The Vietnam War (or conflict as I like to call it) wasn't a war about maintaining peace and "freedom", instead, it was a war about nationalistic influence and hegemony, drugs and most importantly, money. Sound familiar? The Iraq war is all about maintaining American presence on the oil-rich country so oil barons and defence contractors can all "walk out" will pockets full of dirty money. Right now, instead of peace-keeping and security, U.S. soldiers are merely looking after their superior's profits. Call them modern mercenaries. There are literally hundreds of evident comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq, but none appear more stark than the ones listed below:
1. Both wars were had "incidents" that provoked U.S. involvement. Vietnam was spurred by the Golf of Tonkin incident (a false-flag attack by the U.S. to illegally enter the firestorm) , and as for Iraq, it was the "leaked WMD papers" which infuriated the American people into believing that Iraq possessed nuclear capabilities.
2. Both wars following the initial invasion, lasted for an indefinite amount of years. Vietnam was occupied by the U.S. roughly from 1962-1973, a period of 11 years in which U.S. commerce and importing flourished in Vietnam, whereas Iraq has been overseen from 2003-2008, a period of 5 years; and as indicated by many military analysts, could be in U.S. possession for at least one more decade. My guess is that they wan't to extract as much Iraqi oil as they can to retaliate against OPEC.
3. Both wars were fought under the pretence that "security" and "freedom" were in jeopardy if the "enemy" was left unabated and undettered. In the 1960s it was the international threat of Communism, while in the 21st century, the new threat is "global terrorism."
4. During both wars, the CIA was involved in coups that installed former intelligence officers and pro-U.S. politicians and executed state leaders that resisted U.S. hegemony. In Vietnam, South Vietnamese president Ngo Din Diem was killed by the CIA, while in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was killed by U.S. intel officers dressed as Iraqi natives.
5. In both wars, the initial U.S. invasion cost minimal loss of U.S. casualties, but the subsequent occupation caused incredible amounts of damage to U.S. life and morale due to insurgency and unrest.
6. At the onset, both wars were fervently supported by U.S. citizens under the belief that troops were fighting the "bad guys" and sustaining goodness and democracy. Following subsequent scandals and massacres; in Vietnam it was the My Lai Massacre and the inhumane U.S. policy of torching down entire villages; while in Iraq it was Abu Ghraib and the disclosure of innumerable rapings and torture trials.
7. The actual "conflicts" were rarely fought in the open, but fought under the conditions of guerilla warfare and camouflage.
8. Prior to both wars, the principal "enemies" of the conflicts were seperated and stripped of ancestral land - the North Vietnamese losing their southern half, and the Iraqis losing Kuwait - both occured under international conferences.
8. Both the nations of Vietnam and Iraq possessed valuable and expensive natural resources - Vietnam possessed opium, wheras Iraq contained fossil fuels.
9. Both wars left enormous deficits to the U.S. reserves and economy - with the U.S. forking over more than $120 Billion dollars in Vietnam and over $1 Trillion in Iraq. (Modern inflation would probably account to over $500 to $1`trillion dollars in Vietnam).
10. Both wars severely damaged the appeal and reputation of the incumbent president at the time; Lyndon B. Johnson's approval rating plummeted following one scandal after another; while George W. Bush's rating dropped tremendously following Abu Ghraib and other leaked affairs.
Indeed, there are innumerable comparisons between the two conflicts but as outlined above, the two conflicts are only about money and power. The incredible loss of life from both conflicts can never be retrieved, but as a proxy, we can shout and revile the policies of the few ruling elite and their flagrant policies.
