February 27, 2006
Temporary Columns: Vietnam War, Iraq War
I recently visited Dien Bien Phu, a dusty nondescript Vietnamese border town near Laos. Here, French fantasies of re-colonialism were dashed by a Vietnamese peasant army. Visiting Dien Bien Phu is not difficult for a progressive anti-imperialist left liberal. There are no mixed emotions, at least politically. Who can begrudge Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese Communist Party their great victory in Dien Bien Phu? Even the Americans thought the French were a lost cause. They refused to help France directly when Dien Bien Phu was about to fall.
I was taken around by a motorcycle taxi to the different battlefield sites. They included the hills and other the strong points which the Vietnamese inexorably took, despite a heroic French defence, the French Commander’s bunker, and the war cemeteries. The motorcycle taxi driver stopped on the way to the war cemeteries and bought sticks of incense. He made me burn them for the souls of the dead, French and Vietnamese. I was surprised that he wanted me to burn incense sticks for French souls as well. I should not have been.
The Vietnamese did not fight a xenophobic war. They fought an “internationalist war”. This may sound strange in these days of “identity politics” when your ethnic or religious identity is supposed to determine the side you are rooting for, or whether you live or die. In his official memoir of the war, General Vo Nguyen Giap commander of the Vietnamese forces, considered the mastermind of the French defeat in Dien Bien Phu, thanked the French people and the French Communisty Party for their support of the Vietnamese cause. Ho Chi Minh, the first President of Vietnam and founder of the Indo Chinese Communist Party, was also a founder of the French Communist Party.
Ho Chi Minh’s bedroom and study are still as they were on the day he died. The books near his bedside include one on New Zealand Verse, another on the Indian nationalist leader Veer Savarkar, another on the history of Vietnam, another on Marxism and several other titles I could not read clearly. These books were written in English, German, French, Russian and Vietnamese. He read all these languages, and spoke many of them. No party hack, however sophisticated, could have put such an eclectic collection of books together after his death. It had to be his.
The Museum of Women in Hanoi described the support they received from women’s groups in the West opposed to the war. The Vietnamese highlighted, maybe even exaggerated, the international support they got from the people of countries who had sent troops to fight them – from France, the US and Australia. Peace activists traveled to Hanoi, and were welcomed as friends.
Watching the TV news of bombings in Baghdad every night, while visiting Vietnam, it was hard not to think about the current war against another US occupation. There are many reasons for Americans to oppose the US occupation of Iraq. It is leading to the loss of American lives. It is diverting resources away from fighting Al-Qaeda. It is exacerbating hatred of the US in the World. It is making the world less safe for Americans. There are also many reasons for Iraqis to oppose the occupation. It has yet to deliver stability to their country. It is contributing to sectarian violence. It is preventing Iraqis from taking charge of their own destiny. It is strengthening Islamic extremism in Iraq. And it is a foreign army.
These factors together may eventually lead to a parallel with Vietnam, when the costs of occupation - for the occupiers and the occupied - become less bearable than the consequences of a pullout. It is not clear that we are there yet – politically. In all the death and mayhem in Iraq, there is still a possibility that a democratic, secular multinational society may emerge from it. And it is not unimportant that Iraq’s neighbours – Iran and Turkey – still seem to believe that this is preferable to the alternative. This is not inconsistent with arguing the invasion was wrong, not just in international law, but for the people of Iraq. (The UN position.)
Whatever the similarities between the US occupations of Iraq and Vietnam, there is a critical difference in the attitude of the Viet Minh and the radical Islamists resisting the respective occupations. The former fostered and supported the creation of a peace movement from the anti-war movement in the US. They welcomed and highlighted the efforts of peace activists who came to Hanoi. The radical Islamists in Iraq are stunting the development of an antiwar movement. They are kidnapping and executing the very kind of people the Vietnamese welcomed and embraced.
[Last photo shows Harmeet Singh Sooden, a peace activist taken captive in Iraq.]
Posted by Ram Manikkalingam at 12:04 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d8345dd8fa69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Temporary Columns: Vietnam War, Iraq War:






















Comments
I hadn't even thought of this, but of course you are right, Ram. Nicely put. Man, this is an excellent Monday!
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Feb 27, 2006 1:25:36 AM
Armies have always wanted the high ground. The results were easily predicted.
Posted by: mr.ed | Feb 27, 2006 9:19:22 AM
Excellent observation. I remember that many leftists in the West celebrated the 1979 Iranian Revolution as a strike against imperialism. Your distinction would have been useful then.
Posted by: Pablo Policzer | Feb 27, 2006 9:39:00 AM
I like your focus on the international aspect of the war, but differences are obvious on the domestic front as well. In the Vietnamese-American war, the Communists made a point of having a broad coalition and of not targeting minority groups. (Their behavior after they won is another matter.)
Compare to the current situation in Iraq. Some members of the insurgency deliberately target Shiites and their houses of worship. Whatever their aims are, they don't include forming a broad coalition to overcome the occupation.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Feb 27, 2006 2:04:21 PM
The giant meteorite of the American War Machine has crashed into Iraq and killed off the biggest dinosaurs. But the jungle remains intact. And at every level of the ecosystem, from the tiniest protozoa on up to the largest mammal, the survivors of the American asteroid are left blinded by ash and smoke as they scramble to find unoccupied niches, new jags in the bombcracked crater in which to hide, perhaps grow roots, and wait or fight for a glimpse of a livable future. However, the mere fact that they are eating the only hands that are reaching toward them from the world of light is testimony to the depths this Darwinism has entrenched itself, and to suggest that anything else is possible would be to imply some sort of Intelligent Design is at work behind the scenes. But, alas, the actions of the extremists continue to speak louder than any of our wishful thinking. Like journalists in Iraq, the peace activists merely provide more heads for the rolling. So the clash continues, fang against fang.
Posted by: Mark Dodson | Mar 29, 2006 2:57:24 AM
You're right - the Vietnam and Irag wars are similar - lies promulgated them; they are both quagmires and a futile waste.
I want people to know what violence does to soldiers, something you never hear about. I've written a memoir, Nam Au Go Go - Falling for the Vietnamese Goddess of War, which is available on various booksellers' websites.
It explalins how, if combat soldiers and marines see too much, do too much, they can cross a threshold into an adaptation to violence and become addicted to it. When your emotional self is killed off by the insanity of war, survivors of this addiction have a hard time re-connecting with society. Combat is a one-way door. Once you go through, you cannot go back. You are changed.
Find Nam Au Go Go on booksellers’ websites.
e: jacolesdad@comcast.net
Posted by: john akins | Oct 30, 2006 5:41:29 PM
: You bring up interesting points, and I would like to add a comparison that seems to be left out a lot, which is the soldier’s reporting on the war. In Vietnam the G.I.’s were creating underground newspapers. Now in Iraq there are soldiers blogging about the war. There’s one aspect about war that will always remain and that is soldiers wanting to write about their experiences. I didn’t even really know about the whole G.I. movement, but I just saw this documentary on it called, Sir! No Sir! It’s pretty interesting. Here’s their site for more info
Posted by: bobby digital | Dec 14, 2007 2:53:12 PM
Post a comment