One lesson of Vietnam War: It's tough to get out

WASHINGTON - President Bush and Democrats agree on one thing heading into this month's crucial debate over the Iraq war: Vietnam is now an appropriate analogy.

Many antiwar Democrats welcomed Bush's recent comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam as evidence that today's war is finally being acknowledged across the political spectrum as a quagmire.

But any hope that this recognition may lead to a pullout is almost certainly premature: The American people had begun to agree that Vietnam was a quagmire as early as 1968 - and the war continued for five more years, with more casualties than before.

In fact, a major lesson of Vietnam is that it's extremely difficult to pull out of a war, and that the American people - speaking through their elected representatives - are unlikely to move quickly to cut their losses.

Antiwar fervor was vastly greater in the late '60s and early '70s than today. Social unrest spurred by the war tore at the fabric of the country in ways that still reverberate.

But the agony at home and in Indochina did not lead to big victories for antiwar politicians. Nor did it lead to a quick pullout.

Then, as now, Americans were dissatisfied with the war. They may even have believed that the whole endeavor was a mistake. But they were deeply divided about when and how to withdraw.

The fear of lost prestige; the perception that a pullout would embolden other Cold War enemies; the concern that capitulation to Vietnamese communism would increase the spread of communism to neighboring countries; the persistent belief that some new plan, new proxy government, or new general could change the situation on the ground - all were major features of the Vietnam debate, and all have echoes today.

At first glance, the 1968 presidential election seems to be an imperfect parallel to 2008. A Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, had escalated the nation's role in Vietnam, and his party was deeply divided between its peace wing and its conservative wing. The prime beneficiary was Republican Richard Nixon, who could distance himself from both the war and the peaceniks. The Democratic nominee, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, was tainted by his association with Johnson's policies, and some historians believe he would have won the election if he'd renounced those policies early in the campaign.

Nixon, however, claimed to speak for the mainstream in seeking "peace with honor." He did not say the war a mistake, but rather that Johnson's policies had failed. And while he made clear that withdrawal was his eventual goal, he never said how he would achieve it. He spoke of a "secret plan" that couldn't be discussed for fear of tipping off the North Vietnamese.

As president, Nixon actually expanded the war in a series of moves designed to pressure the North Vietnamese and gain leverage at the bargaining table. But many scholars believe that the shaky peace deal that Nixon embraced in 1973 could have been gotten on the same terms back in 1969.

While today's political equation is quite different, there are some signs that presidential candidates are positioning themselves to claim a Nixonian center ground next fall. Assuming there is no pullout before the election, the center ground will probably be some form of "peace with honor": a commitment to a phased withdrawal while propping up the Iraqi government and threatening reprisals if Al Qaeda seeks to undermine the country's stability.

Most Democratic candidates have embraced the concept of a phased withdrawal, but have vowed toughness on terror groups. New York Senator Hillary Clinton, for one, has spoken of the necessity of keeping Al Qaeda "on the run" in Iraq, which would require a continued troop presence.

Most Republican candidates, seeking to appeal to the party's core supporters, have ruled out a withdrawal - for now. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, for instance, has shored up his hawkish bona fides by calling for "a surge of support for the surge." But he knows the surge won't last beyond next summer, leaving him an opening to formulate a new policy if he's his party's nominee.

Today's candidates seem to have grasped the political appeal of peace with honor. But they should also remember that in the Vietnam War, there was no such thing.

Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond.