The US involvement in Vietnam
stretched from 1950 until 15 August 1973.[1]
The American political analysts viewed it as a proxy conflict between the
competing Communist and capitalist ideologies. In reviewing the political and
military writings of the day you see much concern over the idea that if one
country in a region were to fall then all the surrounding countries would also
fall. This idea was called the domino effect.[2]
In the course of that conflict, the United States moved from a training and
advising role into active combat where we introduced vastly superior
technology, and an increasing number of combat troops but was not able impart
sufficient damage to overcome the Communist’s will to continue. Some, like Col. Harry G. Summers[3], contended it was because of the political limitations placed on the military by its civilian political leadership, and their failure to understand the true nature of the conflict.
So here we are some forty-years
later and we are again engaged in a proxy conflict where we have vastly
superior weapons, but are drawn into an extended war that is becoming
increasingly global in nature. This time, as in Vietnam, we have no clear
vision of what winning means. We move from one hot spot to the next attempting
to keep the hostility and hatred that has made up the much of the culture of
that region from boiling over. This hostility is not new, nor the hatred
recent. It has lain just below the surface for a long time. This time, as in
the Vietnam conflict, we have seen a number of Presidents engaged to varying
degrees -- committing forces, directing the maneuver of those forces, defining
the rules of engagement, or perhaps ignoring the threat and hoping it would
just go away.
What is quite different this
time is we are not faced with an opposing leadership that can be engaged in
discussion and compromise. This is not a state versus state war. It is, at its
very foundation, an ideological struggle and it comes at a time where the west
has lost its ideology. Our leaders and many who both support and oppose them
pursue a path of “correct thinking” that says all ideologies are equal and
demand the same respect, except perhaps Judaism, which for some reason is
treated differently. Our opponents certainly don’t believe this to be true, in
fact they are determined that there can only be one true theology.
This fundamental difference
creates a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon; as the political leadership again and
again frames its responses based on its perception of the world, not that of
the enemies. We condemn the actions our
enemy as weak and inhumane while failing to recognize how those actions play
out to the masses of the countries ISIL is actually speaking to when it
transmits these horrific events.
We are caught on the horns of a
dilemma. If we forsake our values and
embrace those of our enemies we may gain some tactical advantage, but we will lose
ourselves in the process. This is what
the Democrats are so quick to condemn in Vice President Cheney’s approach.
If, on the other hand, we believe our
inconsistent and reactive approach will result in ISIL suddenly losing interest
and support than we are setting ourselves on a path that only King Sisyphus
would appreciate. The fact we cannot set
a consistent campaign, and we are viewed as morally bankrupt by so many, whose
views are supported by our own protests within, will lead to an unending
effort.
There is no forum where negotiation is possible, until someone of great influence to the Islamic world steps forward. This means there is no foreseeable end to this conflict, until either the west, with its Judeo-Christian foundation destroys itself. Or the Islamic movement wears itself out and loses the support of those who believe they serve a useful purpose in draining the economic and human resources of the US and its allies.
This is my view, I hope for all our sakes I am completely wrong.
