Journalist Bob Woodward is about to publish a new book on the administration called “State of Denial.” And in a recent interview with ABC, he revealed, among other things, that Henry Kissinger is advising the White House on Iraq.
“The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon saying, ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better.’”He said Kissinger, who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, has been telling Bush and Cheney that “in Iraq, he declared very simply, ‘Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.’”
“This is so fascinating. Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will.”
While I’d be the last person to call Iraq a quagmire, the lessons of the Vietnam War are real. Consider just a few foreign policy consequences of just the appearance of defeat or losing ground, either at home or on the ground:
- if the public loses the will to fight the war, the militants achieve a morale boost, will find it easier to recruit and win local sympathy;
- if the public loses faith in the administration, it restricts their international negotiations because they lack public support;
- if the US is perceived as being bogged down in a war, it reduces our strength to act elsewhere around the globe;
- if the US withdraws, it suffers credibility and good faith with allies, and shows the world that the US can’t take a real fight when the going gets tough;
… and much more.

Comments to this entry
Dan tdaxp
October 1, 2006
5:41 pm
Don't switch sides
It is enraging that Nixon built a Republic of Vietnam that was able to fight, and win, her own battles, yet American isolationsists (mostly but not exclusively liberal democrats) still forfeited. When North Vietnam invaded, after we left, South Vietnam won. South Vietnam had a better trained, better equipped, more able army that wooped the North. (The South Vietnamese and their American advisors had already disposed of an indigenous Communist insurgency during the Tet Offensive).
Yet the Congress, in 1974, imposed a de facto embargo on the Republic (preventing the government from loaning RVN the money to buy the supplies from American companies that the American-created army needed). Surprise surprise, a top-notch army collapses without supply or materiel.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace
October 1, 2006
7:21 pm
So it truly behooves leaders to be honest in the first place, or not to go to war. I think the public is fairly accepting that things go wrong in war; what it cannot abide is being led up a garden path.... especially for partizan political reasons.
Admiral
October 1, 2006
8:00 pm
While we should be wary of giving government any power, how about we just be done with this thing: fight the war the way MacArthur would have, make people abhor war once and for all, but fight it as it must be fought, with resolve! Kaplan had it right in his latest about Iran, too, although I would add that we have to be willing as a people to fight this and that seems to be the most important thing missing.
Neither the Nixon administration nor the Bush administration understand how to fight that kind of a war, although it seems to me that the Bush administration has an idea of the threat. The neocon intellectuals at least understand the nature of the War: this is far too pervasive and broken right now to expect a solution any time soon. We have to fight it on every front.
Kissinger is a pedant, too trapped in short-term realism, or at least he was. No, I don't think this is a heartening development.
Flagg
October 1, 2006
8:47 pm
I guess what I'm trying to get at is, Afghanistan/Iraq is a messy affair that's been painted in simplistic terms. It's a mad swirl of tribal loyalties, ancient grievances, anti-Western terrorists, Baathists, opium drug lords and on and on. Citizens of Western nations are told it is a simple fight against "terrorists". Anyone standing up to say that things are bad (the first pre-condition to fixing a situation) is told they are "dovetailing their views with the terrorists."
The clash between the West and militant Islam will be a long one. Many "fronts" (another misleading term in this new era) will be opened and many fights played out. If the West hopes to win, it will need to hard-hearted and clear-sighted action, not a bunch of thin-skinned civilian pinheads who bristle at the least criticism and who want to re-fight a war that ended thirty years ago.
lirelou
October 2, 2006
2:22 am
ps. QLVN Quan Luc Viet Nam = Vietnamese Armed Forces.
alec
October 2, 2006
2:29 am
I really have a hard time buying the 'low morale in America = more recruits for terrorists' argument too. Does any terrorist group advertise on its pamphlet that Bimbo American spends one minute regretting the Iraq War between episodes of Friends and Everybody Loves Raymond? Doubtful. And do you REALLY think public opinion hampers this administration? If you say yes, please explain Donald Rumsfeld still being Secretary of Defense and Colin Powell's resignation. And, last quip, is what allies are you talking about? Who do we have left to impress in this war? Uzbekistan? Romania? Poland? The Coalition of the Willing is more like a cadre of underdeveloped nations with above average egos.
RevG
October 2, 2006
3:00 am
I could not agree with Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace more. The public has a greater diversity in news and opinion available today than it did during the Vietnam War and large segments of it are quicker to question the veracity of politicians. I would like to believe there is also a legitmate feeling regarding the righteousness of our national adventures and this must be compared and contrasted to the Salafists who fight for the same Abrahamic God as the Christians and Jews. Ultimately, I believe it will be our respective spiritual strengths that will provide the critical winning edge. I am not only refering to the fundamentalist religious right, but also to the genuine spirituality with which the rest of the USA identifies.
Elizabeth
October 2, 2006
4:24 am
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/01/asia/AS_POL_Tajikistan_Elections.php
Regarding this post, I fully agree with Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace.
Lexington Green
October 2, 2006
5:38 am
That's not what Lee Kwan Yew says. He says that the American defense of South Vietnam gave Singapore and the other countries of the region the time they needed to begin to develop economically. It was an awfully expensive way to do that, admittedly. But it is wrong to say we got no benefit from delaying the communist conquest of South Vietnam for ten years.
alec
October 2, 2006
3:51 pm
Curzon
October 2, 2006
4:18 pm
And once they were established, they were ironclad and invincible with no need for economic involvement? The Vietnam War played an important part in keeping America involved and present across East Asia. The economic argument is a small one, but it's not unimportant.
moorethanthis
October 2, 2006
4:34 pm
As for the main post and discussion: the idea that opposition back home equals 'lack of will' is a standard right-wing trope used to paint domestic opponents of the war as traitors or weaklings. On point 2, I don't get how lack of public support will weaken the US position in international negotiation - surely what matters at that level is the interplay of governments, not what the New York Times is putting on its op-ed page? And as for reduced influence and strength, the situation in Iraq is already reflecting badly on the US, as the war in Lebanon did on Israel. It has shown that the kind of war (lightweight forces, reliant on airpower) that politicians like to fight cannot win the kind of counter-insurgency stuggles we face today.
Ultimately, the problem of the US administration is that it believes its own propaganda (see my point on 'lack of will'.) This is disastrous for any party fighting a war, as John Robb shows. His appeal for greater transparency and openness may be the only way out of the mess.
Shloky
October 2, 2006
4:38 pm
"During those thirteen years pro-Western governments consolidated their power in Indonesia. Malaysia, and Singapore while economic growth ignited in the region's key pro-Western states, South Korea, Japan, Thailand, and Taiwan. By 1975, the year of the worst U.S. military humiliation since 1943, the threats to all these states and territories, from within and from a hostile China, had far receded from their level in the late 1950s. In everyone one of these now prosperous and fast-growing states, the essential issues of the Long War had been decided in their domestic polity and had been resolved against communism..."
-Page 59 of The Shield of Achilles,
Atlantic Review
October 2, 2006
9:41 pm
Bob Woodward, who has been known for his incredible access to classified reports and close contacts to members of the Bush administration, has just published a new book State of Denial (Amazon.com, Amazon.de) and writes in the Washington Post article Secr
vijay
October 3, 2006
8:21 pm
The only difference - no scandals in singapore.
I was in Singapora (by the way not trying to educate - (singa!) means Lion and Pura (or 'puram' is a word in Tamil means, a surrounding or a village).
What or Which country in this world was not ruled by someone else.
Mi-Hwa
October 4, 2006
12:49 pm
vijay
October 4, 2006
7:44 pm
aka kissinger
Let him go and live in third world countries before he wants to wax the egos in the Government. Nixonian at best!!!!!!
This is liki dogging the wag.. Sorry for using the vocabulary.
vijay
October 4, 2006
7:54 pm
Has anyone read Godel, Slow down the language, before you know the logic. Politics does not do it.. Politics never did it!. Only grunts and growls in the caves and trees..
I am not suggesting language is not! but only how one uses it.
I am still writing in english, A'int I.