Iraq: Viet Nam Redux? Or World War III?
By Gene Lalor
Posted On December 06, 2006

The Iraq war is a piece of cake, a walk in the park, a cinch.

That’s absurd, of course, as absurd as getting Sunni Iran and Syria to assist us in getting out of that cesspool! Messrs. Baker and Hamilton: Here’s a newsflash! Both despise Iraq and the United States! But I digress.

Use any cliche you wish and it won’t alter the reality that what’s going on in Iraq today, as nasty as it is, is comparatively just a skirmish. And, no, I’m not in any way denigrating, dismissing, or minimizing the loss of thousands of our bravest and finest, and the wounding and maiming of tens of thousands more. I’ll leave such attacks to the junior senator from Massachusetts. I’m referring to a contemporary American malady -- the lack of historical perspective. I’m also referring to the perception among many Americans that Iraq is any more than a blip in the history of the United States -– at least as far as casualties are concerned.

Sixty-one years ago a battle occurred, if we can call thirty-five days and nights of fighting a battle. Described by one writer as “throwing human flesh against reinforced concrete,” it was a sea-battle, an air battle, but primarily a land battle that took place on a little spit of Japanese territory in the Pacific called Iwo Jima. When it was over, America counted some 25,851 casualties, including 6,125 dead; the Japanese lost virtually every man on the island, over 22,000.

This article was originally conceived as a movie review, but I soon realized it had to be more. Much more. Flags of Our Fathers –- both the written version and the screen presentation -- is much more, as well. It transcends a war story, a docudrama, a piece of history, a tale of valor, sacrifice and loss.

Director Clint Eastwood’s film, intentionally or not, should be a wake-up call for Americans that, as Iraq slides into the all-out civil war long hoped for by certain elements in our society, is indeed a mess, but not a major mess! Yet. It’s indeed ugly but, in terms of the number of casualties, insignificant. Again, only for perspective, there were more “friendly fire” killings in World War II -- estimated at 21,000 -- seven times the total of G.I. war deaths to date in Iraq. There were 8,000 “friendly” deaths in Viet Nam, almost triple the Iraq total war dead. That’s not belittling our losses in Iraq. I served my country, though not in a war, and I believe the loss of a single American life on the battlefield is one too many. I’m simply citing the facts.

But, enough of facts and stats. The point of all these numbers is just this: We won the battle of Iwo Jima, and we won the Second World War. Since then, at best, we’ve had a draw in Korea, a politically-driven loss, but still a loss, in Viet Nam, and a mini-win in the first Gulf War. Today we have a new war but Iraq isn’t our only foe. Today’s war may be said to have begun in 1979 with the taking of American hostages in Tehran. Or, it may be said to have begun in 1993 with the first attack on the World Trade Center. Or, it may be said to have begun with the attacks on the Khobar Towers and our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Or, it may be said to have been launched on September 11th, 2001. The date is inconsequential. The fact we’re in the midst of World War III is very consequential. The fact we’re fighting two implacable enemies–Islamo-fascists and a far more sinister foe, American "liberalism" -- makes the current conflict even more consequential.

World War I and World War II have been assigned very precise starting dates by historians, respectively, the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in 1914 and the beginning of the German blitzkreig in 1939. We can quibble about those dates as well, but why quibble when it comes to world wars and the mass destruction of cities and nations and the obliteration of millions of human lives? We can also quibble about the start of the World War III, but we may not get that opportunity since that date too will be decided by future historians, and the winners get to write the history books.

War -- ANY war -- is abhorrent and antithetical to the mindsets of most Americans. Despite popular belief in much of the world, we’re not a hostile, warmongering, globe-conquering people. If we were, in 1945 we would have used our resources, since our land was virtually unscathed, and the resources of Germany and Japan, to establish an American hegemony over the planet. But we didn’t. We fight like hell when we’re attacked, and when we need to fight, and we don’t initiate the slaughter. But many Americans simply refuse to admit that what we have on our hands today is a new global conflict. (I wonder how many people in 1914 and even in 1939 knew the scope of what lay ahead for them?)

I think a large part of the current refusal to concede the obvious is denial, or rejection, as well as that aforementioned lack of perspective. It’s a denial of the probability that, unlike World War I, World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, the first Gulf war, this one won’t only be “Over there!” It has been and will be here as well–on our soil, on our mainland, in our cities, in our streets, not just in far off places like Berlin, Tokyo, Pyongang, Saigon, Kuwait City, but in New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, Des Moines, Denver and Los Angeles. To many Americans, that just doesn’t compute. It’s just unthinkable, impossible, absurd, totally unacceptable. That may be because we haven’t had to battle an enemy here since our Revolution and that war that Southerners glibly refer to as The War of Northern Aggression. We’re also a very different people than we were in December, 1941, when FDR asked Congress to declare war because of that “day of infamy.”

That difference? How many Americans think and what Americans believe today. Many (that other foe mentioned above) seem to have rejected quaint, outdated, Norman Rockwell-ish ideas of patriotism, of national unity, of determination to win, of stick-to-itiveness, all former hallmarks of our sense of national self. In their place, those many have substituted defeatism, negativism, and nihilism.

Iwo Jima was a thirty-five day horror in our military history, but a horror in which we prevailed and which led to the ultimate defeat of Japan–and the continuance of life as we know it in America. President Roosevelt, as Lincoln, didn’t give a hoot about our rights, nor about treatment of prisoners of war, nor about what other nations did or didn’t think about us. They, and Truman, had one simple aim, one unalterable goal -– win at any cost! What home-grown dissenters seem to forget is that dead people have no rights or international concerns. I question whether we as a nation still have that goal of victory. Until recently, I had questioned whether we’ll win the current conflict. I no longer question that. We will or have already lost that first major skirmish in World War III. We should all hope and pray that we don’t lose the war itself.

Oh, the film. Flags of our Fathers is gone from most theaters now. So, if you didn’t see it, wait a few months and rent the DVD. It’s a great movie, despite the effort made to show how the three who survived the raising of the flag on Mount Suribachi were cynically exploited for their celebrity and ultimately consigned to the trash heap of anonymity–all in the interests of getting Americans to buy war bonds and in the interests of victory. How dastardly! That still doesn’t taint the glory that was Iwo Jima, a very costly victory that proved worth the effort expended and the lives sacrificed.

A kindly, old professor I remember always resorted to, “Well, all things are relative,” when confronted with a question that he couldn’t answer. Well, sometimes things are relative. Consider Iraq. Then consider the alternatives. As far as a piece of cake, a walk in the park, a cinch, Americans should hope it's just that.

E-mail this article to a friend.