Munich or Vietnam?

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

--George Santayana

Analogy is the worst form of reasoning. Why? Because an analogy’s “proof” is a single example. History is more complex. So if we are to learn from history, it helps to go deeper than one analogy.

Republicans watch Islamic extremism’s unfolding with genuine concern. To conservatives, al-Qaeda’s intolerance, hatred, and glorification of violent death is like the Fascism that gave us World War II. Republicans believe Democrats who downplay Islamic extremism (calling the War on Terror, as did John Edwards, a “bumper sticker”) are modern day versions of the Munich appeasers who wouldn’t stop Hitler in 1938, when there was still a chance to avoid world war.

Here’s a deeply divided France in the 1930’s, according to “The World at War” narration: “The left was more concerned with hounding rogues at home than with fighting Fascism elsewhere.” To Republicans, that describes today’s Democrats. Like the pre-war French left, Democrats seem more concerned about hounding Bush and his oil industry pals at home than they are about fighting Islamic extremism abroad.

Democrats prefer a different analogy: Iraq is today’s Vietnam. Iraq’s an unnecessary war, wasting resources needed at home. Iraq becomes more of a disaster with each new death. We should end the war as soon as possible. Vietnam taught us these lessons—avoid elective wars, intervene only when we can win quickly, and most important, be very wary of insurgencies.

Whatever their true worth, the Munich and Vietnam analogies are widely used today. It so happens that the two choices each correspond to one part of this blog’s goal statement. The analogy to Munich connects with the need for “capitalism + democracy,” and Vietnam links to “peace.” Here’s how:

“Capitalism + Democracy”. Al-Qaeda’s prospective soldiers are millions of unemployed Arab youth, similar to the unemployed German petit bourgeoisie whose distress helped Hitler’s rise. In Iraq, we are supporting democracy and free markets because reforming Iraq may help the whole Middle East defeat al-Qaeda.

“Peace”. As during Vietnam, the world cries out for peace. The Middle East especially needs peace. But the U.S. instead delivered a “preventive” war. We should lead by example. We should return to modeling peaceful behavior and get out of Iraq. We should make America a better democracy at home.

Here’s my problem. America can’t pursue “peace” by staying home. To defend ourselves we should be in the world, strengthening “capitalism + democracy.”

As suggested here repeatedly, Iraq isn’t Vietnam. Yes, the U.S. moved past its loss to North Vietnam. But the Vietnamese weren’t out to conquer an entire region—they settled for Laos and Cambodia. Al-Qaeda is. It’s using terror to transform the Arab world, and ultimately all of Islam. Al-Qaeda slaughters its enemies wherever al-Qaeda can do the most damage. If we lose in Iraq, we may expect to have al-Qaeda killing Americans in America once more.