The Iraq War is not ending

Contrary to most news accounts, the Iraq War is not ending. It is presumptuous and a bit America-centric to believe that the war will end just because U.S. troops are being withdrawn. There are other warring parties who will in all likelihood continue to fight for long after the last American soldier has left the country. There are only two ways to end a war: One side can be effectively beaten or the warring factions can negotiate a peace. Neither has happened in Iraq.

The situation bears an eerie resemblance to the end of the Vietnam War. By the early 1970s, using General Creighton Abrams’ “clear and hold” strategy, U.S. and ARVN troops had pacified much of South Vietnam and broke the back of the Viet Cong insurgency. The situation allowed President Richard Nixon to negotiate “peace with honor” in the Treaty of Paris with North Vietnam. The Vietnam War officially ended on January 27, 1973 and U.S. combat troops were withdrawn in March of that year.

Unfortunately, the war did not end for the Vietnamese. Two years later, the North Vietnam launched a massive invasion of South Vietnam. Because congress, including several members who continue to serve today, cut off funding for the combat operations in Southeast Asia, the United States could not honor its treaty obligation to help defend South Vietnam or even resupply the beleaguered South Vietnamese troops. South Vietnam fell in 55 days.

Many civilians died fleeing the invading communist army. The History Learning Site estimates that as many as 1.5 million more South Vietnamese became “boat people” and fled the country by sea. As many as 200,000 boat people died before reaching safety. Of those who stayed, about 65,000 were executed by the liberating “People’s Army” and another million were imprisoned in reeducation camps. Some 165,000 South Vietnamese died in these camps.

In the Iraq War, Iran plays the role of North Vietnam. Iran borders Iraq and the two nations have a history of hostility. During the 1980s, the two nations fought a long and bitter war. There is little doubt that Iran has aided and funded the Iraqi insurgents. The only question is to what extent Iran was involved.

According to a Federation of American Scientists report to Congress from 2007, Iran is widely believed to be responsible for training Iraqi insurgents in IED techniques and training them in advanced bomb-making techniques, such as how to create an explosively formed projectile (EFP), an IED that is capable of destroying American armored vehicles. Iran is also believed to have supplied insurgents with advanced technology such as passive infrared sensors for triggering IEDs.

Further, weapons of Iranian origin have been captured in Iraq. ABC News reported in 2006 that IEDs and anti-tank weapons had been recovered that were manufactured in Iranian factories in that same year, suggesting that Iran was funneling weapons directly to the insurgents without even routing them through the black market. Coalition forces have captured at least 20 Iranian agents smuggling arms into Iraq according to the Washington Post. In December 2009, a skirmish erupted after Iranian troops seized several oil wells in a disputed oil field along the Iraq-Iran border north of Basra. The standoff ended several days later. A New York Times report notes that several of Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi army fighters are believed to have trained with the Revolutionary Guards in Iran and Iranian-supported Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.

There is also a question of how much control Iran holds over the Iraqi insurgents. Many of the insurgents are Sunni while Iran is predominantly Shia. The Sunni insurgents, many of whom are former Baathists and backers of Saddam Hussein, are arguably more autonomous than the Shiite militias.

Many of the Shiites are led by Moqtada al Sadr. In the first years after the fall of Saddam, Sadr’s Mahdi army fought the coalition forces and provisional government for control of the country. Sadr has since lived for long periods in Iran where he has studied towards becoming an ayatollah. His followers have been a major political force in Iraqi elections and have gained seats in the Iraqi cabinet.

Reportedly, during President Bush’s troop surge in 2007, Sadr went to Iran and instructed his followers to avoid confrontation, although fighting continued later that year and in 2008. In August 2008, Sadr ordered a halt to combat operations. Similarly, in the fall of 2007, Iran pledged to stop the flow the weapons and support to Iraqi insurgents. Coinciding with the surge, Iran’s pledge came shortly before attacks in Iraq dropped off sharply. Sadr issued another such order in September 2011. The implication is that Iran and Sadr may have been intentionally avoiding conflict with U.S. troops in the hopes that President Obama would withdraw American forces.

An American withdrawal will almost certainly embolden the Iranians. Its leaders, who believe in the apocalyptic Twelver sect of Islam, will view the unilateral departure of U.S. troops as a gift from on high. President Ahmadinejad, exemplified the view of Iran when he told CNN last week that “The United States has become weaker and weaker. Now they are hated in the region.” The absence of American forces in the region will almost certainly make the Iranians become more aggressive. The question is what form their aggression will take.

The worst case scenario would be a full-scale conventional invasion of Iraq by the Iranian military. This is the same scenario that played out in Vietnam after the U.S. withdrawal there. The picture of an American helicopter perched atop a Saigon apartment building while refugees clamber up a wooden ladder to escape the invading North Vietnamese army is an enduring image that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for four decades.

Although the Iraqis fought the Iranians to a standstill in the brutal war of attrition in the 1980s, it is unlikely that the newly reformed Iraqi army could stand up to an Iranian onslaught. To prevent the country’s fall, American assistance would undoubtedly be needed, but it is doubtful whether it could be expected. Bipartisan opposition in congress would make it difficult for President Obama to redeploy troops to Iraq in an emergency, assuming he even wanted to.

More likely though, Iran will try to bring Iraq into its sphere of influence through threats, diplomacy and coercion. It is possible that Iran will rekindle the sectarian violence that plagued Iraq before the surge in order to undermine the Iraqi government. Supporters of Moqtada al Sadr, a stalwart Iranian ally, can be counted upon to look out for Iranian interests.

The absence of American power in the Middle East will create a power vacuum that the Iranians will try to fill. Saudi Arabia and Turkey will be their principal competition. Both nations have formidable militaries, but cannot compete with a nuclear armed Iran. With the apparent resignation of the west to a nuclear Iran, both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are reported to be developing nuclear weapons. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East among Islamic nations seeking to counterbalance Iranian influence appears increasingly likely.

As America’s influence in Iraq wanes, the Iraqis already appear to be moving closer to Tehran. The Wall Street Journal reports that Iraq, Iran and Syria, an Iranian client state, recently agreed to build an oil pipeline through the three countries. Iraq has also been on e of the few nations to support Syria’s beleaguered President Assad, who is the target of an Arab Spring uprising.

Iran and Iraq together control 18 percent of the world’s oil reserves according to an estimate by Finance Manila. The two countries rank third and fourth in the world respectively, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. If Iran could gain control or influence over Iraqi oil, the world’s economy would be threatened. The interruption of Libyan oil, which constitutes only three percent of world reserves, threatened to crash the world economy once again and forced NATO to go to war.

The Iraq War is not over just because U.S. troops are leaving. Rather, it is entering a new and perhaps even more dangerous phase. In a disturbing replay of events, the U.S. is once again ignoring an enemy that is already at war… and has been since 1979.

 

As published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-iraq-war-is-not-ending

When President Reagan came to town

Courtesy of Ronald Reagan Library

On the hundredth anniversary of President Reagan’s birth, I recall when I had the opportunity to see the man who would one day be recognized as one of America’s greatest presidents.  The year was 1986 and President Reagan had just cruised to a landslide 49 state re-election victory over Walter Mondale.  I was a freshman trombone player in the Hart County High School Bulldog Marching Band.  President Reagan was coming to Atlanta to campaign for Georgia’s Republican junior senator, Mack Mattingly, and the Bulldog Band was asked to perform. 

In those days, the Democratic Party was still a viable force in Georgia.  In fact, most local elections in my home town did not even feature a Republican candidate.  The majority of these elections were settled in the Democratic primary with the general election being a mere formality.  On top of that, President Reagan had vanquished Georgia native (and the only president from Georgia) Jimmy Carter in 1980.  President Reagan was not popular with all of my classmates.

The campaign meeting was a large political pep rally at the Omni.  The band played from our repertoire of patriotic songs, although aside from the Star Spangled Banner I can’t say that I remember exactly what.  At some point, both President Reagan and Senator Mattingly spoke.

My fifteen-year-old brain, though interested in history and politics even then, was simply not programmed to pay attention to political speeches.  The only memory that I have of what President Reagan said that day was a joke that he told.

The joke involved a minor auto accident.  The police were called and, while they waited, the drivers began to talk.  No one was injured, but both were somewhat shaken.  One pulled a bottle from his car and offered it to the other to soothe his nerves.  The second driver took a swig.  They talked a bit longer and the first driver offered the bottle again.  The second driver took another swig.  When the police arrived and asked what happened, the first driver replied, “It wasn’t my fault.  This fellow’s been drinking!”  The Gipper told it better than I do.

Unfortunately, in 1986 Georgia returned to its Democratic roots.  Mack Mattingly, who had gone to Washington in the 1980 conservative victories that sent Jimmy Carter back to Plains, lost to Democrat Wyche Fowler.  Mattingly went on to become President Reagan’s Assistant Secretary-General for Defense Support for NATO in Belgium at a time when the possibility of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe was still a very real possibility.  He also served as President George Herbert Walker Bush’s ambassador to the Seychelles. 

The meeting with Reagan was my most direct meeting with the executive branch, but it wasn’t the last.  In 1992, I overflew a meeting in Athens featuring Al Gore.  I was in a vintage 1946 Piper J-3 Cub and Gore was holding a rally for Democratic candidate Bill Clinton on a downtown street. In those days before the TSA and Homeland Security, there were no restrictions on overflying political meetings.  If someone tried that today, they would probably be arrested if they weren’t shot down.

In 2002, I was at Emory Hospital in Atlanta where my brother-in-law was receiving a kidney transplant from his father.  By chance, on the same day, President George W. Bush was coming to Emory to deliver a speech.  I didn’t see Dubya, but I did see his limousine from an upper story window as it pulled into the hospital. 

The only connection that I have with President Obama is that I was flying through Washington-Dulles airport a few days before his inauguration in 2009.  At the time, the general aviation ramp was packed with business jets and the general aviation terminal was equally crowded, not only with flight crews and passengers, but with vendors selling Obama souvenirs.  Many of Obama’s supporters have since disappeared and the ramps at Dulles are usually almost empty of aircraft.  This may be partly due to the Obama Administration’s attacks on corporate aircraft, but perhaps it is also symptomatic of the economy in general.

It was years after my encounter with President Reagan that I truly began to appreciate his greatness.  The book The Great Inflation described how President Reagan and Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker eradicated stagflation that had plagued the nation throughout the 1970s in a few short years.  I was too young to remember the ravages of inflation first hand, but the high unemployment and stagnant growth of the 1970s are similar to the economic woes we face today.  The economic doldrums of the 1970s also have the same cause as today’s economic problems:  government attempts to control and manipulate the economy.

Ronald Reagan in 1981

President Reagan’s conviction that low tax rates and simplified regulation would lead to prosperity led to the one of the longest sustained periods of economic growth in American history.  Where the 1970s were a decade of “malaise,” the 1980s became a decade of optimism, wealth, technological innovation, and, of course, ‘80s music.

The economy was not the only area in which President Reagan changed the course of history.  The 1970s had been a decade overshadowed by Vietnam and America’s abandonment of its ally.  America was viewed as weak by its adversaries around the world.  Arab nations punished the US for standing by Israel by launching an oil embargo and raising the price of oil to the unheard of price of $11 per barrel on other nations.  I do remember sitting in long lines to get gas.  The communists were on the march in Afghanistan, Asia, Africa, and Central America.  In Iran, a revolution deposed the Shah and installed the Ayatollah Khomeini while the American embassy staff was held hostage.

President Reagan changed much of that.  President Reagan made it cool to love America again. 

Much of the change in attitude came from the Gipper’s pervasive optimism and humor.  Much of it was also due to the fact that he backed up his words with action.  President Reagan revitalized the American military and freed one country, Grenada, from communism with direct action by American soldiers.  American aid and advisors went to other countries such as Nicaragua, the Philippines, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Afghanistan.

The American struggle against Islamic terrorism was just starting and President Reagan fought back.  In 1983, a suicide bomber killed 241 US Marine peacekeepers in Beirut, Lebanon.  In 1986, President Reagan ordered an airstrike on Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya in retaliation for support of terrorists. Terrorist bombings, kidnappings, and hijackings were commonplace.  Americans were targeted, but not on US soil.

Bush, Reagan, and Gorbachev in New York, 1988

The hallmark foreign policy triumph of President Reagan’s tenure was the fall of the Soviet Union.  The US military buildup, including the experimental Strategic Defense Initiative (also known as “Star Wars”), was something that the Russians could not keep up with.  In particular, SDI forced the Soviets to come to the negotiating table.  The Berlin Wall fell in 1988 and the Soviet Union officially ceased to exist in 1991.  Both were after Reagan left office, but he was one of the prime architects of the victory, along with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.  Just a few years earlier, in Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Soviet communism had seemed unstoppable. 

In the twenty-two years since he left office, Reagan’s mystique has even reached the Democrats.  President Obama is on record as admiring President Reagan.  However, Obama’s admiration of Reagan does not extend to his policies.  Obama’s policies have more closely mirrored FDR’s disastrous New Deal or Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy blunders.  Rapidly expanding government, high unemployment, rising inflation, national despondency, and a failure to push an international freedom agenda make 2011 look eerily like 1979.  Reagan’s policies of economic and political freedom work as well in the twenty-first century as they did in the twentieth (or the nineteenth for that matter).

In 1980, Georgia voted for Jimmy Carter.  In 1984, Georgia corrected that mistake by voting, along with every other state except Minnesota, to send President Reagan back to Washington for four more years.  We can hope that history repeats itself once again and that the nation unites behind a strong conservative leader who will reverse the growth of government at home and confront tyrants abroad.

Here are a few of President Reagan’s words of wisdom:

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

A people free to choose will always choose peace.

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ghost of Vietnam

When the last US combat brigade left Iraq last week, it did so in triumph. The 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division rolled across the border into Kuwait leaving an Iraq that is relatively stable, even though many politicians and opponents of the war had called it hopeless less than four years ago. Many of the same people are similarly painting the war in Afghanistan as a lost cause today.

We should all be proud of the magnificent job that the US military has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Units who fought in these theaters of the War on Terror include soldiers from the Georgia Army National Guard, Rangers from Hunter Army Air Field, and elements of the 3rd Infantry Division from Fort Benning. Georgia soldiers also served with units based around the country and the world.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have long been compared to the US experience in Vietnam with many warning of a quagmire as US forces engaged al Qaeda and Shiite insurgents. It is possible however, that many in this country have learned the wrong lesson from the history of the Vietnam War.

It is widely believed in some circles that it is almost impossible for a conventional force to defeat insurgents fighting a guerilla war. This view is ignorant both of world military history as well as the history of the many small wars that the US has fought around the world. The US military, especially the Marine Corps, has defeated or neutralized insurgents in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Philippines, Nicaragua, and even Vietnam. The story of these and other conflicts is detailed in Max Boot’s The Savage Wars of Peace.

Boot disputes the conventional wisdom that the US military was defeated by the Viet Cong in a guerilla war. He explains how General William Westmoreland was the wrong man for the command of the US forces in Vietnam. Westmoreland was a West Pointer who tried to fight a conventional, big unit war similar to what he experienced in WWII and Korea.

Mounting casualties led to increasing public opposition, especially after the Tet Offensive of 1968. During Tet, the VC violated an armistice to launch surprise attacks around South Vietnam. The scale of the attacks convinced many, including veteran newsman Walter Cronkite, that the insurgency was not nearly defeated, as many in the government and the military had claimed. In reality, Tat was a huge defeat for the VC. WE and ARVN counterattacks decimated VC ranks and they never recovered (Boot, p. 310).

In the wake of Tet, General Westmoreland was replaced by General Creighton Abrams. Abrams implemented a “one war” strategy that focused on “clear and hold” in a manner similar to General Piraeus’ successful strategy in Iraq. William Colby, leader of the CIA’s Phoenix Program was also instrumental in turning the war around. The Phoenix Program targeted VC cadres in South Vietnam and was responsible. The program led to the killing of 26,000 local VC as well capturing 33,000 and inducing 22,000 to defect (Boot, p. 310).

The methods of Abrams and Colby were so successful that in 1970, only two years after Tet, 90% of South Vietnam was under Saigon’s control (Boot, p. 311). Sir Richard Thompson, a counterinsurgency expert, wrote in 1970 that he was “able to visit areas and walk through villages which had been under VC control for years. There was a much greater feeling of security and people were ready to take up arms for the government because they sensed that the VC were weaker…. Existing roads are kept open, and more are being repaired and opened monthly” (Boot, p. 311).

Yet we know that the Vietnamese communists ultimately prevailed, overrunning the South and reuniting the nation under communist rule. So what happened? In a word: Congress.

Richard Nixon began a policy of Vietnamization, turning over prosecution of the war to the Vietnamese and drawing down US forces in the country. As US forces left, the North Vietnamese saw an opportunity. On March 30, 1972, the NVA launched its Easter Offensive, a conventional forces invasion of the South. Nevertheless, the ARVN forces were able to hold long enough for US airpower to inflict heavy losses on the invaders and the NVA was ultimately turned back (Boot, p. 310-311).

The strong showing led the North Vietnamese to sign the Paris Peace Treaty on January 27, 1973. This was a victory for the United States since it imposed an immediate ceasefire in addition to stipulating the withdrawal of US troops. President Nixon promised the South Vietnamese that the US would come to their aid if the North Vietnamese broke the ceasefire (http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html).

Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, President Nixon was forced to resign in 1974. Even before that, Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment on June 19, 1973 which banned US military activity in Southeast Asia after August 15. Congress also cut aid to South Vietnam from $1.26 billion to $700 million (http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html). The North Vietnamese sensed blood in the water.

In 1975, the North Vietnamese launched a second conventional invasion of the South. This time, without American airpower or aid, the ARVNs fell back. Boot reports that the situation was so dire that the South Vietnamese troops had to reuse bandages taken from corpses (p. 310-311). With no American help forthcoming, an angry South Vietnamese President Thieu pleaded, “If [the U.S.] grant full aid we will hold the whole country, but if they only give half of it, we will only hold half of the country” (http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html). Instead, Congress granted no aid and South Vietnam fell in 55 days.

Many of the prominent Democrats who prevented the US from honoring its commitments to South Vietnam also opposed the Iraq War. These include Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

Knowing the full story of the fall of Saigon, the lesson that we should learn is that when our enemies cannot defeat us on the battlefield, they sow dissension at home. They realize that their best chance is to exhaust the political will of the government’s civilian leaders. General Vo Nguyen Giap, leader of the NVA, stated “We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that was not our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American Government to continue the war” (Boot, p. 316).

A very real danger is that history will repeat itself in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks in large part to the sacrifice and hard work of the US military, Iraq is now much more stable than many observers believed possible a mere four years ago. The turnaround is also due to President Bush’s troop surge and General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy. Afghanistan has further to go, but variations on the same strategy could also work there given enough time. It is a testimony to the stabilizing effect of US forces, and the reality of the danger that remains, that more than half of Iraqis did not want US troops to leave yet (http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2010/08/poll-60-of-iraqis-want-us-troops-to-stay.html).

Much of the violence in Iraq was caused by Shiite militia groups supported by Iran. Iran pledged to the Iraqi government in 2007 that it would stop equipping and training these groups (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110600853.html). This pledge may have been partly to reduce the violence in Iraq and lull the US into a false sense of security, making it politically easier for the Obama Administration to withdraw US combat troops. It might also have been inspired by the possibility of uniting Iraqi Shiites into a political bloc that would elect a government friendly to Iran.

As Iran moves ever closer to developing nuclear weapons, it is possible that they will become emboldened by President Obama’s stated goal of a withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by July 2011. A nuclear armed Iran that is faced with only token US opposition might well decide that a conventional invasion of Iraq is in their best interests. After all, Iraq is a long-time enemy that fought a decade long war with Iran in the 1980s. Perhaps more importantly, Iraq also controls significant oil reserves. Control of Iraq’s oil would make Iran exponentially more powerful on the world stage. Nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf and conventional forces in Iraq would also threaten the vast oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

The danger for the United States is that, like the Americans of 1975, we will be tempted to wash our hands of Iraq if an Iranian invasion comes. To do so, would be a mistake of the worst order. Not only would Iranian domination of the Persian Gulf threaten our own economy, it would also threaten our allies Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, as well as the economies of the industrialized world. It would be very difficult to form a “coalition of the willing” to stave off a nuclear-armed terrorist state.

Additionally, it would further damage America’s reputation abroad if countries in which the US has invested vast amounts of men and material are allowed to fall to Iran. A fall of Baghdad and Kabul would arouse similar emotions as the famous photo of US embassy personnel being evacuated by helicopter from the roof of the Saigon embassy. It would lead our allies to question whether we can be counted upon and our enemies to sense our weakness.

Americans should make no mistake: Just because US forces are no longer in a combat role in Iraq, it does not mean that the war is over. It merely means that US troops are less likely to die in combat and that native forces are doing the lion’s share of the work. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to continue for some time as long as al Qaeda and Iran continue to oppose the elected governments and the US doesn’t cut off aid. As George Orwell once said, “the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.”

Sources:
Boot, Max. The Savage Wars of Peace. Basic Books, New York, NY. 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110600853.html
http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96350333
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2010/08/poll-60-of-iraqis-want-us-troops-to-stay.html

Denver CO
August 27, 2010

1970s Déjà vu

The political and economic situation of 2008 resembles that of the 1970s in several respects. From an unpopular president to an oil-induced recession to a national malaise, the resemblances are uncanny. We should take care to learn from the past in order to avoid the same mistakes.

The most obvious similarity between 2008 and the 1970s is the comparison between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam. In both cases, we aided a domestic government in fighting off an insurgency. In both cases, we used the same ineffective search-and-destroy strategy for years while protests mounted at home.

Also in both cases, the US shifted to a strategy of clear-and-hold. In Vietnam, General Creighton Abrams replaced General Westmoreland as commander of US forces in Vietnam in 1968. Under Abrams’ strategy, US forces cleared areas of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regulars, and then South Vietnamese Territorial Forces then garrisoned the liberated territory.

By 1972, John Paul Vann, a senior US official in Vietnam, was able to say “We are at the lowest level of fighting the war has ever seen…. The program of Vietnamization has gone kind of literally beyond my wildest dreams of success.”

When the North Vietnamese Army launched a conventional invasion of the south in what became known as the Easter Offensive, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), with US assistance, was able to hold back the NVA. When South Vietnam signed the Paris Accords in 1973, President Nixon promised that the US would intervene if the north resumed the war, that the US would provide material assistance to South Vietnam, and that the US would provide financial assistance to the south.

When North Vietnam launched a second invasion in 1975, none of these promises were kept. On June 14, 1973, Congress had passed the Case-Church Amendment. This law barred any future use of US forces in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia without the authorization of Congress. In 1974, Gerald Ford became president after Nixon’s resignation. Also in 1974, Congress sharply cut funding for South Vietnam. When the north invaded, the US offered no assistance and South Vietnam fell to communist forces, amply supplied by China and the Soviet Union, in 55 days. Following the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese became refugees, were sent to re-education camps, or were executed by the victorious communists.

General David Petraeus has successfully used the Abrams strategy in Iraq. Violence in Iraq is at its lowest point since 2004. Presidential candidate Barack Obama says the surge strategy has “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams” even while he continues to call for the withdrawal of all US troops. Obama is determined to end the war in Iraq the same way his Congressional forebears ended the war in Vietnam.

A second parallel to the 1970s is the current sad state of the US economy. In 1973-1975, the US suffered its worst recession since the 1930s. Several factors that are being replicated in 2008 played a role in the recession of 1973.

One of the causes of this recession was Nixon’s attempt at price controls. In 1971, in order to fight inflation and unemployment, Nixon enacted a 90-day freeze on wages and prices. After 90 days, a Cost of Living Council took charge of the controls, which were gradually relaxed. However, they were reestablished in 1973.

The result of Nixon’s price controls was predictable. Farmers stopped selling their produce and shortages resulted as consumers bought the last items off of supermarket shelves. George Schultz, head of the Office of Management and Budget, told Nixon, “At least we have now convinced everyone else of the rightness of our position that wage-price controls are not the answer.” The controls were removed in 1974, except for those on the oil and gas industries, which lasted several years longer.

Nixon was also responsible for a large increase in government regulation. Numerous government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, date from the Nixon Administration. By some estimates, more regulation was passed by the Nixon Administration than any other presidency since FDR.

The other major cause of the 1973 recession was the Arab Oil Embargo. In response to western support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, the Arab members of OPEC launched an embargo against the United States and the Netherlands and raised the prices by 70% for other western European nations.

Oil prices immediately spiked. The price of a barrel of oil eventually went higher than $5 and gasoline prices increased to more than $1 per gallon. Gas stations ran out of gasoline and people had to wait for hours at stations that still had supplies.

President Nixon called for voluntary conservation of oil. Congress passed a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit to decrease fuel consumption. When OPEC resumed supplying oil to the US, it was at greatly increased prices. The high price of oil led to more inflation, more unemployment and a recession. The recession, in turn, led to a decrease in oil consumption.

The embargo also spurred construction of the Trans-Alyeska Pipeline (TAP). Environmental groups had sued to stop construction of the TAP in 1970. On November 16, 1973, President Nixon approved construction of the pipeline as a response to the oil crisis. The TAP was completed in 1977 and Alaskan oil played a role in keeping prices low in the 1980s and 1990s.

In 2008, proposals have been discussed for new price controls on oil, gasoline and healthcare. Wage controls have also resurfaced as limits on pay for corporate executives. There is no reason to believe that economic realities of enacting new government controls in the marketplace would have a result that is different from the problems they caused in 1973.

Oil prices have fallen recently, largely due to the deepening worldwide recession, but previously reached record highs in 2008. The problem is similar. In 1973, the shortage was artificially induced by OPEC. The current oil shortage is one of increased demand and limited supply.

Today, as in the 1970s, environmental groups resist drilling for oil domestically even though the US has large reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and off the US coasts. Utilizing these oil reserves would bring more oil to the market just as the construction of the TAP increased oil supplies in the 1970s.

A third similarity is the unpopularity of the President of the United States in the 1970s and today. Richard M. Nixon had to deal with an unpopular war in Vietnam as well as a weak US economy. The death knell of his administration was sounded by the Watergate scandal in 1973 and he resigned in 1974.

Gerald Ford, who had replaced Vice President Spiro Agnew after his resignation in 1973, became president upon Nixon’s resignation. While he lowered inflation and unemployment through deregulation and tax cuts, the brief Ford Administration is remembered mainly for his pardon of Richard Nixon, the fall of Saigon, and his seeming clumsiness.

In 1976, the country was ready to put the Nixon years behind it. Jimmy Carter was virtually unknown outside of his home state of Georgia. In the 1976 campaign, he won media support with his message of hope and change, which enabled him to win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency.

In reality, the Carter presidency was a time of high inflation, high unemployment, and a renewed energy crisis. In 1978, the Iranian Revolution caused oil prices to double within a year, this time to $39 per barrel. Carter’s energy policy focused on increased conservation and gasoline rationing was seriously considered. There was no actual shortage of oil in 1979, and this Second Oil Shock was resolved by increased oil production in Alaska and the Gulf Coast. By 1986, after the oil industry deregulation took effect, oil prices returned to $10 per barrel.

Rising oil prices during Carter’s administration led to a return of high inflation. A slowing economy caused an increase in unemployment. By the end of Carter’s term, the misery index, inflation plus unemployment, approached 21%.

Carter’s sole foreign policy victory was the Camp David Accords, a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt that has held to this day. While Carter correctly deemed human rights to be important, his emphasis on human rights in Iran under the Shah helped pave the way for the revolution that brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power and ushered in a much more abusive regime. Carter’s lax attitude towards Soviet expansion led to the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

Ironically, a final response of President Carter to the oil crisis was the introduction of the Carter Doctrine. The Carter Doctrine held that “an attempt by an outside force to gain control in the Persian Gulf” would be regarded as “an assault on the vital interests of the US” and would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” This policy set the precedent for the Persian Gulf War as well as the Iraq War.

In the election of 2008, Barack Obama proposes to repeat many of the same mistakes of the 1970s. His attempts to prematurely remove US troops to force an end to the Iraq War would put the gains of General Petraeus’ surge at grave risk. His reticence toward domestic oil drilling would lead to further supply problems and, ultimately, a return to higher prices as the economy recovers. Obama’s calls for heavier regulation and wage controls for CEOs in the wake of the Wall Street crisis would strangle the free market just as they did for Richard Nixon. Obama’s plan to increase taxes would also prolong our current crisis.

American voters should consider the mistakes of the 1970s when voting for a presidential candidate in 2008. A return to those failed policies would further damage the US economy as well as leading to increased instability abroad. A diplomatic failure with Iran in the next presidential term could lead to a nuclear-armed terrorist state whose reach could extend past Israel all the way to the United States. The next president should enact positive market-based reforms and negotiate from a position of strength to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Sources:
Vietnam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/866256/posts
http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/case-church-amendment
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26550764/
Economy
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/ess_nixongold.html
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/04/horton/horton.htm
http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2002/arab.html
http://www.valdezalaska.org/history/transAlaskaPipeline.html
Presidency
http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-nixon
http://www.nndb.com/people/400/000022334/
http://www.answers.com/topic/jimmy-carter
http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Jimmy-Carter-Energy-policy.html
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2004/20040811.html
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1367402
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/jan-feb/grinter.html