Iraq and Historic Parallels: Vietnam

As the post-invasion occupation of Iraq immediately began running into trouble, comparisons to Vietnam sprouted like so many weeds. I didn't buy into them because I though a better historic parallel was the British occupation of Iraq (Persia) in the 1920s. If T.E. Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia) were alive, he'd agree.

(There are other historic parallels, two of which were noted yesterday in a Kiko's House post.)

But now that we're approaching the third anniversary of the war, some Vietnam comparisons don't seem quite so tortured. Retired Army Lieutenant General William E. Odom, an academic who was director of the National Security Agency during President Reagan's first term, offers several in a piece at Nieman Watchdog.

Odom concludes by stating that:

Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already having. On this point, those who deny the Vietnam-Iraq analogy are probably right. They are wrong, however, in believing that “staying the course” will have any result other than making the damage to U.S. power far greater than changing course and withdrawing sooner in as orderly a fashion as possible.

But even in its differences, Vietnam can be instructive about Iraq. Once the U.S. position in Vietnam collapsed, Washington was free to reverse the negative trends it faced in NATO and U.S.-Soviet military balance, in the world economy, in its international image, and in other areas. Only by getting out of Iraq can the United States possibly gain sufficient international support to design a new strategy for limiting the burgeoning growth of anti-Western forces it has unleashed in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

(Hat tip to Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.)