the U.S. would establish a democracy throughout the
country. We liberated that nation with the specific intention of
establishing free elections at all levels, often starting at local
municipal governments. It is very difficult for our opponents to
make false claims of colonization, because in the face of reality
they don’t stick.
The Iraqi’s understand the terror of living under a dictatorship;
indeed it is all that they really know. This does not imply that
they want to continue to live under a dictatorship or that they are
incapable of democracy. Democracy is a very compelling idea and we
can sell this ideology if our campaign is effective enough.
The only real ideological competitor for democracy is an Islamic
Theocracy, which provides a compelling alternative for many Iraqi’s.
However, it is not as powerful as the communist idea was in Vietnam
because it has been around for a while and aware people know what to
expect. Iran is a theocracy and that nation has a miserable economy
and offers a poor quality of life. Iraqi’s, for the large part, are
aware that theocracy doesn’t offer the utopia its leaders claim.
In some ways, a democratization effort would probably have been
more effective in South Vietnam than in Iraq. Iraq is a highly
tribalized society where ancient and meaningless blood feuds are all
too common. Vietnam was not as inherently divided and had far more
social cohesion. The Vietnamese population was largely divided along
ideological lines, while Arabs have a more complex social structure
that is more challenging to organize and unify.
The Coalition in Iraq consistently sells the democracy message to
Iraqi’s, which is reinforced by elections and constitutional
referendums. The United States is abiding by its own core principles
of freedom through the establishment of democratic regimes.
Establishing democracy in Iraq is still difficult and will remain so
but our operating premise is morally virtuous and is a very
attainable goal. Achieving this goal will take considerable time but
by giving up we will choose to fail when we can win.
We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about
this article. Click the
Your Feedback menu item to send us
your comments.
