Americans love “Forrest Gump.” Upon its initial release in 1994 it marked the top-grossing film of the year in North America and to this day it remains No. 34 on the list of all-time box office sensations. Honestly there’s not a lot to dislike about a guy whose most profound insight is that life is like a box of chocolates. But there’s something about the actual premise of “Forrest Gump” that lends itself quite satiating to the type of Americana for which its audience has since been thirsting— the revolution of the 1960s.
Fresh off celebrating Woodstock’s 40-year anniversary stores like Barnes and Noble still boast displays of antiwar propaganda and collections of hippie accounts. Lyrics of the Beatles that were once catalysts for social change now sprinkle Facebook as shallow categorizations of users’ political and religious ideologies. The election of President Obama last November emblazoned a screaming indicator on the times regarding the direction in which Americans want their country to move. And then there’s Afghanistan.
There’s an obvious risk in implying that the Vietnam War has become a “novelty” of American culture. More than 58000 U.S. soldiers were killed fighting for something even their government didn’t understand. But in the midst of a contemporary war often deemed “Obama’s Vietnam there is no place for euphemisms.
Americans have clenched onto the Vietnam War, and, more importantly, its cultural aesthetics, since its end in the 1970s. Every conflict in which the United States engaged was labeled the next ‘Nam”— not because of its implications on international policy but because Americans wanted something for which to rally. Americans wanted another revolution.
The comparison of Afghanistan to Vietnam was inevitable and with the recent troop surges considered by Obama it has become completely hackneyed. Another argument as to whether or not the association is valid would be unproductive and altogether worthless— a college student’s assessment falling among the ranks of similarly themed topics from publications like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. However an application of history to current events we are taught is never worthless. After all we are imbued from a very young age with the maxim that we study history to avoid past mistakes.
The Vietnam War was essentially a violent U.S. effort to democratize the country and avoid a Communist takeover. It was a multifaceted battle in which the United States faced both the organized militia of North Vietnam and the insurgent forces of Viet Cong. American involvement escalated so rapidly that it required a military draft — one of the key ingredients responsible for the antiwar sentiment so prevalently definitive of the decade. Consequently President Nixon was elected on a platform of “Vietnamization which promised a stabilization of the region and a subsequent withdrawal of American troops. Sound familiar? On the surface, it should. The war in the Middle East has been similarly directed at democratization of regions characterized by unstable insurgencies, and Obama’s election solidifies the claim that Americans don’t approve of their country’s involvement. But this is not the 1960s, not Vietnam and with any luck, Obama will prove that he is no Nixon.
Prior to his landslide election, Obama clearly established his policy stance that stabilizing Afghanistan would be key to winning the War on Terror. Unbeknownst to his supporters, however, this stabilization would involve increasing American military to fight the Taliban and overtaking insurgents opposing the Kabul government, ultimately undermining the campaign for change” for which the average dilettante cast his or her vote. Clinging to their favorite ’60s allusion Americans deemed Afghanistan “Obama’s Vietnam.”
Soldiers in Vietnam faced challenges that soldiers in Afghanistan never will. In the midst of fighting for their lives they also fought for even the smallest iota of insight as to why they were dying for another country’s stability. Antiwar sentiments were consequently innately entrenched in a sense of patriotism both for fellow Americans and the United States’ role in the global scheme far removed from the stick-it-to-the-man mentality that many Americans today revere.
The war in Afghanistan manifests a tangible rationale for warfare sparked by al Qaeda’s attacks on the World Trade Centers— a direct blow to the freedom that embodies American values and an imminent threat to U.S. security. Its roots are justified but its progress will be stalled unless Americans rid themselves of the crutch of the 1960s and rally behind their beliefs for this war— not Vietnam or any other outrage of the era.There are risks associated with Obama’s proposed troop surge in Afghanistan. A deeper-rooted internal conflict could surface and furthermore America could jeopardize the prospective diplomatic ties with Shiite Muslim Iran as Iranian officials view the surge policy as masked radicalism. However as Obama carefully considers yet another force surge Americans would do well to keep “Forrest Gump” out of their DVD players.
Though President Obama would be foolish to ignore the implications of the past in doing so he and his fellow Americans must enact their decisions on a platform solely characterized by the present for only then will another revolution emerge.
