Faulty memories of Vietnam are prevalent these days as defeatist Democrats and weak-kneed Republicans alike try to pretend we can slide out of Iraq without catastrophe.
Savvy foreign policy veteran Max Boot knows better and dissects one particular notion: that the negotiations leading to the fall of South Vietnam, led by the amoral Henry Kissinger, somehow offer a model for today.
As Congress debates the war in Iraq, it's becoming clear that many lawmakers want to bring the troops home while avoiding the likely consequences — a ruinous civil war and a calamitous victory for Iran and al-Qaida. This has led to much pining for some kind of negotiated solution — what the Iraq Study Group called a "new diplomatic offensive" — that might allow us a graceful exit.Enter Henry Kissinger, the octogenarian "wise man" who is an adviser to President Bush. While rightly stressing that a "precipitate withdrawal" of U.S. forces would result in a "geopolitical calamity," he suggested in a recent syndicated column that "a sustainable political end to the conflict" can be achieved not through military action but through "wise and determined American diplomacy" that engages everyone from internal Iraqi players to Iran and Indonesia. [...]
Kissinger can plausibly argue that the fall of South Vietnam and Cambodia was inevitable, given the turn of public opinion against the war. But he cannot at the same time claim, as he does in his memoirs, that his diplomacy was a "dazzling success." His machinations, however brilliant, made little difference in the end. All they did was provide the Nixon administration a "reasonable interval" and Kissinger a Nobel Peace Prize. If anything, the peace accords accelerated the fall of South Vietnam by giving Congress the illusion that the war was over and that it was safe to cut off aid.
There is a lesson here for the present day: Skilled diplomacy can consolidate the results of military success but can seldom make up for its lack. In Iraq, there is scant chance that any American legerdemain can convince internal factions like the Jaish al-Mahdi or al-Qaida in Iraq, or outside actors such as Iran and Syria, that their interests are congruent with ours. While the United States pursues stability and democracy, our enemies are merrily capitalizing on mayhem to carve out spheres of influence and bleed us dry.
The only thing that could conceivably alter their calculations is a change in the balance of power on the ground. That is what Army Gen. David Petraeus is trying to achieve. But he is being undermined by incessant withdrawal demands from home, which are convincing our enemies that they can wait us out. Only if the other side faces the probability of defeat — or at least stalemate — can negotiations produce a durable accord.
Millions died after Kissinger's cynical brand of "realism" was implemented. It was dishonest nonsense then, and it is again today. We owe ourselves and the world more.
Posted by Alan at July 29, 2007 01:33 PM