Indeed, far more Iraqis died during the same period than the total casualties in the massive Israeli offensive against the Hezbollah in Lebanon.
In Lebanon, at least, the carnage has stopped more or less after the tenuous ceasefire came into place. The carnage continues day by day in Iraq.
Thursday night, I participated in a lively public dialogue with David Lamb in an event sponsored by ING Private Banking and the Asia Society. Lamb basically developed the thesis that Iraq is not comparable to Vietnam – a counterpoint to the popular impression that, for the US, the war in Iraq is a repeat of the superpower’s quagmire in Vietnam.
Lamb should know. He covered 100 countries in his much admired career as a journalist. That took him to every war zone since the Vietnam War.
On the surface, of course, Vietnam and Iraq might seem to be identical fiascos for American foreign policy. In both instances, the superpower marched into a country, confident that superior force will bend outcomes to its will. In both instances, superior force meant nothing in shaping outcomes. Superior force became nothing more than an increasingly insignificant influence in the wild mutation of a political condition.
But the differences overshadow the apparent parallelisms.
Vietnam, for the US, was a war waged in the framework of the Cold War strategy of containing the spread of communism. The superpower might have failed to quash the communist movement in Vietnam. But that particular engagement did, arguably, prevent other communist movements from developing in the region.
Neither did communism win eventually. Today, under the capable leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam, the country has become the best performing economy in Southeast Asia. The same can be said about the capable role played by the Communist Party of China in making that bigger country a capitalist superpower.
The world is too complex for a single interest to shape large outcomes entirely. It is far more useful to employ the law of unintended consequences to explain outcomes.
In Iraq, the strategic goal of military intervention was even clearer. By sending in a mighty tank force, the US quickly deposed the Saddam Hussein regime. The tyrant is now a prisoner facing trial for genocide.
But that did not mean that the US Army could withdraw from the scene of battle as a victorious armed force.
Long before, the literature in political science taught us that the Saddam Hussein regime was the only thing that kept this wild patchwork of hostile ethnic and religious communities we call Iraq largely for convenience. Without such a regime capable of imposing a cruel order, the whole thing collapses into chaos.
Which is exactly what we see today as another Battle for Baghdad unfolds.
The only thing that is governable in Iraq is the small Green Zone that is controlled by the US Army. That is the only part of Iraq where the new democratic regime exercises any authority. Beyond that zone, there is total chaos. Local governments simply do not exist in many Iraqi cities. The new Iraqi security forces are regularly decimated by roadside bombings.
Withdrawing the US Army from Iraq is the most cruel thing the Americans can do to the Iraqis. Having taken out the Saddam regime, they have produced a society that is completely unhinged. The minority Sunnis will try to reestablish rule over the majority Shiites – which the latter will naturally resist. The Kurds will likely try to break away from the Arab majority – a development that will threaten both Turkey and Iran. Both neighboring nations have their own problems with their Kurdish minorities.
The law of unintended consequences has taken its hold.
The same, I am afraid, will happen in Lebanon.
The Hezbollah gained support as a resistance force against Israeli occupation. When Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon six years ago, the Hezbollah had to repackage itself as a force out to destroy the Jewish state. That way, the Hezbollah was able to draw in resources from both Iran and Syria.
In order to take out the mounting threat from the Hezbollah arms buildup at the border, Israel had to send in its army to destroy Hezbollah’s military capacity. But it could never destroy the Hezbollah political infrastructure, which is deeply rooted in the Shiite communities of southern and eastern Lebanon. All it could do was to revalidate the Hezbollah’s identity as a patriotic force resisting Israeli occupation. Both Syria and Iran, anxious not to lose an important proxy against Israel, are now constrained to rush in more support for the Hezbollah.
With the Hezbollah’s military capacity substantially destroyed by the Israeli offensive and its ability to continue exercising de facto rule over southern Lebanon put into question by the UN resolution calling for this group’s disarmament, southern Lebanon is in danger of sliding into chaos. The Lebanese Army has been deployed in southern Lebanon, the first time they dared to tread that region in four decades. But the Lebanese Army cannot exercise authority in that region without precipitating yet another civil war in the forsaken country.
A "robust" UN force is mandated to be deployed in southern Lebanon. But without clear rules of engagement and an explicit mandate to exercise authority over the area, few countries are willing to commit troops. France has refused to lead that force. Italy has accepted responsibility for doing so, but only reluctantly. The Turks could not send in combat forces because of the danger of resurrecting bad memories of the Ottoman empire.
The Israelis will withdraw their forces only after they have handed over authority to a "robust" UN force. Syria does not want UN forces near its border with Lebanon. The Lebanese Army has threatened to withdraw once again from the troubled south if the Israelis do not leave. Meanwhile, Iran, under international pressure to scuttle its nuclear program, has instead chosen to impress the world with a large-scale military exercise.
The law of unintended consequences appears to have taken even more victims.