Vultures of Vietnam
- 19 Oct 06, 08:33 PM
Comparisons with Vietnam have been circling around the Iraq war like linguistic vultures, thanks to a typical Washington chain reaction. Tom Friedman, the respected New York Times columnist who originally supported the Iraq war and has been tying himself in knots ever since, wrote a comparing the dreadful events of the last week with the Tet offensive in the Vietnam War. Fine.
But then ABC's affable asked none other than the commander-in-chief about the comparison, and to everyone's surprise the president - who is supposed to be in a state of denial - almost blithely said: "He may be right…." and then moved on swiftly to firmer ground about al-Qaeda and its desire to see the US quit Iraq.
Vietnam rhetoric is not helpful in the weeks before the mid-term elections. Nor is it accurate. First, there are the differences in casualties. At this stage in the Vietnam war, America had lost about 20,000 men. Iraq has cost the US troops at the last count. But no war, including this one, can be measured solely by the number of casualties. The key equation is the sacrifice of casualties measured against the perceived benefits of the conflict. Is it worth it?
The answer in World War II - in which just over 400,000 Americans died - was clearly yes. Even in Vietnam the withering of public support was slow. It took about 20,000 dead Americans for the public to turn against the war. In Somalia in 1993 it took only 18 dead Americans and two downed Black Hawk helicopters to see the troops heading for their boats.
Remember also that today's US troops in Iraq are professionals - and volunteers. Their tragedies are felt by a relatively small proportion of the population. Vietnam was fought by hundreds of thousands of hapless conscripts who were hopelessly out of their depth in the jungles of South-East Asia.
So here's my conclusion: Yes, this war is unpopular. A solid majority of Americans have lost faith in it and doubt it can be won. And yet there are only a handful of anti-war protesters outside the White House. Jane Fonda is nowhere to be seen and millions have not poured into the Mall to demand that the troops come home. From Hollywood to the Democratic Party to the prevailing opinion in the streets, we are all caught in the headlights: loath to stay in Iraq and afraid to leave.
This is the world post 9/11. We are fighting a "global war on terror". Polls show that most Americans believe the stakes of abandoning Iraq are too high, that the US has a responsibility to try to fix the problem -"we broke it, we own it!" - and that abandoning it could fuel a regional war with even more dire consequences. So the pain threshold in Iraq is surprisingly high, especially if it's not your child getting killed.
Matt Frei is the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s senior North America TV correspondent.
"I don't care too much about one law or the other. That wouldn't change my life or my family’s opportunities. I am a second-generation [American] and frankly, I might feel sympathy for the [new immigrants] who are struggling, but… not really," she said. 
We hear him on conservative talk radio in the car with the host praising him for his lusty singing from the conservative hymn-sheet but the man himself, on a crackly phone line, is lukewarm in response. The reason perhaps: we catch up with him in Philadelphia (no conservative bastion, let's face it) where a new-look Rick is talking about his ability to keep jobs and work across party lines. Abortion: unmentioned. Gays: unmentioned. Iraq: unmentioned. 