Ron Briley: Bush in Iraq ... The Cambodian Option
[Mr. Briley is Assistant Headmaster, Sandia Preparatory School.]
As President George W. Bush attempts to disengage himself from the mess he orchestrated in Iraq, it appears that the President assumes the only way forward is through an escalation of the conflict. In this regard, Bush appears to be emulating his fellow Republican Richard Nixon.
When Nixon was elected to the Presidency in 1968, protest against the Vietnam War was gaining momentum. The Tet Offensive convinced many Americans that kill ratios and political rhetoric regarding the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel were not evidence of progress in Vietnam. Discontent with the war fueled the candidacies of Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy as well as President Johnson’s decision to withdraw from the race. Nixon positioned himself as a candidate who could end the war but remained vague as to his exact plans.
Upon assuming the Presidency, Nixon did commence troop withdrawals from Vietnam, which he asserted would be contingent upon the ability of the South Vietnamese forces to replace American troops. This program of Vietnamization, which began under President Johnson, would in the words of Nixon allow the United States to achieve “peace with honor.” President Bush seems to envision a similar program of “Iraqization,” but the administration refuses to consider any timetables for the completion of this process and the withdrawal of American troops. Nevertheless, Vietnamization proved an illusive goal as the government of South Vietnam lacked the political resolve to attain victory. Similar doubts arise regarding the fragmented government in Iraq.
A frustrated Nixon became convinced that the only way out of the impasse in Vietnam was to widen the conflict. Asserting that violations of Cambodian neutrality by the North Vietnamese provided the enemy with sanctuaries, President Nixon ordered an invasion of Cambodia. The military action proved to be disastrous for both the United States and Cambodia. President Nixon’s escalation of the conflict resulted in explosions of protest throughout the nation, culminating in the shooting of students at Kent State and Jackson State universities. The discontent over the expansion of the war also emboldened Congress to pass the Cooper-Church Amendment cutting off funding for U.S. military operations in Cambodia.
For the Cambodian people, however, the damage was already done. The American invasion destabilized the Cambodian government, providing the opportunity for the Khmer Rouge to seize power. The regime of Paul Pot was responsible for the killing fields and a genocide which left over one million Cambodians dead. In the final analysis, Nixon recognized that that the military option alone would not allow the United States to exorcise itself from the Vietnam nightmare. President Nixon opened diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China and negotiated arms reduction agreements with the Soviet Union, believing that detente with the communist super powers would lead these nations to place pressure upon their North Vietnamese ally to reach a political settlement with the United States. Diplomacy played an essential role in bringing the war in Indochina to a halt, but the policies of detente pursued by Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger are eschewed by the neoconservative ideologues who dominate the Bush administration.
Instead President Bush rejects the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the administration pursue talks with Syria and Iran. Rather than engage these governments, whom the President blames for supporting the insurgency in Iraq and destabilizing more conservative Arab regimes, the United States seems to be moving toward a military confrontation with Iran. Following his nationally-televised speech calling for a “surge” of American troops in Iraq, the President authorized a military operation against an Iranian consulate in Irbil, located within Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Five Iranians were detained and accused of financing the Iraqi insurgency. In addition, the President has escalated his rhetoric against the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmondinejad and dispatched additional American warships to the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, the American government leads the drive for international sanctions against Iran for its uranium enrichment and nuclear program.
President Bush has used numerous arguments to justify American military action in Iraq: the search for weapons of mass destruction, liberating the people of Iraq, bringing democracy to the Middle East, fighting terrorism, and now containing the territorial ambitions of Iran. With his increasing demonization of Iran, President Bush appears to be moving in the direction of the Nixon Cambodian escalation: in order to end the war it will be necessary to expand the conflict. This approach in Indochina was ill-advised and catastrophic for the Cambodian people. The Iranian option threatens to further destabilize the volatile Middle East, unleashing forces which the United States will be unable to control as we reap the whirlwind of eschewing diplomacy in favor of military intervention.
As President George W. Bush attempts to disengage himself from the mess he orchestrated in Iraq, it appears that the President assumes the only way forward is through an escalation of the conflict. In this regard, Bush appears to be emulating his fellow Republican Richard Nixon.
When Nixon was elected to the Presidency in 1968, protest against the Vietnam War was gaining momentum. The Tet Offensive convinced many Americans that kill ratios and political rhetoric regarding the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel were not evidence of progress in Vietnam. Discontent with the war fueled the candidacies of Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy as well as President Johnson’s decision to withdraw from the race. Nixon positioned himself as a candidate who could end the war but remained vague as to his exact plans.
Upon assuming the Presidency, Nixon did commence troop withdrawals from Vietnam, which he asserted would be contingent upon the ability of the South Vietnamese forces to replace American troops. This program of Vietnamization, which began under President Johnson, would in the words of Nixon allow the United States to achieve “peace with honor.” President Bush seems to envision a similar program of “Iraqization,” but the administration refuses to consider any timetables for the completion of this process and the withdrawal of American troops. Nevertheless, Vietnamization proved an illusive goal as the government of South Vietnam lacked the political resolve to attain victory. Similar doubts arise regarding the fragmented government in Iraq.
A frustrated Nixon became convinced that the only way out of the impasse in Vietnam was to widen the conflict. Asserting that violations of Cambodian neutrality by the North Vietnamese provided the enemy with sanctuaries, President Nixon ordered an invasion of Cambodia. The military action proved to be disastrous for both the United States and Cambodia. President Nixon’s escalation of the conflict resulted in explosions of protest throughout the nation, culminating in the shooting of students at Kent State and Jackson State universities. The discontent over the expansion of the war also emboldened Congress to pass the Cooper-Church Amendment cutting off funding for U.S. military operations in Cambodia.
For the Cambodian people, however, the damage was already done. The American invasion destabilized the Cambodian government, providing the opportunity for the Khmer Rouge to seize power. The regime of Paul Pot was responsible for the killing fields and a genocide which left over one million Cambodians dead. In the final analysis, Nixon recognized that that the military option alone would not allow the United States to exorcise itself from the Vietnam nightmare. President Nixon opened diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China and negotiated arms reduction agreements with the Soviet Union, believing that detente with the communist super powers would lead these nations to place pressure upon their North Vietnamese ally to reach a political settlement with the United States. Diplomacy played an essential role in bringing the war in Indochina to a halt, but the policies of detente pursued by Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger are eschewed by the neoconservative ideologues who dominate the Bush administration.
Instead President Bush rejects the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the administration pursue talks with Syria and Iran. Rather than engage these governments, whom the President blames for supporting the insurgency in Iraq and destabilizing more conservative Arab regimes, the United States seems to be moving toward a military confrontation with Iran. Following his nationally-televised speech calling for a “surge” of American troops in Iraq, the President authorized a military operation against an Iranian consulate in Irbil, located within Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Five Iranians were detained and accused of financing the Iraqi insurgency. In addition, the President has escalated his rhetoric against the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmondinejad and dispatched additional American warships to the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, the American government leads the drive for international sanctions against Iran for its uranium enrichment and nuclear program.
President Bush has used numerous arguments to justify American military action in Iraq: the search for weapons of mass destruction, liberating the people of Iraq, bringing democracy to the Middle East, fighting terrorism, and now containing the territorial ambitions of Iran. With his increasing demonization of Iran, President Bush appears to be moving in the direction of the Nixon Cambodian escalation: in order to end the war it will be necessary to expand the conflict. This approach in Indochina was ill-advised and catastrophic for the Cambodian people. The Iranian option threatens to further destabilize the volatile Middle East, unleashing forces which the United States will be unable to control as we reap the whirlwind of eschewing diplomacy in favor of military intervention.