The Democracy Journal
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to benefit the PJRC now! 

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town! 



    Follow Tom


    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.

      South Vietnam All Over Again?

      It's becoming more apparent by the hour that ISIS is transforming its liberated zone into a new Islamic state. A US military intervention will be the major factor in unifying the insurgency into its new identity and overcoming serious internal factional divides with Al Qaeda and other jihadists.

      US intervention also makes it even more likely, not less, that a victorious ISIS will see the US as their main enemy, for our support of the bloody regimes in Damascus and Baghdad. 

      What started as a vicious circle has begun its downward spiral. 

      We've seen this before, in South Vietnam, where proposals for a provisional, face-saving power-sharing arrangement in the South were rejected because of a superpower belief that our bombs and advisers could protect an unpopular client forever. There was a time when the NLF and North Vietnam would have accepted a coalition in the South, at least temporarily, because they knew there would be problems in "swallowing" a region that was significantly different in its development. But when President Richard Nixon remained stubborn in order to avoid appearing weak, the collapse came swiftly. Today we cannot take back the territories claimed by ISIS and the Kurds, and we can only wonder if the Shiite Baghdad regime will implode from within, Humpty-Dumpty style. Does anyone in DC understand the Kenny Rogers formula: know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em? Its folding time. 

      No one should underestimate the excitement among Sunni Muslims at the opportunity to finally destroy the borders inflicted on the Middle East by the secret British-French Sikes Picot agreement following World War I. This is not only a sectarian war, but also one with deep anti-Western, anti-imperialist roots. Its religious dynamic stems from the fact that the US and the West were opposed to secular Arab nationalism, for Cold War reasons. 

      American officials, media, and the public need to ask very soberly what interests are served now by propping up corrupt and unreformable regimes in Iraq and Syria, since the outcome will be a rising tide of insurgent hatred towards the US. The oil will be for sale in any scenario, though perhaps at higher prices. A security interest? As Senator George McGovern observed in the final days of South Vietnam, "Those who provoke the bee hive need to be ready for the sting."

      And why should the US link with Iran to defend the Shiites, except for temporary stability in the case that the Sunni insurgents overrun Samarra, Baghdad, and southern Iraq? Ultimately we have no "side" in this war. The Crusades are over. Iran privately may want the US to pound ISIS with air strikes, or concur in the replacement of al-Maliki in Baghdad, but only because those US steps are in Iran's interest, and Assad's. 

      With the winds of war now at gale levels, it seems impossible politically for a US president to survive accusations of "isolationism" and "losing" Iraq. There is only one accusation that is worse, however, which is to "lose" Iraq again, to become Gulliver in the land of Lilliputians. That's what happened in South Vietnam when one US administration after another lied or dissembled to put American soldiers in harm's way to prevent the defeat of our client. This is a South Vietnam moment. If blame is to be allotted, Mr. President, blame al-Maliki, blame Bush, blame the neo-conservative intelligencia, and avoid the Rabbit Hole. 

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (3)

      The US can't do anything substantive. the chickens of its contradictory foreign policy have come home to roost. the problem is now in Iran's lap because, of the 112billion barrels of proven reserves of oil. 100billion barrels are in Shia areas, and the Sunnis can only get at these reserves by dominating the Shia (the Kurds will take the small amount of oil around Kirkuk). As the Maliki government (which Iran didn't really want) implodes, there will not be a secular war declared against Maliki and co, but a religious holy war declared against all Shia (which includes Iran). This is worrying

      June 25, 2014 | Unregistered Commenteromar kassem

      As per usual,follow the money.Share holder value,is paramount.

      June 25, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterJ.Marko Nottell

      One thing that all foes of US policy have learned from our Vietnam experience is that the people of the United States cannot sustain protracted war. Sixty thousand deaths and 100,000 wounded is about all that we will tolerate; re: Korea & Vietnam. If they have the numbers and it is their territory, all they have to do is keep it going. Sooner or later, for domestic political reasons--which prompted war in the first place--we will be gone. The fact that the government of Iraq was hostile during most of the war makes it easier.

      July 10, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterMike Havenar
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.