Bigger American foreign policy blunder: Vietnam (1964) or Iraq (2003)?
- Thread starter Hongfan91
- Start date
- Status
Both were spectacular, eminently avoidable blunders.
Vietnam trumps Iraq b/c while the cost in money was far greater in Iraq,
Nam's cost in lives and political angst was greater.
Iraq was a cynical crime of the century that W and Cheney deserve to go out Mussolini style to be spat upon for the ages.
Nam OTOH broke America in ways we feel today economically, militarily, and politically mostly b/c LBJ couldn't look "weak" and that Texan need to "Go big or go home" as we say.
IMNSHO the US should have stayed home and not wrecked SE Asia AND themselves in a decade's fit of pique pounding things trying to get a better result depsite ample evidence it wasn't accomplishing anything but wasted lives, landscape, and energy.
Vietnam trumps Iraq b/c while the cost in money was far greater in Iraq,
Nam's cost in lives and political angst was greater.
Iraq was a cynical crime of the century that W and Cheney deserve to go out Mussolini style to be spat upon for the ages.
Nam OTOH broke America in ways we feel today economically, militarily, and politically mostly b/c LBJ couldn't look "weak" and that Texan need to "Go big or go home" as we say.
IMNSHO the US should have stayed home and not wrecked SE Asia AND themselves in a decade's fit of pique pounding things trying to get a better result depsite ample evidence it wasn't accomplishing anything but wasted lives, landscape, and energy.
Vietnam may have been worse in terms of casualties, but given the changing values of society, I say Iraq did more damage. In the sixties, the last World War I veterans retired, and the country and the economy were run by veterans of World War II and Korea. There was an expectation that the young generation fulfill an obligation to fight “enemies of state,” e.g., communism. The resulting protests changed America for the better: the voting age was lowered, the draft was ultimately eliminated. For decades, the threshold for ground war was raised.
Now, move to Iraq. The invasion began on a false premise of weapons of mass destruction, none of which were found. Saddam may have been a ruthless dictator, and he did indeed oppress the non-Sunni majority. But under his rule, the country functioned and neighbors did not go to war with each other over sectarian issues. By invading, Americans took the blame for civil war in Iraq. Communication is much faster in today’s era, and world opinion over Iraq, in my opinion, is more damaging now than it was after Vietnam. The world sees the US responding to Osama bin Laden and 9/11 by attacking a different country and leader. There is a notion that Bush 43 was trying to “finish” a job his father did not. Add to is the impression of a war on Islam, and America’s world image suffers, not to mention incentives for terrorists.
Eleven years after the Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam was over. The communists won. As time healed the damage, diplomatic relations with Vietnam would resume. Eleven years after the invasion of Iraq, we have an unstable mess. We don’t know when it will end. Ford and Carter were not burdened by the legacy of Vietnam the way Obama (and his successor) would be burdened by Iraq.
It is true that if Saddam died in 2013, Iraq might have collapsed into civil war anyway. But Americans would not shoulder the whole blame.
Now, move to Iraq. The invasion began on a false premise of weapons of mass destruction, none of which were found. Saddam may have been a ruthless dictator, and he did indeed oppress the non-Sunni majority. But under his rule, the country functioned and neighbors did not go to war with each other over sectarian issues. By invading, Americans took the blame for civil war in Iraq. Communication is much faster in today’s era, and world opinion over Iraq, in my opinion, is more damaging now than it was after Vietnam. The world sees the US responding to Osama bin Laden and 9/11 by attacking a different country and leader. There is a notion that Bush 43 was trying to “finish” a job his father did not. Add to is the impression of a war on Islam, and America’s world image suffers, not to mention incentives for terrorists.
Eleven years after the Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam was over. The communists won. As time healed the damage, diplomatic relations with Vietnam would resume. Eleven years after the invasion of Iraq, we have an unstable mess. We don’t know when it will end. Ford and Carter were not burdened by the legacy of Vietnam the way Obama (and his successor) would be burdened by Iraq.
It is true that if Saddam died in 2013, Iraq might have collapsed into civil war anyway. But Americans would not shoulder the whole blame.
One issue to remember, in 1964 Vietnam was not a foreign policy blunder. It was a political response based on the values of the times. George McGovern voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Not until some time later did sentiment against the war arise. By early 1968, Eugene McCarthy emerged with an anti-war platform. Mind you, the impact on young Americans was not trivial. Men were being drafted, against their will, and sent halfway around the world to fight a war. Sentiment against the war, along with civil rights, was one of the fundamental value shifts in the 1964-1973 period. The war became a "blunder" only after it ended and when viewed new societal standards.
By contrast, Iraq was provoked by an errant report of weapons of mass destruction in a document known as the "Italian Letter." That document was written as a training exercise for intelligence workers and was leaked out. It outlined a plan for Saddam to buy uranium ore from the African country of Niger, in quantities that would have been logistically impossible given the port facilities involved. Instead of checking details that would have ruled the document non-credible, Bush 43 puts forth an invasion. That is an outright blunder, plain and simple.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Italian-Letter-Administration-Build/dp/1594865736
By contrast, Iraq was provoked by an errant report of weapons of mass destruction in a document known as the "Italian Letter." That document was written as a training exercise for intelligence workers and was leaked out. It outlined a plan for Saddam to buy uranium ore from the African country of Niger, in quantities that would have been logistically impossible given the port facilities involved. Instead of checking details that would have ruled the document non-credible, Bush 43 puts forth an invasion. That is an outright blunder, plain and simple.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Italian-Letter-Administration-Build/dp/1594865736
at lest with Vietnam you can say it fit with our geo-political goals, i.e. stopping the spread of Communism, if we did nothing South Vietnam falls to communism, there's more communism in the world, our goal is to stop that from happening
I mean its a little miss the forest for the trees but whatever
Iraq served no geo-political goal, Iraq didn't support Sunni terrorism, in fact AQ hated their guts
on top of which if our goal was fighting terror boy did we fuck up, Communism didn't really explode thanks to the fall of SV, but terrorism, it hadn't been a thing really in Iraq and after we went in it exploded leading to it being a major factor in Syria today, Iraq is still out of control, terrorists trained in Iraq or brought up by the organizations that can be linked back to our war there are a major problem all over the world today
I mean its a little miss the forest for the trees but whatever
Iraq served no geo-political goal, Iraq didn't support Sunni terrorism, in fact AQ hated their guts
on top of which if our goal was fighting terror boy did we fuck up, Communism didn't really explode thanks to the fall of SV, but terrorism, it hadn't been a thing really in Iraq and after we went in it exploded leading to it being a major factor in Syria today, Iraq is still out of control, terrorists trained in Iraq or brought up by the organizations that can be linked back to our war there are a major problem all over the world today
Realpolitik
Banned
As much as a blunder as Vietnam was, one could at least point out that North Vietnam was attempting to dominate the region completely-Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam. That was aggression. It was in part a political response, and part of the problem was Johnson thinking that the war could be handled "on the cheap" with no clear explanation to the people. The fall of South Vietnam led to tragic consequences for the region, but nothing more geopolitically, if not psychologically.
Iraq was different. It shattered the balance of power to the clear disadvantage of the United States, politically and psychologically. Iraq just... came out of nowhere in comparison. The Iraqis were so confused as to why nobody in the Bush administration was willing to talk to them in 2002. Saddam offered to leave with his sons if we let them take some money. They were determined to have their little invasion though. The neocons... they just desperately thought they were offing a dictator and going for "freedom".
I think Vietnam was the bigger blunder. Iraq was a simple fault of hubris, a sinlge blunder or set of closely connected blunders. Vietnman was the product of people, especially LBJ, who slid into a war they they didn't particularly want because every decision point along the way was evaluated in terms of domestic politics. It involved multiple blunders over several years.
It also killed 2-10 times as many people and really poisoned the US population attitude towards its government. The idea that partisan differences disappear at the waters edge really stated to disappear here.
Vietnam also led to the end of the draft and that has had significant impacts on US society since there was no longer an agency that forcibly mixed people from different groups of society.
It also killed 2-10 times as many people and really poisoned the US population attitude towards its government. The idea that partisan differences disappear at the waters edge really stated to disappear here.
Vietnam also led to the end of the draft and that has had significant impacts on US society since there was no longer an agency that forcibly mixed people from different groups of society.
Definitely Vietnam, as it helped to trigger the massive changes and upheavals of the sixties and poisoned society from within.
Without it, America would have focused on its domestic front as it badly needed at that time (segregation, welfare, eocnomy etc).
Not going to Irak would surely make the region a better place, but won't change the bias of the Bush administration.
Without it, America would have focused on its domestic front as it badly needed at that time (segregation, welfare, eocnomy etc).
Not going to Irak would surely make the region a better place, but won't change the bias of the Bush administration.
Not so sure about raising the threshold. US still stuck to it's "war in every decade" approach and time between them wasn't changed. Though granted next two wars were small affairs.
Iraq. Vietnam wasn't really a blunder in that the idea behind it of supporting a sovereign state against an aggressive neighbour was perfectly sensible and reasonable. It was just the execution which was dreadful. Iraq on the other hand was an act of unprompted aggression that has had disastrous long term consequences.
There were already in 1963-1964 people that advised against going into Vietnam not for moral reasons but for practical reasons. Heck, in 1954, Ridgway basically wrote a report "Vietnam is not Korea- the South Koreans could mostly handle the Communist guerillas, it was the regular troops they had trouble with. In Vietnam, our boys will have to fight guerillas. If you go in, it'll be hard and costly".
I voted for Iraq, and not just because I happen to be a huge fan of the 36th President. Yes Vietnam was a horrible war based on a lie, and LBJ misled the public. However, as other people have mentioned, it fit in with the popular Domino Theory, and if Vietnam fell to the Commies, other nations were sure to follow. Iraq, on the other hand, was completely irrelevant to the War on Terror. It had NO CONNECTION to 9/11. There were NO WMD. We had no reason to go into Iraq, no matter how evil Saddam was. And contrast the two areas. Vietnam is peaceful, and we haven't been back there since we left in 1975, except for diplomatic purposes. Iraq, on the other hand, we've now invaded for the THIRD TIME. And the area is a mess. Just my two cents.
Iraq. Stupid and costly as Vietnam was (with the far reaching social consequences it entailed) you at least had something that fit in with the foreign policy goals of the era, had some marginal justification, and didn't destabilize an entire reason.
Iraq on the other hand was based on an outright lie, fabrication of evidence, and seemed to be purely launched so some pretty unsavory political characters could get a war they were looking for. It ruined an entire country, helped the spread of Islamic extremism, destabilized the entire region, and led to the rise in influence of one of America's stated enemies (Iran) and people who are arguably worse than the Nazis (ISIS)!
That puts Iraq in a whole different ball park.
Iraq on the other hand was based on an outright lie, fabrication of evidence, and seemed to be purely launched so some pretty unsavory political characters could get a war they were looking for. It ruined an entire country, helped the spread of Islamic extremism, destabilized the entire region, and led to the rise in influence of one of America's stated enemies (Iran) and people who are arguably worse than the Nazis (ISIS)!
That puts Iraq in a whole different ball park.
Iraq was worse...You know you've screwed up when Germany and France agree on foreign policy against the US (which doesn't happen a lot).
And at the end, Vietnam is unified and Communist-ruled, but they're basically like a poorer, less developed China, and they're becoming more close to the US because of their need for backing against China (especially regarding the Spratly and Paracel Islands, which the Vietnamese people feel strongly about, more so than the government...I mean, one of the few South Vietnamese military figures that the Vietnamese government allows people to honour is the guy who fought against the Chinese over the Paracels back in 1974! And the people want the Vietnamese government to be tougher on the issue...)
Iraq though...enough said...everyone else in the world knew the war was bullshit, and there was the biggest protests ever!
And at the end, Vietnam is unified and Communist-ruled, but they're basically like a poorer, less developed China, and they're becoming more close to the US because of their need for backing against China (especially regarding the Spratly and Paracel Islands, which the Vietnamese people feel strongly about, more so than the government...I mean, one of the few South Vietnamese military figures that the Vietnamese government allows people to honour is the guy who fought against the Chinese over the Paracels back in 1974! And the people want the Vietnamese government to be tougher on the issue...)
Iraq though...enough said...everyone else in the world knew the war was bullshit, and there was the biggest protests ever!
jahenders
Banned
Both were bad, but Vietnam was worse. Far more life lost and more impact on society and foreign policy. Also, the financial costs (corrected for inflation) are similar.
The life lost in Vietnam was over 10 times Iraq, while Iraq's financial cost was about 30-50% more.
I think a lot of our readers are suffering from "currency bias" -- they focus on what's recent and familiar
The life lost in Vietnam was over 10 times Iraq, while Iraq's financial cost was about 30-50% more.
I think a lot of our readers are suffering from "currency bias" -- they focus on what's recent and familiar
But Iraq has since become a playground/training ground for terrorists while Vietnam's long term consequences have been fairly muted. Iraq has also increased anti Americanism world wide while Vietnam had some temporary effects in that regard.
Vietnam was an episode in the cold war that ultimately changed very little.
The indirect costs from Iraq (oops, invaded the wrong country). Iraq was part of a panicked reaction that has either to lead the ongoing "war on terror" or the intensification of that war, which is ongoing and will have a death toll many times Vietnam and may very well end with the U.S. bankrupting itself, thus ending it's superpower status.
To me it is not even close.
Nah, the US is not going bankrupt because of the war on terror, even if in Iraq's case at least it was a colossal waste of treasure (and blood). Vietnam and stagflation, though...
I think we have to wait another ten years to know the full effects with regards to Iraq, though. It really brought complete chaos to the region.
I think we have to wait another ten years to know the full effects with regards to Iraq, though. It really brought complete chaos to the region.
Last edited:
- Status