The Iraq War and the Future of Military Action

In generations past, military conflict has always shaped the mindset and opinion of people in the military as well as civilians. Americans who came of age in the mid 1930's through the late 1940s are often referred to as the �greatest generation.' This generation of �New Dealers' embraced the progressive optimism of America. Following the Great Depression and World War II, the character traits embodied by many people were that of loyalty and patriotism. The economic crisis of that generation required hard work and perseverance in order for Americans to provide for their families. Their perseverance and nationalism reached a peak after December 7, 1941 when Americans joined the armed forces in mass numbers to exact revenge against the Japanese and join the fight to combat Nazis in Europe.

America's involvement in World War II shaped the views of Americans during their next major military conflict: Vietnam. What many people often overlook is that in the late 1950s and early 1960s, public support for Vietnam was strong. Following the invasion of South Korea and the subsequent stalemate that ensued, the threat of the communist expansion was very real. Many Americans believed the domino theory and saw the conflict in Vietnam as a crucial piece in President Truman's containment strategy. The military leaders during the Vietnam era were in the lower rungs of the military hierarchy during World War II; they believed that American involvement in military campaigns was vital to a successful conclusion. The increasing threat of communism created problems during the 1960s in such places as Cuba and East Germany. Consequently, Vietnam became an important political entity.

The political importance of Vietnam was implicit during President Kennedy's inaugural speech when he promised to "pay any price American foreign policy during the tenure of Presidents Johnson and Nixon. The idealism behind America's military involvement in Vietnam was shadowed by the efforts of inexperienced politicians. The result, as we all know, was a quagmire and public relations nightmare for Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Just as World War II affected America's involvement in Vietnam, a similar pattern emerged during America's involvement in the Gulf War in 1991. Though political and public support was stronger during this campaign than it was in middle of the Vietnam conflict, echoes of Vietnam rang in the halls of Congress where many politicians, especially those who served in Vietnam. They were wary of American military involvement. There was a clear generation gap between Vietnam and the Gulf War. This generation gap allowed time for history to define the Vietnam era and most importantly it allowed the veterans of Vietnam to retrospectively examine the consequences of the political and military action during that time.

This generation gap also contributed to the success of the 1991 Gulf War. Indeed, two factors existed during the Gulf War that were not present during the escalation of American efforts in Vietnam. The first was that America's Commander-in-Chief was a veteran of World War II who saw combat and understood the political and military significance of getting involved in an overseas conflict. The second factor that would prohibit the United States from getting involved in �another Vietnam' was that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Colin Powell) and the top military commander on the ground in the Middle East (Norman Schwartzkopf) veterans of Vietnam and had first-hand knowledge of the military and political complexities. The President and the military leadership adopted what became known as the "Powell Doctrine" in which America did not engage in military conflict without clear political goals, the support of the public, and the tangible means necessary to achieve victory.

This generation gap was not present at the onset of the Iraq war in 2003. Two factors made this war different from other conflicts of this century. First, the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 created strong ambiguity in America's execution of a new �war on terror.' Second, paradoxical views existed in support of and opposition against the war in Iraq. President Bush's conservative views and unilateral actions created a political divide in this country unlike one that America has seen in over one hundred years. Neo-conservatives invoked memories of World War II where Americans should go to war to protect their country, under the auspices of counter-terrorism. Liberals opposed the war in Iraq for many reasons, but primarily because the intelligence stating that Iraq had the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction was tenuous. They also cautioned that history could repeat itself and Iraq could turn into another Vietnam.

Despite the similarities and differences between the war in Iraq, the political circumstances surrounding it and military conflicts of earlier generations, the thing that liberals and conservatives can agree upon is the ambivalence regarding how this war will shape military conflicts in future generations. Clearly, the war on terrorism is not as linear and defined as the communist containment strategy of the Cold War. Nor is the call for action in Iraq (two years after the terrorist attacks) as loud as it was following Pearl Harbor.

When America was attacked in September 2001, a foreign country did not attack it with clear political reasons for such an assault. Though al-Qaeda does have political goals and those goals are, arguably, a primary reason for their existence, diplomatic efforts to deal with terrorism are much more complex because of the religion factor. Al-Qaeda's attacks have political roots but are conducted in the name of Islam for the purpose of gaining popular support among Islamic fundamentalists. Thus, cultural sensitivity will be a crucial factor in America's diplomatic success in the war on terror. The United States must be constructive, yet firm in their relations with Muslim countries. Historically, foreign policy has been seen as a non-partisan issue: America's leaders should do what is necessary ensure national security. However, it is likely that partisan debate will likely dominate foreign policy in the years to come. These political and historical factors make it difficult to assess how the war in Iraq will shape the future of military conflicts.

Email Article To A Friend Social Bookmarking Tools close window

The Iraq War and the Future of Military Ac...

Send to: (separate e-mails with commas) Your name: Your e-mail address:		Additional note:

Promote this content by clicking on the bookmark icons below.
	Facebook   LinkedIn   Yahoo My Web   StumbleUpon   Buzz		Myspace   Digg   Technorati   Netscape		Twitter   Del.icio.us   Slashdot   Reddit More Bookmarks »

Save For Later

close window

The Iraq War and the Future of Military Ac...

Type in your e-mail address below to receive an automated reminder to come back and read this piece of content. Your e-mail address will not be used for anything other than the automated reminder.

Your email address:

 

Share

 

Save For Later

 

Publish Yours

 

Print