Vietnam's Legacy

I was born too late to remember the Vietnam War. Too late to watch the marches and protests and be shocked about Kent State. Too late to watch the evening news and see American soldiers fighting a guerrilla war half-way across the world. Too late to watch the grim faces of Presidents announcing new policies concerning this unofficial war.

But something tells me that I was not born too late to feel the effects of the Vietnam War. The drawn-out struggle that handed us no victory has become part of the national psyche. Now, it hangs over us like a cloud as we deal with the knowledge of carnage and genocide in the Balkans today.

When he basked in the glory of the Gulf War, George Bush declared that the United States had finally kicked the "Vietnam syndrome"--referring to the stigma that was attached to losing the Vietnam war. Many analysts concurred. The Gulf War was supposed to prove that the United States was once again willing to stand up for the principles it held dear: democracy, independence and freedom from aggression.

Our past failures haunt our inaction in Bosnia.

The analysts and George Bush were wrong. The Gulf War was a confidence-booster for the country's military establishment. It served as a playground on which the United States showed off its high-tech weapons. But the Gulf War did not test the mettle or iron-will of this country's leadership, nor did it help us to kick the "Vietnam syndrome."

The proof that the spectre of Vietnam still walks with the United States lies in Bosnia-Herzegovina. According to Gulf War rhetoric, U.S. intervention in Iraq was supposed to have shown that the United States could and would fight for freedom and basic human rights. If this is true, how is it that a situation as blatantly unjust and horrifying as the massacre of more than 100,000 people in Bosnia has gone unanswered?

Two presidents and their administrations have been hopelessly inactive in intervening to aid the Bosnians. It is incomprehensible that George Bush, the same leader who invaded Panama and fought the Gulf war, could not even order air strikes on Serbian military targets or militarily enforce the no-fly zone.

During the presidential campaign, Bill Clinton said he was outraged at the events in Bosnia. But his latest Bosnian policy has shown utter cowardice. Rather than seeking a military solution, President Clinton has decided to join the current peace talks, considering the Vance-Owen plan that calls for partitioning Bosnia.

The new president has also said that United States military forces would only be used as part of a multilateral peace-keeping force to enforce any settlement that is reached. It seems that Clinton is willing to wear a moral blindfold, to look the other way and work with the system in order to avoid military action.

The only explanation for Bush's and Clinton's inaction must be the fact that intervening in Bosnia reminds them of Vietnam. Vietnam is the chink in the United States' armor that prevents us from acting as we should. It is time that the United States realized that while we learned valuable lessons from Vietnam, the "Vietnam syndrome" has paralyzed us to the extent that we are afraid to act even in situations which demand intervention.

This is not to say that the situations in Bosnia and Vietnam are identical. Vietnam was a civil war. The conflict in Bosnia is not a civil war; it is genocide. In Bosnia, the horrendous policies of "ethnic cleansing" are being used to achieve political aims. While intervention in Vietnam may have been questionable on moral grounds, intervention in Bosnia is the only morally and politically sound move for the United States.

To believe that the Vance-Owen plan is in any way a just or practical alternative to military action is absurd. The plan treats Serbia as a legitimate party in a territorial dispute--not as a ruthless aggressor. No person who has seen the devastation, death and rape commited in the name of "ethnic cleansing" will accept a peace plan that rewards that aggression.

The United States must act decisively and strongly--even this late in the conflict--because this issue is a test of our moral integrity. If America wants to send a clear message to all the members of the "new world order," then that message must be that aggression will not be tolerated, much less rewarded.

Clinton's policy toward Bosnia ignores America's established role as a leader of the free world. During the Gulf War, it was the United States that pushed the United Nations and its allies to take action against Saddam Hussein. Now, when the U.N. is waffling on the Bosnian situation, the U.S. has failed to come forward with the same forceful leadership.

The United States must do what is needed to make the odds fair for the fighting Bosnians. The criminals among the Serbs who dared to follow "ethnic cleansing" as a policy must be punished. Only then can the United States look at itself and see a country that is willing to stand for basic principles, such as freedom from aggression.

Only then can we, as a nation, say that we have kicked the "Vietnam syndrome" once and for all.