Kerry has not learned lessons of Vietnam

Michael Sochynsky Guest Writer

In this amazingly superficial presidential election of muscle flexing and catchphrases, the Vietnam War has often been the center of attention. However, instead of asking how we might apply the lessons of Vietnam to the increasingly similar guerilla war in Iraq, the candidates have quarreled over which candidate served more enthusiastically during Vietnam. The fundamental question that arises from Vietnam is: who will conduct a more aggressive, militaristic foreign policy?

Much of this is John Kerry’s fault, who has tried to “out macho” Bush on foreign policy. In addition to his increasingly hawkish attacks on Bush’s handling of Iraq, Kerry has continually drawn attention to his heroism in Vietnam. For months, a day did not pass that we weren’t reminded of how brave Kerry was on his Swift boat, patrolling the perilous waters of the Mekong Delta. Occasionally someone might mention his anti-war activism after he got home, but was quickly reminded that dissenting against American military occupation just isn’t patriotic.

Most Democrats don’t see the irony of repeatedly celebrating the fact that Kerry enthusiastically signed up for a unilateral, illegal, and immoral war in Vietnam. That would be like asking Democrats to back someone who voted for the war in Iraq! (Oh wait, never mind.) In a sane world, Kerry would proudly celebrate his anti-war heroism of the early 1970s. The fact that Kerry drafted himself to kill poor Vietnamese people would be a political liability, not the centerpiece of his campaign and convention.

It shouldn’t have taken Kerry until a month before the election to begin pointing out that Bush’s stubborn, ineffective approach to Iraq lacks decisive leadership. Kerry should be out there emphasizing the disturbing parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, reminding us that counterinsurgency guerilla wars don’t have military solutions.

You can’t win the hearts and minds of people by bombing civilians, kidnapping and torturing the relatives of suspected insurgents, and destroying their infrastructure. It didn’t work in Vietnam, and it’s not going to work in Iraq.

Every time an American soldier conducts a house raid at the break of dawn, he or she has alienated a household. Every time U.S. forces arrest a group of young men (some who may be involved in the insurgency, some who may not), the United States may have lost the trust of everyone in their families. Those young men must now go to Abu Ghraib or any of the other barbaric, unreformed prisons throughout Iraq. Every time U.S. forces drop a 500-pound bomb on a “Zarqawi safe house” in Fallujah, killing a dozen civilians, peace in Iraq is one step further away.

John Kerry has failed to realize that the U.S. military occupation of is a radicalizing force, not a stabilizing one. The tragedy in Fallujah has proven this unfortunate fact. Insurgents murdered four American contractors because they were collaborating with occupation forces, not because Iraqis fundamentally “hate our way of life.” Moreover, the violence in Fallujah did not begin with this incident, but rather a year before in April 2003 when U.S. troops opened fire on a group of anti-occupation demonstrators, killing 17 and wounding 70.

Following a similar confrontation less than a week later, the people of Fallujah took up arms against the Americans. When the four contractors were murdered nearly a year later, U.S. forces retaliated by initiating a two-week long battle in which U.S. forces killed 600 Iraqis (including hundreds of women and children), used sniper fire against ambulances, and destroyed the city’s civilian infrastructure. (Visit www.empirenotes.org/fallujah.html for information.) Eventually, U.S. troops withdrew, allowing hard-line Islamists to take control of the city.

Is this what a free Iraq looks like? More importantly, will electing John Kerry end this racist, imperial war? There is no doubt that Kerry will handle it better than Bush, yet Kerry has given no indication that he will bring real change in Iraq by ending our military’s destructive and counterproductive military tactics. In fact, during the first debate Kerry accused Bush of being too timid in Iraq, arguing that the key to winning was “to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists.”

Of course, as the debate was taking place, 3,000 U.S. troops were entering the rebel stronghold of Samarra in an attempt to reclaim it for occupation forces. As in Fallujah, reports have emerged of soldiers cutting electricity wires, firing on hospital workers, and indiscriminately bombing suspected homes. The UK’s Independent reported that of the 70 bodies brought into Samarra General Hospital, 23 were children and 18 women. Is this what John Kerry was talking about doing more of?

Success in Iraq, defined by a peaceful population focused on reconstruction is not possible as long as the United States relies on coercive violence. Make no mistake. Even if John Kerry becomes president, Iraqis will continue to resist military occupation.