Readers React: Comparing Iraq and Vietnam

Andrew J. Bacevich brings into clear view how the slow-motion disaster that was the Iraq war may end. As in Vietnam, we appear to have sent “too many soldiers to make peace and too few to make war.” (“Can Obama pull a Nixon with the Iraq crisis?,” Opinion, June 13)

This should give the neoconservative hawks pause for reflection. Despite the courage and skill of our soldiers, the efficacy of limited war in the modern age is now in question. The globe is inundated with cultural and political realities that firepower may only exacerbate.

It is time that our foreign policy is rescued from the lazy language we use to talk about it. We don’t get to call death squads “freedom fighters” anymore; we cannot, simultaneously, “save and destroy a village”; and we are not always greeted as liberators.

We no longer have the luxury of employing transcendental language to describe complex and violent operational challenges. We need to stop confusing ourselves with our own hyperbole.

David DiLeo

San Clemente

With all due respect to Bacevich and his extensive credentials, I must take issue with this line on the Vietnam War in his piece: “By comparison, even taking into account the 58,000 America dead, this country paid next to nothing.”

According to the National Journal, “The [Department of Veterans Affairs] estimates that 30% of Vietnam veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, compared with 11% to 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.”

This country is still paying for the Vietnam War by caring for many older, disabled veterans, many of whom suffer psychiatric disorders and make up a good portion of our homeless population.

I recommend Gloria Emerson’s 1972 book, “Winners & Losers: Battles, Retreats, Gains, Losses and Ruins from a Long War.” Even 42 years ago it was apparent that the United States would be paying for the Vietnam War far into the future.

Americans have been paying for that “conflict” in ways that aren’t obvious.

Catherine Gentile

Santa Monica