Iraq versus Vietnam -Gallup Analysis

[Frodo]

August 24, 2005
Iraq Versus Vietnam: A Comparison of Public Opinion

Gallup reviews public opinion during the Vietnam War and the current war in Iraq

by Frank Newport and Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Will the war with Iraq turn into "another Vietnam" for the United States? Sunday, on ABC's "This Week," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel stated that the situation in Iraq is not "dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," and that "the longer we stay there, the more similarities [to Vietnam] are going to come together." White House counselor Dan Bartlett responded: "We respect Sen. Hagel. He's a decorated Vietnam War veteran. But we couldn't disagree more."

It is obviously too early to predict the verdict of future historians who will compare the two wars. There are significant differences between them, and the Iraq conflict has not yet approached the depth of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, which saw more than 500,000 U.S. troops deployed in that country by 1968 and which ultimately resulted in more than 58,000 U.S. military deaths.

Still, the Iraq war was a major theme in last year's presidential election, as was Vietnam in the elections of 1968 and 1972 -- and the Iraq war is now a dominant subject in news coverage, just as Vietnam was in the 1960s and early 1970s.

An important focus today is the battle for public opinion on Iraq -- as eventually it was in Vietnam. Recent polls showing declining support for the Iraq war in the United States have received much media attention. This has not only prompted President Bush to make speeches explicitly asking for continuing public support for the war (two speeches on Iraq this week alone), but has, in addition, provoked commentators to begin invoking the Vietnam comparison. The highly publicized protest vigil of Cindy Sheehan outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, has also provoked memories of the protests that ultimately played such a large part in the Vietnam saga.

Just how comparable are the two wars as far as public opinion is concerned? That's a difficult question to answer in many ways. Many of the questions asked then about Vietnam and now about Iraq are quite specific to the circumstances involved and do not allow for perfect comparisons. Plus, the environment in which the Vietnam War played out was significantly different from the environment now. Vietnam began in the middle of the Cold War, just 20 years after the conclusion of World War II. Iraq began in the middle of a "war on terrorism" declared by the Bush administration in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But, there are several Gallup Poll questions asked during both wars that provide some public opinion comparability. An analysis of the trend patterns for each provides important insights into the nature of public opinion in both situations.

Gallup asked the public to assess whether the United States made a "mistake" in sending troops into Vietnam, and has asked the same question since March 2003 about Iraq. Gallup consistently asked Americans to name the "most important problem" facing the country during the years of both conflicts, and to evaluate how the presidents involved were handling both war situations.

The bottom line: Americans were much quicker to consider the Vietnam War to be a major problem facing the country than has been the case for the Iraq war. But at the same time, a majority of Americans began to call Iraq a "mistake" within about a year and three months of its beginning, while it took over three years for a majority to call Vietnam a mistake. Lyndon Johnson's job approval ratings for handling Vietnam dropped to lower levels than has been the case -- so far -- for George W. Bush.

source

[TheresNoMoney]

I don't think it's fair to compare Iraq to Vietnam. Vietnam was much worse and had many thousands more who were killed.

[Blue Rectangle]

I don't think it's fair to compare Iraq to Vietnam. Vietnam was much worse and had many thousands more who were killed.

Wait....I agree.  WTF?  Were you being sarcastic, Scoonie?

There are huge differences between Iraq and Vietnam.  Some of the most glaring differences are here on the home front:
--No draft this time
--No general social upheaval
--No major peace movement (compare Camp Casey to old footage of peace protests on the Mall with hundreds of thousands of protesters)
--No POW/MIAs (these really wore morale down during Vietnam)
--No complaints from the civil rights movement about Blacks being used as cannon fodder
--Compare Bush's win in 2004 to LBJ declining to run in 1968

[TheresNoMoney]

Wait....I agree.  WTF?  Were you being sarcastic, Scoonie?

No, of course not. There really is no comparison.

[© tweed]

Iraq is to vietnam as 6-car pile up is to the blitzkrieg

[Jake]

Yet, the same result in Vietnam could easily happen if one of the anti-war fools were elected President. A failure of the mission with thousands of Americans dead and Billions of dollars wasted.

[© tweed]

Yet, the same result in Vietnam could easily happen if one of the anti-war fools were elected President. A failure of the mission with thousands of Americans dead and Billions of dollars wasted.

I don't think a Kucinich should take over, but I do think a change in the Pentagon (namely, sending Rumsfeld home) is necessary.  Fresh ideas can't hurt, unless they are of the thought process of passing legislation to restrict the possible actions of the pentagon.

[Jake]

Rumsfeld is the single biggest reason America's success in Iraq hasn't been larger.

[© tweed]

Rumsfeld is the single biggest reason America's success in Iraq hasn't been larger.

...yet he isn't going anywhere, because Bush is too goddamn stubborn.  I'm convinced no matter how badly things go in Iraq, Rummy's the main man in the Pentagon through January 2009.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Vietnam is not an accurate comparison.

However, France in Algeria and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan are.

[angus]

all bullsh**t aside, I think it's a fair comparison.  Between 1957 and 1073, fifty-two thousand americans died in vietnam.  Between 1957 and 1973, we were engaged in a war that started as a cry from the French Government for help.  "We can't hold our empire together.  If you yanks can give us a hand, we'll share the oil." 

Sure, Iraq's a beast created by a different tribe of White People, the English, and sure, we're nicer to the boys getting off the planes from the desert (Thanks Jane for being such a bitch because you showed us that sh**tting outside the toilet bowl and on the floor only gives us a bigger mess to clean).  But still, it's a grasp at imperialsm with overtones of energy distribution control (tonkin gulf instead of Persian Gulf).  Of course there are differences.  And it doesn't have to end the same way!!!  As Jake wisely points out, it doesn't have to end the same.  No matter how we felt in the lead up to military conquest, circa October 2002 - May 2003, we are all in it now.  And, unlike in Viet Nam, we have the Viet Nam war to study when we march on Iraq.  And unlike Viet Nam, who fended off China and others for several thosand years, Iraq is a mishmash of white peoples glued together by the English who had little understanding of the tribal alliances in the 1920s when they super-glued the region together in a land call "iraq"   So, for starters, unlike in 1968 when we abandoned the ship of a real Texan in favor of a California Crook by promises of reality, we have made a slightly different decision:  we decided to re-elect a Connecticut Yankee in a Cowboy Hat since, although we realize he followed some particularly bad advice, he is at least a decent man who will try to make the best of a bad situation.  We'll stay the course.  We'll be okay.  If we follow Jake's advice.  (yes, I take exception to his use of the term "anti-war fools" since I was one of them.  But I do agree that now that we're knee-deep in sh**t, the best solution is not to cry and pretend we're not knee-deep in sh**t, but to look deep into the eyes of our leaders and say, "We trust you to clean up this horrible mess you made, because you made it and now it's your job to clean it up.  And, after all, you bastards didn't get rich by being fools, so you must have some sort of plan.")   call me naive, but I think they really do have a plan.  And I'll assume they can't continue to get richer if the empire crumbles, so I can syllogistically conlude, then, that the plan involves making sure the empire doesn't crumble.  This is the essential difference now between the GOP and the democrats.  (of course, we can fight over federally funded nose-jobs and "school choice" later.  And you know we will.  In the meantime, we should put that aside for the sake of our investment returns.) 

[Giant Saguaro]

I agree that there isn't much of a comparison. I didn't read the second page very much, but there's that the trouble in Iraq is much more localized and I'd also add that the differences in technology between the US and the insurrectionists in Iraq is vast, more so I think than during Viet Nam. To me, the trouble in Iraq resembles post WW2 fighting and turmoil way more than Nam.

[angus]

I agree that there isn't much of a comparison. I didn't read the second page very much, but there's that the trouble in Iraq is much more localized and I'd also add that the differences in technology between the US and the insurrectionists in Iraq is vast, more so I think than during Viet Nam. To me, the trouble in Iraq resembles post WW2 fighting and turmoil way more than Nam.

and, of course, there's the climactic difference:  humidity vs. aridity. 

Look, dudes, if you look into the cloud and want to see a choo-choo train, you see a choo-choo train.  If you look into the clouds and want to see a horse, you see a horse.

I can't believe we're even discussing this.

Okay, what I can't believe is that some jackass gets paid REAL MONEY for writing this sh**t.  Seriously.  Man, I made the wrong choce of majors.  Ah, well, anyway, you can find whatever similarities between Viet Nam and Iraq that you look for.  That's for sure.  And you can certainly find differences.

But I do agree with this statement given by neocon extraordinaire David Dreyer when asked whether it was "worth it":  "It will not have been worth the three hundred billion dollars and the dead eighteen hundred american soldiers if we quit now."

[Giant Saguaro]

I agree that there isn't much of a comparison. I didn't read the second page very much, but there's that the trouble in Iraq is much more localized and I'd also add that the differences in technology between the US and the insurrectionists in Iraq is vast, more so I think than during Viet Nam. To me, the trouble in Iraq resembles post WW2 fighting and turmoil way more than Nam.

and, of course, there's the climactic difference:  humidity vs. aridity. 

Look, dudes, if you look into the cloud and want to see a choo-choo train, you see a choo-choo train.  If you look into the clouds and want to see a horse, you see a horse.

I can't believe we're even discussing this.

Okay, what I can't believe is that some jackass gets paid REAL MONEY for writing this sh**t.  Seriously.  Man, I made the wrong choce of majors.  Ah, well, anyway, you can find whatever similarities between Viet Nam and Iraq that you look for.  That's for sure.  And you can certainly find differences.

But I do agree with this statement given by neocon extraordinaire David Dreyer when asked whether it was "worth it":  "It will not have been worth the three hundred billion dollars and the dead eighteen hundred american soldiers if we quit now."

And of course, those of us worth our weight in sand will take the aridity over the humidity.

Very true - I just can't in good conscience really oppose the war at this point. Yeah, I'll complain about the cost and yeah, I think one of the more pragmatic anti war positions is that at some point we have to cut our losses, but I just don't buy that we're losing. And our democracy spanned about 130 years in its development between the English Civil War at the Putney Debates in the mid 1600s where many of our founding ideas met expression for the first time to 1776 here in the USA where those ideas took real tangible form - that long to get it right and to me, they're doing pretty good over there in Iraq for only having been at it for a short time. People want this thing to happen over night and it won't happen that way. Anything approaching a democracy over there would be better than Hussein and that can only be for the better, I think.

[angus]

yeah, there are two separate issues there:  US imperialism and world stability.  I jokingly refer to the former often.  (Hey, at this point, if you can't have a sense of humor about US imperialism, you will be one sad individual for the rest of your life.)  But about the latter, it's a serious issue.  I think your post suggests that as well.  Anyway, on the one hand we can cut our losses.  Sure, it's embarassing, but you can argue that they'll find "stability" on their own terms.  But have you purchased a gallon of gas lately?  I haven't, being a cyclist and living downtown, albeit in a very small city, and walking quite a lot, but last time I did it was $2.57.  I shudder to think...  There's a huge argument in favor of stability (And, NO, I won't resort to our current religion, the "promise of democracy" and I still believe that white folk pushing whatever's fashionable in Europe--right now it happens to be "democracy"--isn't excused by the fact that White Folk have a claim on Moral Superiority by virtue of their advancement in Weapons Technology.)  I simply think that we haven't reached the point of diminishing marginal returns.

[opebo]

Iraq is far worse because the Americans invaded a perfectly stable, functioning nation and destroyed it for no reason other than an excuse to transfer money from the treasury into certain well connected Bush supporters pockets. 

At least in Vietnam the conflict predated our meddling, and wasn't entirely created by us.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

the Soviet Union in Afghanistan are.

You mean the strain caused by the war will be a major contributer to the collapse of the U.S.A?

[minionofmidas]

As I'm pretty sure you noticed Mr Realpolitik, he's referring to the fact that unlike in Viet Nam, there is no regular army around that's closely allied to the guerrillas.
Which is indeed the largest difference between Viet Nam and Iraq. Oh, and than there's Viet Nam's insidious onset. That Gallup report obviously treats the Viet Nam war as beginning at Tonkin Incident, but that's rubbish. That was an escalation, not a beginning. From which it should follow that all you guys' comparing 2004 to 1968 is ridiculous. The real mark for Bush to be held up to is LBJ 1964.
Opebo, while I won't entirely dismiss your point, it's obviously not true that Iraq was a "perfectly stable, functioning nation" in 2002. The country was locked in an unsatisfactory (to everybody involved) truce and in economic misery. Not that these things were not to a pretty large part (but not entirely) Western-made...
Which sets me thinking...maybe we should think of the invasion as just an aggravation of the US' Iraq mess, sorta like Tonkin, after all?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

the Soviet Union in Afghanistan are.

You mean the strain caused by the war will be a major contributer to the collapse of the U.S.A?

not quite because the US doesn't have the same economic system. France in Algeria is the better analogy then.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

France in Algeria is the better analogy then.

Since when was Iraq regarded as an integral part of the United States?

[minionofmidas]

France in Algeria is the better analogy then.

Since when was Iraq regarded as an integral part of the United States?

How about the French in Viet Nam as an analogy? That's actually not all that far off.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Point is in both cases the vastly militarily superior country was trying to occupy another one, but failed because they were unable to keep up with the constant tide. A militarily superior enemy can be defeated, just takes a war of attrition, especially when the enemy is not from there.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Except that America hasn't been a longtime colonial owner of Iraq, driven out by some other country, let back in again, need to prove self due to being conquered by neighbouring country a few years back... etc. etc.

There doesn't seem to be an accurate analogy for Iraq. But why does that matter anyway?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Point is in both cases the vastly militarily superior country was trying to occupy another one, but failed because they were unable to keep up with the constant tide.

Propaganda aside, how is that *really* relavent to Iraq? The U.S seems to want to get out as soon as possible (sooner even. Why do you think all these deadlines were inserted into the constitution drawing up process?) and doesn't seem remotely interested in either staying for the long term or clinging onto Iraq (which is where the analogies all break down).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hardly ever happens. Unless the meaning of "defeated" is changed... and the meaning of "militarily superior" actually.

[minionofmidas]

Except that America hasn't been a longtime colonial owner of Iraq, driven out by some other country, let back in again, need to prove self due to being conquered by neighbouring country a few years back... etc. etc.

There doesn't seem to be an accurate analogy for Iraq. But why does that matter anyway?

Well, yeah...instead they were longtime neocolonial dominators of Iraq, driven out by a succession of policy decisions, theirs and otherwise, not let back in again but didn't need that because they always were in the area, needed to prove themselves due to being attacked very successfully by a group of nutjobs.