By Mike Affholder


National debate about the war in Iraq being compared to the Vietnam War has been worn out to the point of cliché. Liberals throw the analogy around without thinking twice about the connotations that come along with it, and conservatives flatly deny the allegations without giving a thought that the argument might hold some merit.

In all reasonability, however, to draw comparisons between the two conflicts is to fuel an invalid and false analogy. There are viable comparisons to be sure, but there are far too many differences in the sociopolitical spheres of the two eras to warrant such a discourse.

The war in Iraq could very well be the most politically polarizing war in American history. At its beginning, both Democrats and Republicans were drawn into the fighting spirit due to the allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.


Surely, few wouldn’t want to support a war with a cause as noble as toppling a corrupt dictatorship in possession of WMDs. But, in the end, it was only the corrupt dictatorship that could be used as leverage for the war’s cause. Once it was revealed that the war was started on entirely false pretenses, Democrats pulled the rug out.

Now, both parties are realizing that the war in Iraq is turning into a futile endeavor, with Democrats even becoming divided among themselves.


Earlier in December, GOP Sen. Gordon Smith made scathing comments on the Senate floor, saying that the current state of the war in Iraq “may even be criminal.” And former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the U.S. Army is “about broken.”

In contrast, the Vietnam War was supported by both parties; first by President Kennedy, and then, following Kennedy’s assassination, by President Lyndon Johnson. Both were Democrats.


The conflict was then finished by two Republican presidents, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, respectively. U.S. troops were victorious in nearly every major campaign in Vietnam, but came home with almost nothing to show for it.

In Iraq, U.S. troops also won most battles, but managed to tear down Saddam Hussein’s corrupt regime as well as install a Democratic government in its place, though the country now seems to be on the brink of civil war.

One of the most glaring differences between the two conflicts is the lack of an enforced draft for the Iraq War versus the Vietnam War. This is one of the facets of the Iraq War that makes it so tragic; the fact that so many people signed up to fight, and die, for their country under false perceptions. On the opposite spectrum, U.S. troops were drafted into the Army to go to Vietnam, one of the reasons the war was so wildly unpopular.

The radical difference in death tolls between the two wars also contradicts supposed similarities. Nearly 58,000 U.S. troops were killed in Vietnam versus the 3,000 killed in Iraq since March of 2003. The difference in casualty rates is largely due to the drastically dissimilar fighting conditions of the two conflicts. Jungle and desert warfare could never be reasonably compared, even if both wars were fought primarily through use of guerilla tactics.

The Iraq and Vietnam wars may be similar in that they’re two of the most unpopular conflicts in American history, but the similarities dead end soon after that point is made. To further argue an analogy between the two is futile and pointless.

By Dane Baumgartner

Beliefs are hard to conquer. They are often engrained into people’s souls, and it is because of this that beliefs can be very dangerous.

There has been civil war going on within Iraq for quite some time now, and this shouldn’t surprise anyone. The Shiites and Sunnis have been fighting over their different beliefs since the death of Muhammad in 632 AD.

Shiite and Sunni militias fight because of their differing opinions on who should have succeeded Muhammad after his death. Shiites believe Ali Bin Abi Talib should have succeeded him, while Sunnis believe that the first four of Muhammad’s successors rightfully took his place as leaders of the Muslim community.

It seems the enemy we are fighting is divided against itself. Our government officials did not see this coming or at least pretended not to.

They also didn’t attempt to understand the religious differences within the Muslim community, along with the ideological differences between the U.S. and that community. If they had, we wouldn’t be in Iraq right now.

It is hard to help people that we don’t understand and who don’t understand us. In order for us to actually win in Iraq, we would have to change the way Iraqis feel about us. However, you can’t destroy a belief system.

The U.S. can’t help how it is perceived. Many Muslims base their opinions of Americans on how they comprehend our portrayal by whatever media they choose to watch.

You can’t stop perceptions because they are how we understand our surroundings. When a Muslim woman is surrounded by overbearing men and women who must cover every inch of their body because of religious practice, she is going to be accepting toward what she perceives as normal.

Similarly, consider an American teenager who sees all his friends wearing the trendy clothes of the day. Often that teenager is going to mimic those trends because, like the Muslim woman, he perceives that they are normal.

It is our perceptions that form our ideas about life. So a problem occurs when one country tries to force what they perceive as good onto another.

When the country being forced to submit to an ideology has conflicting ideologies within itself, you have even more problems.

The U.S. is not only fighting an insurgency but also two different belief systems. Perhaps it is possible to
defeat an insurgency, but it’s nearly impossible to defeat a belief system and certainly not two. The strength of a believer is just too strong.

Shiites and Sunnis hold their beliefs so tightly that it’s hard to think of a way in which the U.S. can change the fundamentalist ideas of many Muslim citizens, let alone fight an insurgency that is willing to kill for those ideas.

We are not fighting an enemy in Iraq but rather a mindset. It is a mindset that has been in place for centuries, and it is not likely to change anytime soon.

Once this is understood, it becomes harder and harder to support the war we are currently submerged in. How can you fight what you don’t understand and expect a happy ending?

You can’t fight two belief systems at the same time and try to gain influence with your own.

People are willing to die for their beliefs. The U.S. does not need to find out just how many.

By Nicole Provencher

Iraq is a conversation not easily avoided these days. It is constantly in the news, and it is a popular topic among many people of all shapes and sizes. And of course, a main focus is put on whether or not the United States should continue its presence in Iraq.

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. I feel that it is important we continue our mission of bringing peace to their nation, but I think there may be better ways of doing it than what our country is doing now.

President Bush is currently considering a plan which would send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. Though I agree that our troops already stationed in Iraq do need replenishing and reinforcements, I think that all this fighting has gotten us nowhere.

Fighting has never been an answer to a problem, no matter what aspect it is put in. History shows that fighting does not solve a problem, it can only make it worse. As we have seen in the past years we have spent in Iraq, absolutely nothing has been solved by our gun fights and bombing in Iraq.

However, I feel that if the United States were to leave Iraq today, the problem would also become worse. If we leave with unfinished business, the people we disagree with and the people who hate us will think that we are too weak and cannot finish things we start.

We must stay in Iraq until peace is reached. But the way to acquire peace is not through violence. We need to educate the Iraqis and the terrorist groups that we are not there to take over their country; we are merely there to show them alternatives to their violent lifestyles. Fighting violence with violence is pointless.

The news media make it perfectly clear that we have lost many soldiers due to the war in Iraq, and this cannot continue, especially if these deaths are for no reason. The troops are there to represent our country and to fight for the rights we take for granted, yet they are dying at the expense of the opponent who has not learned a thing.

This may or may not be a good time to address John Kerry’s inconsiderate attempt at a joke. The men and women fighting for YOUR rights, Mr. Kerry, are obviously much more educated than you will ever be. It is sad to see someone so ignorant attempting to make a joke of our nation’s education system as well as the people who are fighting for you to still be alive.

I feel that the new plan to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq is not the best idea, because it will not help in solving the problem of peace in the Middle East. I think the only way this can truly be accomplished is with a lot of effort on the part of leaders, and I also think a lot could be accomplished with more discussions.


Nothing is getting solved by continuing to battle for freedom, and more soldiers do not need to die for another country’s rights.

After six years of George W. Bush, Americans have become accustomed to war. There is the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the “War on Terror”, and the ongoing war on the U.S. Constitution. The next attack on the Constitution is currently being launched via the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Most Americans looked the other way when the Patriot Act hit. It was 45 days after the attacks of 9-11, and we were willing to give up some of our rights, yes, even those rights guaranteed to us by the founding fathers of the United States. The government convinced us that we were in constant danger so we remained in constant fear.

Most of us looked the other way when the government wanted to read our private medical records. Many of us didn't care that the government was checking our library records. After all, it could help catch some book-enthused terrorist. Some of us didn't even mind that the government could search our homes without notification, justification, or a warrant. At least we were safer, right?

They insisted we were safer but apparently not safe enough. We weren't even safe enough to be told about the National Security Agency's secret unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping, which invades our privacy and takes away our right to due process. We didn't need privacy because we were somehow convinced that spying without a warrant helps get the terrorists. The government could have even requested a warrant after spying but that somehow hurt their effectiveness.

Those were just a few minor intrusions on the Constitution, but it's not a big deal, right? We don't really believe that the Founding Fathers wanted us to have all of the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution, especially not after being attacked by terrorists.

Last year, President Bush signed what he called “the most important piece of legislation in the war on terror,” officially known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Bush said that the Act would allow captured enemy combatants a fair trial.

The Act has clear regulations defining who can be classified as an enemy combatant. The requirements are as follows: Anyone whom the President designates as an enemy combatant is an enemy combatant. I'm glad they cleared that up.

This means that anyone, U.S. citizen or not, can be an enemy combatant. If the government decides to accuse your mother, father, sister, brother, or friend of being an enemy combatant, they have no right to be released from detainment nor do they have to be charged with a crime. They aren't even allowed their constitutional right to ask why they are being imprisoned.

The mere fact that the President says someone is an enemy combatant is a good enough reason to hold them indefinitely without their most basic rights. The man who can not pronounce the word “nuclear” can pronounce you an enemy combatant. At least this makes us safer, right?

The Act does anything but give a fair trial to anyone. As a matter of fact, the Act takes away many constitutional rights from enemy combatants. The enemy combatants are denied due process of the law and are not entitled to habeas corpus. That means the defendants are not entitled to “fairness” under due process and they can not challenge their detention. They are to be held until a military court decides to try them.

The government can charge the enemy combatant with hearsay evidence, illegally obtained evidence, and evidence which was classified and not even known to the defense. It sounds unfair, but the defendant is still judged by a jury of their U.S. Military peers. The U.S. Military officers, some of whom are returning from active duty in Iraq, will somehow overcome the bias they gained while being shot at by actual enemy combatants and judge the defendant based on the “evidence.” If two-thirds of these military personnel decide the defendant is guilty, he or she is guilty. Sounds fair to me.

Why should the bad guys get a fair trial? We hold them with questionable justification, convict them on hearsay, and convict them by majority. That is good enough for someone classified as an enemy combatant. They are the enemy combatants, aren't they?

One of the lessons taught in journalism school is never to compare anything to the Nazis. The Nazis were the worst people ever to rule, so no one could ever be that bad again. Fair enough. Let's compare the Bush Administration to the Nazis before World War Two and before the Nazis started trying to wipe other races off the planet.

In the 1930s, Nazi leadership blamed a congressional house fire on terrorists, and then they frightened the legislature into passing the Military Commissions...I mean the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act gave extreme powers to Hitler and gave less power to the other branches of the government. The main power given to Hitler was the ability to hold prisoners indefinitely without charge. Even if you agree with the need for such authority, in whose hands should this much power be trusted to?

American freedoms are being chipped away at by a power-hungry government. They tell us that we are safer and they tell us that this Act is fair. I don't feel safer knowing that I can be held forever without the right to defend myself fairly just because the President says I am an enemy combatant.

Chancellor Bush told Americans that the terrorists hate us because they hate our freedoms. Maybe if he takes all of our freedoms away all of the terrorists will surrender. Maybe they will even love us.