Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Yes; yes; yes. All true. All true. But, to coin a phrase:
I’d say that it’s much worse than Vietnam.
In 1986, Vietnam reexamined its commitment to communism and began to liberalize the economy, a mere 11 years after the fall of Saigon. It subsequently achieved 8% annual GDP growth from 1990 to 1997, and tourism has been a significant part of its economy since foreign travel restrictions were lifted in 1997.
Does anybody predict a similar about-face for an ISIS-led Iraq in 2025‽
Damage obama’s *credibility*?? ISIS could no more damage Obama’s credibility than they could sink the Tibetan fleet.
You are right, though the geopolitical and strategic effect, to say nothing of the shame, of the fall of Saigon was profound. Given our history of terrorist attacks in this country, which we didn’t have with the North Vietnamese, I wonder whether our citizenry might feel more of that shame this time around, which IMO, would be a good thing.
I have a question: What will Iran do and how will that matter? Iran has supported ISIS in the past, but now seems to want to see its power lessened. In the long run it could not have a Sunni caliphate on its doorstep. Iran is helping the Kurds somewhat, and may be giving other help to Iraq–I don’t know–but with Baghdad threatened, might they not come into the fray in a much bigger way? And what might be the effect?
You make a great point. Obama’s foreign policy, such that it is, has increased the power and influence of our enemies and opponents almost without fail. China? yep Russia? Oh yeah Iran? Hey lets make them a partner in our coalition, what could possibly go wrong? The Twilight Zone parallel is brilliant, I will definitely be borrowing that one.
I’m still not sure that I’m quite willing to upgrade China from “competitor” to “enemy”.
Now, would I label China as an “opponent”? That’s a tricky one…
Russia’s an easier one for me to slap the label on, considering how close they like to get to my country’s airspace with nuclear bombers.
I think much of the shame of Vietnam came from seeing the predictions about what would happen if South Vietnam fell (the famous “domino effect”) fail to materialize, and indeed seeing the opposite of those predictions begin to happen a mere decade after the end of the war. It reinforces the meme that it was an unnecessary war and that the Vietnamese should have been left alone in the first place to figure out all this “governance” business for themselves.
Iraq is a slightly different story. If Baghdad falls to ISIS, and ISIS turns out to be as bad as predicted, the debate isn’t so clear-cut. The hawks can argue “I told you so” that pulling out too soon would lead to chaos, and the doves can argue “I told you so” that it would have been better to stick with Saddam “The Devil You Know” Hussein in charge.
I’m sure the people who died in Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Grenada, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and other countries I’m sure I’ve forgotten will be happy to know that America getting driven out of Vietnam in no way encouraged the Reds to move on to other countries.
That argument will certainly occur, but I wonder whether it will not be upstaged by the facts on the ground, which will continue to be very ugly and which appear to cause the majority of Americans to feel weak and threatened.
If Baghdad truly were in danger of falling to ISIS, do you think Obama still would refuse to send ground forces?
If Baghdad falls it will trigger Iranian intervention on behalf of the majority Shiite population and ISIS will have trouble maintaining control if it really has only 20-30,000 fighters. Iran is seeking hegemony in the Gulf and under Maliki had a cooperative regime in Iraq; an ISIS takeover threatens that. Of course if Iran intervenes the Saudis will face some interesting choices. If you think things are complicated now, wait till that happens.
So far, afaik, ISIS has taken Sunni majority areas – including those which lead up to Baghdad’s NW.
It may take Baghdad’s Sunni neighbourhoods – in the NW – but will it take the rest of the city, and if it takes the rest how long will it be able to keep it?
You may be looking at a divided city rather than an entirely ISIS occupied Baghdad. Still a bad outcome.
Cambodia after the fall of Vietnam was decimated by the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and the slaughter of over 1/3 of the countries population was the inevitable outcome of our defeat in Vietnam. Ironically, it was the Vietnamese who saved Cambodia from utter destruction. It was in their self interest once the Khmer Rouge shifted their attention from the Khmer people to those of Vietnamese descent.
I was with the first group of Americans to enter Cambodia in the ’80s. Anyone who believes that the fallout of our Vietnam defeat was mild should have been there.
I think our comments reinforce each other. If ISIS moves into Shiite areas this becomes an entirely different situation. And I agree that if they just remain in the Sunni areas it’s a bad outcome and leaves the US with whatever Sunni allies it can find to deal with it.
Well, the USA didn’t continue to bomb Vietnam after 1975.
As long as the bombs continue to fall on Iraq, it isn’t Vietnam 2. You’re right that it’ll be ugly, and it’ll be a blow to the American zeitgeist, but as long as the US military is “doing something” there won’t be the same feeling of national impotence. It’ll be different. Not better, just different.
Arthur Herman argues elsewhere that win or lose against the Islamic State, the West’s outreach to Iran only sets the stage for more chaos in the Middle East — and more opportunities for Tehran to extend its power. Michael Ledeen has made an even more stark argument that Obama is doing Tehran’s bidding. As Ledeen puts it, The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It will be complicated, indeed.
Yes!
Fair point.
As the North Vietnamese could not stand the existence of the Khmer Rouge so Erdogan’s Turkey may, after making so many meaningless speeches, find that ISIS is just a neighbor that it does not wish to have. They have the strength. They have the strategic position. They will attack without any mercy. With the addition of overwhelming air power and logistical aid the Turkish Army would roll through them. Now that Iran has abandoned any ideological defense of ISIS there is nothing standing in their way. Erdogan has a great deal more than just a pretext as millions of refugees stream across the border to escape the ISIS murderers.
Regards,
Jim
I suspect that Iran would simply occupy and annex what’s left of Shia Iraq. It would be hard to argue it’s not in their interests to do so.
If we would see a Turkish intervention, would that result in what? A restored Iraq? Iraq with the Shia areas annexed by Iran, and Kurdistan left as ? A revanchist neo-Ottoman empire?
Byron,
I wonder how Josh Earnest would spin this. Must have been Bush or climate change, it couldn’t have been six years of the most incoherent foreign policy since Neville Chamberlain.
Regards,
Jim
They will surely blame it on the lack of Iraqis coming to a “political solution” and failing to create an “inclusive government.” Which means nothing if your national army is overrun by dudes on pickup trucks.
I would not be surprised to see terror raids into Baghdad. I would be very surprised to see anything resembling a full on assault. The most likely course of action is to consolidate Anbar Province and continue to defeat Iraqi security forces in detail. At present, they can destroy Iraqi government forces faster than WE can reconstitute them.
Included in the myths taking it hard on the chin of late:
Can you really call it a national army if, facing odds of 20 armed troops to one guy in a pickup truck the “army” drops their weapons and runs? I am expecting the announcement any time now that the field uniform for that “army” will now be a burqa. They aren’t giving their supporters much to work with.
For years the detractors of a Western foreign policy that supported strong men (tyrants, if you prefer) rather than allowing the region’s native political predilections a chance have dismissively claimed that their way could be no worse than the status quo. I urge them to inspect their work closely.
The president’s credibility was not lost completely when he pulled the troops out of Iraq. Maliki and the Iraqi government was dysfunctional, seriously corrupted by Iran’s influence, attacking their own people and firing Kurds and Sunnis from the government. We accepted that the Iraqi people didn’t want our troops to stay in Iraq rather than fight the well crafted and organized propaganda war supported by Iran. Yes, the president could have fought harder to talk some sense into the Iraqi leaders over the status of forces agreement, but he was uncomfortable in that position and could earn himself some brownie points by getting out, a la ‘mission accomplished.’ But the situation with the army could be very complicated. We never know whom we can trust. And we would be dependent on the politicians and Iraqi leaders not to sell us out. How could we do straight dealings with these people when they were attacking their own people? So was Obama’s attitude, ‘you’ll see, you’ll need us sooner than you think,’ or ‘you’ll be sorry.’ We can’t force a sovereign people to do what we want them to do, we’re willing to provide freedom as soon as they want. But, just the same, Iraq was not acting like a sovereign people. They allowed themselves to be drawn too closely into Iran’s orbit. Iran that they fought a war with for years. Used chemical weapons against. An Iran who doesn’t care about Iraq, only what it can use Iraq for. An Iran so crafty at pulling the world’s strings. That Iran must still be contained.
Then came the point of inflection when the president finally understood he could not legitimately appear to be turning his back on the Iranian people. Opinion had shifted too far, even among Democrats. And so he finally had to don the mantle of commander in chief, at least make a good show of it. This was the time when an anti-war isolationist president might be receptive to and want to hear good arguments about what our objectives could be to rescue our trusted allies the Kurds, the unfortunate religious minorities on the run from ISISILIS, have a serious discussion about cooperation with what’s left of a government in Baghdad. This was the time for conservatives, Republicans, and yes, libertarians to speak about what strategic objectives ought to be pursued and what priorities we should give them. This was the time when any president, even Obama this time, could have gotten almost anything he wanted from Congress because the American people, having seen our own citizens beheaded and our president standing by flat footed, were fearful and angry.
This was the time for pausing to consider what our objectives were in the Middle East and Iraq. When we decided to dethrone Saddam Hussein by hook or by crook, Saddam provided us a precious gift. Saddam and his two sons and the Baath party had held the jewel of the Middle East against Shia, against Sunni, against Kurd. They held it intact, is my point. The Iraqi people did want us to rid them of Saddam, and they wanted democracy and republican government. By taking over Iraq, we could be the benevolent Hegemon, sharing power and decision making with the Iraqi people almost as equals, as long as Iraq understood they needed us to remain free. Iraq was to be a democratic ally to help create peace and stability in the Middle East. It would become a stable base of operations for us to operate from and from which it would be difficult for Syria and Iran to get away with much michief. Our allies at the time included Jordan and Israel to the west, and at that time Egypt was still friendly. Saudi Arabia to the south. Kuwait. Turkey talked friendly but they dcclined to permit use of their airbases. Turkey has its own interests. If things went south for the Americans and the Kurds were to rise up, they needed to be able to quell them without outside influence from the American do-gooders. So, we do need Iraq as a bulwark against sometime ally Turkey.
Where were the pundits making their cases for the benefits of projecting strength in Iraq to minimize the possibilities of actual war while simultaneously denying terrorists a safe haven and thereby helping to keep Americans in America safe from terrrorist attack? Everyone seemed to forget the Bush rationale of insisting that Saddam not be permitted to create a safe haven for terrorists. This was the reason we went in, first to Afghanistan, and then Iraq. We did it in our self interest. (Unfortunately, Bush later modified the narrative and reverted to selling the Iraqis on the idea that we were there to nation build. But we ought to never have forgotten the real and original purpose.)
The president had his opportunity to salvage his presidency and become a historic president. But he blew it and punted. This is where, in my opinion, the president struck an irrevocable blow to his own credibility. Like Democrats selling major spending packages where all the benefits will be in the ‘out years’ beyond their time in office, the president elected on a minimalist offensive, barely enough to hold off the hordes, whose timeline will take us past the Obama presidency and of Democratic members of the house who might have to vote on it. A time frame that will have to be finished by his successor. This was the time to set a deadline, to say that we will effectively mop the floor with ISISILIS within one year, this is how we will do it. This is what cooperation we are going to get from the Iraqis, this is where they will permit us to control airbases and military bases. This is not like making a declaration that win or lose, we will bring all our troops home by such and such a date. This would have accomplished something. And this was the way to get Iran, Syria and yes Russia to listen and back off.
We were not meant to be Russia’s pawn, and Syria’s pawn and Iran’s pawn all at the same time. This is how we become hated. We ought to be doing what is best for America and what we can to help our most dependable and trusted allies. So far it appears as if we are doing everything humanly possible to lose.
No difference.
Obama would look just as foolish as during the various scandals in his past. He would blame Bush or the Republicans or the Tea Party. Or the Republican House and Senate after November.
No difference. And 20,000 dead Iraqis would not really be worth mentioning.
There are times when I get concerned that both Democrats and Republicans are actually happy to be playing the blame game, and they don’t really have any reasoned arguments that they can sell to the American people, and are therefore passively watching things getting worse. But hey, they’re at least happy the other side is going to get the blame come election time.
Supporting tyrants became too expensive post-Arab spring – otherwise we would have continued to do so.
But while on the subject of tyrants, you’ve got to admit that for all his many faults Saddam (a tyrant we supported when he invaded Iran but then stopped supporting when he invaded Kuwait) didn’t run an Iraq that was being occupied by ISIS.