Bush's Iraq-Vietnam comparison could easily backfire (like the war itself)

So Bush compares Iraq to Vietnam (sort of)... isn't that what many in the anti-war camp have been doing all along? And when you're trying to push victory in a war, I don't think Vietnam, largely seen as a military and political failure for the United States, is the best thing to cite.

President George W Bush has warned a US withdrawal from Iraq could trigger the kind of upheaval seen in South East Asia after US forces quit Vietnam.

"The price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens," he told war veterans in Missouri.

The price of America's occupation was also payed by the lives of many, in both Vietnam and Iraq. (And what about the Cambodians bombed needlessly and the other casualties of the horrendous, often covert, US policy of the Cold War?)

Mr Bush said the Vietnam War had taught the need for US patience over Iraq.

Patience, or the unneeded costs — in a humanitarian as well as a monetary sense — and blowback wars like Iraq and, notably, the old Soviet war in Afghanistan result in, not to mention loss of political face at home and abroad for those on the losing end(s) of such wars.

President Bush had already made a connection between the US-led occupation of Iraq and the Cold War-era Vietnam conflict in October of last year.

A sketchy connection of past conflict to present conflict
Semi-neocon Christopher Hitchens disputes the Iraq-Vietnam link, offering plenty of contrasts between the Iraq and Vietnam wars, which I myself have my reservations about. In a way, one can compare the Cold War against 'communism' to the global 'war on terror'; Vietnam and Iraq were major fronts of those 'wars', respectively. They both have ideologically-driven parties involved — one might say Saudi Arabia and Iran are Iraq's China, etc., during the Vietnam war. However, the parties involved in the current Iraq conflict are even more of a blur, and at this point America is fighting insurgents while trying to get Iraq to be able to walk with its own too.

Another shared trait of both wars is the unorthodox guerrilla warfare used by the insurgents/communists. Then again, things are much more wishy-washy in Iraq and there is no one enemy. Also Iraq fell with Saddam; America never fully conquered Vietnam (the north ended up taking the south).

Bush's logic that the 'terrorists' will take over Iraq just as the communists did in Vietnam has plenty of holes. For example, just the fact that there is no one group of insurgents hurts his argument. In addition, his new comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, mostly in a domestic political sense, makes it all too easy for those on the other side of the spectrum to argue that Iraq is a failed war, like Vietnam, and even the president who has constantly pursued the war can make that connection.

Not apples to apples
Iraq is complex. With so many outcomes, and so many parties involved or allegedly involved, the policy debate will no doubt rage on in Washington and Baghdad. Iraq can be compared to Vietnam. But it's not a comparison where all the common traits — or at least enough to make a good case — match up.

There are plenty of other comparisons and non-comparisons of the Iraq war to Vietnam, but saying Iraq 'is' Vietnam or saying the reverse (i.e. 'it isn't at all') gets a but too absolute. Things are not that clear cut. Jumping to polar extremes is one of the things that got the United States into this Mideast quagmire in the first place. Hopefully others won't make similar errors in their logic.

States, failed and failing

The Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine have published the 2007 Failed States Index.

The index measures the vulnerability of failure for 177 of the states surveyed — i.e. the chance of outright collapse. As the index says,

The world’s weakest states aren’t just a danger to themselves. They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away.

The index uses 12 socio-economic and political indicators to score the potential for failure for each nation.

Let's see who made the top-12 cut this year...
1. Sudan
2. Iraq
3. Somalia
4. Zimbabwe
5. Chad
6. Côte d'Ivoire
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo
8. Afghanistan
9. Guinea
10. Central African Republic
11. Haiti
12. Pakistan

Most of the states are in Africa (eight), and the rest are in the Middle East (three) — hold Haiti, a turmoil-stricken Caribbean nation.

Let's now take a look at these top 12 most faltering nation-states. Sudan is number one. Because of the state-encouraged ethnic genocide and fighting in its Darfur region, among other political reasons including international pressure, Sudan is a breeding ground for state collapse and instability.

Iraq is another obvious one: the sectarian civil war and the insurgency arising from the occupation, not to mention an unbelievably week government that even the strongest military force on the planet has a hard time keeping up. Iraq practically is a failed state.

Next is Somalia, which is more worse off governmentally than Iraq. The consensus a few years ago kept in line with the common wisdom about the Horn of Africa state: it is a failed one. Islamic rebels, traditional warlords, and foreign troops (Ethiopians supported by America) are all forces pushing this country on the brink of irreversible collapse. Its people aren't doing too well either. In the cases of both Somalia and Iraq, the worst fighting and actions posing the strongest threat to stability occur in the capitals, Mogadishu (I spelled it correctly on my first try!) and Baghdad, respectively.

Zimbabwe is high up on the list because of the humanitarian and economic disaster there. The inflation rate is tin the thousands and the thuggish leader Robert Mugabe shows no signs of giving up power, but even his own party is becoming discontented.

Chad is inheriting a lot of the problems of its neighbor Sudan. It also has problems of its own similar to the other failed or failing states in the index.

Côte d'Ivoire I do not know much about. From some research on the internet I have figured out the country also known as the Ivory Coast is experiencing civil war, or the aftermath of such a war. Elections have been put off time after time because of the fighting or the prospect of fighting. It has received little coverage by American media, like many other major world issues, including those talked about in the index and this blog post. Some consider the West African nation out of civil war, but the prospect of renewed fighting is daunting.

DPRC, or rather Congo has been recently stabilized by UN peacekeeping. It finally had elections last summer after years of bloody war.

Afghanistan is similar in many ways to Iraq, though not as dire: insurgency to foreign occupation, weak government, foreign and local Islamic extremist forces, etc.

Further down the list, Haiti has been in political mayhem for years now and UN peacekeepers are trying their best to maintain some form of stability.

Pakistan is facing the threat of an overthrow by extremists or other groups, and opposition to its dictatorial president Musharraf for allying himself with and against the people, with America, and with the militants. Not to mention the surprising inflammation caused my him dismissing a senior judge who disagreed with his regime's legal and political policies.

As we see, some instability is centered on certain regions (e.g. Darfur) or cities (e.g. Baghdad; Mogadishu; Port-au-Prince), whereas some is nation-wide (e.g. Zimbabwe).

Iraq and Somalia are probably the worst on the list, although none of the aforementioned 12 are by any means stellar in their state political security. If Palestine was a state — though it is looking like two right now — it would surely be near the top of the index due to its civil war and massive amounts of homegrown terrorism.

The Economist has made a map of the top 10 countries of the Failed State Index.



For more on happy topics like this one, see Conflict Meter.

Blowback: then, now, and in the years to come

A term used to describe the detrimental side effects — unintended by the US — of the current American fight in the civil war in Iraq is 'blowback'. Blowback is similar to the fire paradox in that they share the same premise: in fighting something, be it a war or insurgent terrorists in general, the opposite of intended outcomes are realized. Blowback is more specific to the fire paradox, because the fire paradox can be applied to, as used as an example in this paper, how certain policies in the 'war on terrorism' just create more terrorism. However, blowback can also be used to describe a case where terrorists are bred.

An article in Foreign Affairs presented the blowback argument — revisited. "Today's insurgents are tomorrow's terrorists,” the authors, Peter Bergen and Alec Reynolds, said. They also shared the parallels between America helping Afghan terrorists in what could effectively be described as a proxy war against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and the current US involvement in Iraq. The jihadist success in Afghanistan, which succeeded in forcing the Soviets to withdrawal, resulted in a worldwide surge in similar terrorist movements in the name of Islam.

Just as Palestine has been a breeding ground for terrorists — linked with others (mostly Arab Muslims) united against Israel — because of their plight, Iraq too is becoming the next major front for terrorist recruitment, more against America than ever. Some of this terrorism is targeted at the foreign troops, some at the weak Iraqi government, and some is just to stir up the sectarian violence. US occupation just worsens the radicalization. And seeing democracy as the cure is as shortsighted as it is naive. How could a democracy operate when the capitol building is a constant target of suicide bombers? Blowback in Iraq and Palestine will likely continue for at least another generation, if not longer if the civil war ceases to subside in Iraq and Israel and Palestine do not come so a final accord.

So could Iraq's potential or current terrorists come back and haunt the US and, indeed, the world? In reality, they already are. More so than in the case of Afghanistan? Probably. The civil war and American occupation, as well as an influx of terrorists, has made Iraq a hotbed of Islamic extremism.

All not-so-quiet on the Afghan front

It has been around five years since the United States and its allies — more then than it has now — invaded Afghanistan following the 9/11 terror attacks. From then on, the fighting in Afghanistan has been a roller coaster ride. But now the Taliban, which has collaborated with terrorist group al-Qaeda and ruled Afghanistan before the 2002 invasion, has resurged with enough support and strength to scare NATO forces as they prepare for its apparent heavy offensive this spring. It sprung up as a resistance movement to Soviet Russia's trying to invade it; i.e. Afghanistan was arguably a front for Cold War proxy wars between the US and USSR. Like any other movement, the Taliban is not entirely bad, nor is it a positive force in modern Afghanistan. The United States is peeved that, in its eyes, NATO and Europe are not stepping up to the plate in their fight in Afghanistan. The country is, by the way, not very free and democratic as its constitution has about as many extreme contradictions as the Bible (e.g., how can a woman have inalienable rights if traditional conservative Muslim doctrines also in the constitution forbid those rights?). There is also a problem with terrorists crossing Afghanistan's shared border with Pakistan. Although the Pakistani government insists it does all it can to fight against extremists, many have been skeptical.

AP via CNN:

Describing a country on the brink, President Bush on Thursday exhorted NATO nations to send additional troops to Afghanistan and allow their soldiers already there to fight in the violent south and under other dangerous circumstances.

"When our commanders on the ground say to our respective countries 'We need additional help,' our NATO countries must provide it," Bush said in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. "As well, allies must lift restrictions on the forces they do provide so NATO commanders have the flexibility they need to defeat the enemy wherever the enemy may make its stand."
...
Fighting in Afghanistan the past year was the bloodiest since the U.S.-led war started in 2001 and toppled the Taliban regime. Commanders anticipate a renewed offensive this spring by Taliban fighters trying to stage a comeback and topple the elected government in Kabul.

Several countries have offered recently to provide additional support to the 35,500-strong NATO force, but it remains to be seen whether coalition commanders will get the troops, equipment and rules of engagement they say they need.

The Pentagon announced Wednesday that about 3,000 soldiers who had been scheduled to go to Iraq would be sent to Afghanistan instead. That puts the U.S. presence there at about 27,000 -- the highest of the war -- with 15,000 serving as part of the NATO-led force and another 12,000 special operations forces and trainers.

The president is asking Congress to provide $11.8 billion over the next two years for operations, military and otherwise, in Afghanistan.

Bush said the need for others nations to step up is great as spring comes, bringing an expected new offensive by the Taliban.

As a side-note, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a neocon/conservative think-tank that has closely collaborated with the White House on successes like Iraq (sarcasm, for those who can't recognize it).

Bush is right to send more troops and money to Afghanistan. A recent study, The Terrorism Index, concluded a majority of American foreign policy and national security experts of all stripes believe that to be the right move.

BBC News has a slew of analysis on and guides to Afghanistan, such as a five-year check-up and a progress report on whether forces are winning or loosing against Taliban insurgent forces reincarnating their power and influence as NATO troops try to keep up and rebuild. There's also Wikipedia if one wants to further delve into the tomes of knowledge compiled on Afghanistan.

technorati tags: afghanistan, bush, taliban, aei, bbc+news, afghanistan+profile, politics, nato, news, pentagon, afghanistan+troops

Conflict Meter

It has been over a month since the last Conflict Meter report on 31 December 2006. Let's see what turmoil is going on now and what strife is in the conflict forecast...

Somalia

Current: moderate (political, other)

Trend: downward

Forecast: questionable, instable, insurgent (warlord and Islamist; Ethopia was factor); stable government and international support needed (AU and UN, as well as US)

Iraq

Current: very, very high (sectarian and otherwise — terrorist; Iran (v. US), Syria (?) — targeted at practically anyone (depending))

Trend: up

Forecast: down a bit, assuming Baghdad security increases from Iraq govt. and US troop operations though don't get too optimistic; still very bad

Afghanistan

Current: high (Taleban resurgence against govt., troops)

Trend: flat, a bit elevated

Forecast: popular opinion worsening, Taleban might look like heroes compared to other forces

Palestine*

Current: violence was worse — tense calm at the moment; moderate political within (ceasefire in place); heightened with Israel

Trend: lowering within Palestine because of ceasefire and lessening power struggle (?); Israel relations worsening from recent suicide attack

Forecast: could get better or worse between Hamas and Fatah; more impending problems with Israel unless they choose better — altruistic even — policy... Israel should not make the many suffer for the actions of the few, and Arab militants should not let their fellow countrypeople and Muslims, and innocents, suffer for their violent actions


Overall trend of conflict from beginning of Jan 2007 to beginning of Feb 2007:
Up some
(Red up: up greatly; green up: up some. Red down: down greatly from high level; green down: down some from low level.)


*=Within Palestine (Hamas v. Fatah): possibly down because of ceasefire, though it was elevated; Palestine and Israel violence: up; hopefully no further Israeli extra-border action will be taken.


Did I miss any current violent conflicts? Let me know by commenting or emailing me.

technorati tags: conflict+meter, violence, conflicts, war, iraq, somalia, afghanistan, palestine, israel, in+the+news, current, analysis