Article originally publishes in Stars and Stripes, November 12, 2014
Doubt that the United States, despite possessing the most powerful military on earth, will win a war against a determined enemy.
Doubt among presidential administrations that the public would support a conflict, once television showed them pictures of dead soldiers being dragged through the streets of countries most Americans knew little or nothing about.
Mostly, doubt — with some notable outliers — that the United States can impose its will through force, no matter the situation.
Driving those doubts is the desire to avoid another open-ended commitment with an uncertain endgame, where U.S. troops spend years on the ground in a foreign country, fighting against an enemy that can blend back into the civilian population far too easily.
That desire is part of what some have defined as “Vietnam syndrome,” a concept declared dead and reborn several times in the decades since the last American combat troops left Southeast Asia.
“Getting involved and not being able to get up, like Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians suffering constant blows, that’s the concern,” said Carlyle Thayer, an American professor and Vietnam analyst who taught a course on the Vietnam War at Australia’s National Defense University.
That concern endures — buffeted by experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan — as Americans debate today’s military actions.
Americans support fighting the Islamic State group by a 60 percent to 31 percent margin — unless that action turns to ground troops, according to a September Gallup poll. Only 40 percent approve of that, according to the poll.
President Barack Obama went so far as to rule out U.S. ground troops before the latest round of air and naval strikes on Iraq and Syria began.
Before the end of the Vietnam War, presidents didn’t speak in such measured, cautious ways about how they would wage war. However, Obama made it clear during a May speech at the U.S. Military Academy that caution would be a cornerstone of his foreign policy agenda.
“Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences,” Obama said.
The U.S. would act unilaterally when it was directly threatened and would otherwise explore other options, he said.
Obama, 53, is too young to have served in Vietnam — yet his words that day mirror the definition of Vietnam syndrome offered by journalist and Vietnam War author Marvin Kalb, who called it “a fundamental reluctance to commit American military power anywhere in the world, unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the national interests of the country.”
The term Vietnam syndrome first reached prominence when presidential candidate Ronald Reagan used it during an August 1980 campaign speech. Reagan said the syndrome was created by the “North Vietnamese aggressors” aiming to “win in the field of propaganda here in America what they could not win on the field of battle in Vietnam.”
In Reagan’s view, America failed to secure Vietnam because it lacked the means and the will to do so from the home front.
Nevertheless, fear of another Vietnam “quagmire” became the lens through which military action was viewed in the post-war 1980s.
Although Reagan’s budgets dramatically increased defense spending, his military actions were generally small, covert or obtained by proxy.
Then came the first Gulf War. It was civilian America’s first look at the reconstituted, all-volunteer force in a very large-scale action.
Victory came swiftly and at the cost of relatively few casualties. President George H.W. Bush avoided the quagmire by pulling troops out of Iraq quickly and leaving Saddam Hussein in power — moves that drew little criticism at the time.
Basking in the afterglow of military triumph, Bush ended a speech in 1991 with the proclamation that, “By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”
About two years later, the doubts that Vietnam brought about returned, this time in the Horn of Africa.
On Oct. 3, 1993, the “Black Hawk Down” incident kicked off the Battle of Mogadishu, leaving 18 U.S. servicemembers dead. Americans recoiled at images of Staff Sgt. William David Cleveland’s body being dragged through the Somali capital’s streets.
Days later, Clinton ordered U.S. troops to begin preparing for withdrawal.
A year later, the genocide in Rwanda began, and Clinton sent no military force. He would later describe not intervening in the genocide, which claimed about 1 million Rwandans, as one of his biggest regrets.
“If we’d gone in sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives that were lost. … It had an enduring impact on me,” Clinton said on CNBC in 2013.
American overseas involvement remained somewhat restrained up until the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
After that, eight out of 10 Americans supported a ground war in Afghanistan.
If President George W. Bush had any worries about Vietnam syndrome, he didn’t share them publicly.
Defense analysts once again declared Vietnam syndrome kicked, at least, until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grew protracted, and opinion polls turned against the conflicts.
“Getting involved and not being able to get up, like Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians suffering constant blows, that’s the concern.”– Carlyle Thayer
In 2009, conservative scholar Max Boot said that George H.W. Bush got it wrong with his 1991 proclamation — Vietnam syndrome was alive and well in the Obama era.
Boot noted several examples of lawmakers and analysts questioning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the prism of Vietnam.
Boot dismissed their doubts as defeatist. He saw no reason to make the Vietnam comparison, unless it was to compare administrations “more interested in ending than in winning the war.”
Boot’s view led him to agree on one point with Obama’s assessment: “You never step into the same river twice. And so Afghanistan is not Vietnam.”
Thank you for taking the time to read this. Should you have a question or comment about this article, then scroll down to the comment section below to leave your response.
If you want to learn more about the Vietnam War and its Warriors, then subscribe to this blog and get notified by email or your feed reader every time a new story, picture, video or changes occur on this website – the button is located at the top right of this page.
I’ve also created a poll to help identify my website audience – before leaving, can you please click HERE and choose the one item best describing you. Thank you in advance!
good article. I see one common thread running through viet nam on to Iraq/ Afgn. It’s the flawed idea that the US can wage a war on the cheap without involving the American people. “Cheap” can mean hurrying a conflict to a premature “end”, borrowing to pay for it( instead of having the cost borne by the whole country). and looking to technology as an alternative to the really messy thing that war actually is. With a small regular ARMY the reality of the wars we are involved in do not really involve the American people on a day to day basis. Engage/enrage the people and mobilise the entire country and the results would be different. War should be entered into as a last resort not as a knee jerck reaction, but once initiated should be fought to win as if the life of the Nation depended on it. I didn’t like the draft much but with the volunteer Armed Forces I think the public are less interested -or at least not as concerned as they were in the old days.
Not only must We learn from the past but We need to decide what Our roll in the 21st century will be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent summary! THANKS FOR POSTING!
Good post. I’d like to repost on my site and am asking permission to republish.
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:03:05 +0000 To: firstname.lastname@example.org
LikeLiked by 1 person
Permission is not required – feel free to copy anything on this website!
That was then – been there done that started 17 in Called now – Meg Laos – *
Water under bridge – made us men we are today.- Now just old men- getting killed off by V.A.
Love your Nostalgic Chronology. Quite good – facts good – even thou’ we all have pers. Memories.
..Yung Man any thoughts of mentioning the ancient almost cave man treatment on V.A. *.
We live in a computerized world.
The Star Trek medicine of yesterday – are actual (tricorder)
Of today. Only smaller – twice that of big cell phone. Doctors GENETIC Have Omega 3. Home use self diagnostic..
No more guessing – individual recog. As such.most practicing canpractice filling out unemployment ☺
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good article, all the people who want to sit back years later and scholar on a subject normally get it wrong in many respects, this one however I feel got it right.
Our leadership is and has been unable to get a grip on war and what it really takes to win. Polling the public for their opinion is not a very good method of fighting a war.
Our leadership today of professional politicians will never win a war. They will not listen to the generals and men with the experience and know how, they are clearly only interested in their reelection. Many of the recent wars should have never existed. Too many times our leaders have let their alligator mouths overload their tadpole butts and then pulled the US into non merited combat. I
If leadership was required to first send their sons and daughters to the combat zone prior to sending or at the same time of sending others sons and daughters , many conflicts would not exist.
With that said, I have never backed away from a fight with substantial merit, but to fight to just prove a point doesn’t make a lot of sense, and often that is exactly what we have done.
LikeLiked by 1 person