Iraq=Vietnam? Is it that similar?

[Milton Bradley]

The timeline is critical to keep in mind when discussing such matters. Some of the most essential components to modern warfare were evolving at a rapid pace after the Great Battle, and I believe many good points can be made to indicate the Korean "Conflict" was nothing more than weapons testing, and disposing of old WWII munitions.


This was the time when the first jet fighters fought each other for the first time the AK-47 met the M-14, this was Americas first deployment of the helicopter to the front lines. Many, many points can be made about us trying our out new tactics after all we learned in WW II.


It was probably also an exercise in Executive power, and trying the new unconstitutional government on for size. When you get a new suit, you have to show it off, don't you? A good illustration of what James Madison warned us about in the dangers of concentrating powers in the executive branch.

[Comrade]

Some people equated our massive success in the first Persian Gulf war and the initial encounters of the second with an easy occupation. We won easily because desert terrain allows for easy use of our weapon systems and vehicles. When you are in cities, or in the jungles of Vietnam, your main weapon is going to be infantry. There is only so much you can do to armor infantry, while on the other hand there is no tank in the world that can defeat the Abrams' armor at the Abrams' maximum effective range (which was determined against the British tank, which uses the same type of armor, I think).

The last time we as a nation were any good at guerilla warface, it was the Revolution. That is actual a fair tactical analogy. We (playing as the British) have crushing capabilities on the open battlefield, so obviously they are not going to fight us on the open battlefield, they will try to harass until support for the war erodes (due to casualties) here in America. I am well pleased with myself.
I was not comparing political nature of the Patriots and the resistors in Iraq, just so nobody makes that mistake.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll make it. All men have the right to defend their homeland from foreign invaders, and there is a long, long tradition of doing so. Get US troops outa there now, so no more have to come home in boxes. Who gives a flip about "saving face?" There's no WMD; Saddam's in custody; US troops are sitting ducks. This is seriously stirring up a hornets nest in Islamicland.

Oh, I forgot... Gotta secure those oilfields and airbases...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Diplomacy is all about saving face. Who do you think attracts the most terrorists? The one that busts heads, or the one that advocates non-violence?

[Haik]

I love it. Clinton stands in history forever as the 'liar'...Whereas our beady eyed friend here...well you know the rest.

[castille]

Similiarities:
-Gurellias in Vietnam and Iraq
-Anti-American sentiment fuels the other side
-Both wars were about prestige
-Hippies protesting

Major differences:
-Vietnam was a war fought between 2 sides (North/South).
-The Soviets were backing the North
-If the US didn't back up the South, the USSR would notch another victory (although they lost anyway, so the Russians did get another victory)
-Iraq isn't about a war between two gigantic powers

[Milton Bradley]

I don't know I got onto the subject of Korea. I must have been distracted. Sorry.

[Mozart1220]

The similarities are many, but one of them is that this "war" is mainly for the defense contractors. Like Viet nam, they will make BILLIONS, and as a "war on terrorism" can be carried on forever, they will continue to rake in the bucks as long as we keep Jr. in the White House.

[m5lange1]

There is one defining similarity. It is the one that matters to me.
You fight a war or you do not!
In Vietnam we thought it was important enough to send our young to die but not enough to fully commit. (too many "don'ts" cuz we did not want to step on the wrong toes).

Same thing here. Too many dont's.

Personally I felt Afganistan was worth it. I have never felt like Iraq was justified. But I have never thought it was intelligent or moral that we should drop bombs and snacks on anyone.

Invading a country for its own good is the most rediculous thing I have ever seen people swallow in mass.

So yes. I think we are headed down the same road as Vietnam. That road is sending people over to die but telling them they are not able to fight as if we were at war. ADD IN the similarity that the general population is in on a resistance against the invader/liberator and that road will lead to continued death until an embarrassing withdrawal is exeuted.

Go to war or do not go to war. Do not send our children over there to die unless we are willing to level cities to protect them.
Too barbaric??? Then we have no business sending people to die there.
It is necessary enough for our people to die for??? Then it is worth leveling the cities to acomplish the mission.

But we are there to save the people????? Was someone asking for similarities to Vietnam??????

"You Karate do Yes...ok. You Karate do no...ok. You Karate do 'guess so'.....(Squish) just like grape.
Mr. Meagi (sp?)

[tribeman]

IMHO, if you want to know what happened in Vietnam, read Col. Harry G. Summmers book, "On Strategy". This is the Army History Institute at Carlisle Barracks, PA research about the military's failure in Vietnam. And if you get to read this book - w/ the exception of Col. Summers' conclusions about the draft - you could almost substitute Iraq for the North Vietnamese. That is the hard truth from the military's own conclusion. And Colin Powell would have had staff college courses where this book was used as text, so I was not surprised to read in "The New York Times" that Powell told Bush that Bush would own Iraq and the blood would be on his hands.
Everybody remember 'Baghdad Bob', the former Iraqi Minister of Information? Prior to our invasion, he held up a book and said it had been given out to the Special Republican Guard and the feedaheen (sp) Saddam. Ho Chi Minh's book. Think about it. The ideaological leader of the VC (Victor Charlie - how prophetic), a group that won no tactical engagements (conversation between Col. Summers and the chief NVA representative at the Paris Peace Conference in 1973) yet managed to make the American elephant (Ho's word) bleed more than the Vietnamese Tiger. The insurgents in Iraq are going down the same path and special forces tactics alone can't bring about stability in the face of a popular insurgency. If you doubt this, the movie, "The Battle of Algiers", should give lie to that position.
Divide the country into 3 states, hunh??? Why do you want to help Al Franken write the next chapter of "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"?? The President promised repeatedly that Iraq would not be partitioned. Period. His words, what don't you support the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war? Best be careful of that Patriot Act, if that's your line.

I believe that this may possibly be the point that the Right wing will lose the US this conflict. This is Yugoslavia only with even more religious violence. Let's look at the historical comparisons:
Yugoslavia - cobbled together from the outer provinces of an archaic Hapsburg Empire
Iraq - cobbled together from the outer provinces of an archaic Ottoman Empire
Yugoslavia - political instability from founding until end of WWII
Iraq - political instability and 13 years of British occupation prior to WWII
Yugoslavia - strong man dictator, Tito, plays ethnic groups against each other to maintain his power
Iraq - strong man dictator, Hussein who admired and looked up to Tito, plays ethnic groups against each other to maintain his power.
Yugoslavia - ethnic cleansing, civil war, NATO occupation, Serbian isolation
Iraq - ethnic cleansing of Kurds and Shia, US occupation, Sunni isolation

If we allow a tri-partition of Iraq, we should be prepared for airstrikes on Ankara, Damascus, Tehran and Tblisi. The Kurds are the largest nationality on the planet that does not have its own state. And a Shia rump state helps only Iran strategically. IMHO, this wouldn't be sowing a whirlwind but the sowing of a hurricane. I would almost love to see Ariel Sharon's face if we seriously proposed this. It would mark the end of modern Turkey and the Jewish state probably would not like to see the collapse of their oldest Arab Ally. Can you say Pandora's Box?

My father-in-law, a retired Command Sergant Major with more than 30 years service, comment about the similiarities between Iraq and Vietnam (he was awarded the Republic of Vietnam service medal with 6 campaign stars) was watch the testimony of Army commanders when asked if they had sufficient forces for their mission. A stony-faced yes is the reponse. The next question should be what is that mission? The answer from combat commanders is force protection not hearts & minds, or aggressive patrolling, or insurrection suppression, or infrastructure reconstruction, or domestic Iraqi security. You know, those things we HAVE to do to be successful. Destoying a third of Fallujah or half a mosque outside of Najaf provides a measure of force protection in the short-term but what about the impact these actions have to act as an aid against our true enemy, Al Qeda. Thank God the Wahibi's think the Shia are infidels or we would be deep in the ca-ca.

As much as I would like to list the failures of the Administration to anticipate the complications of the occupation of Iraq, it serves no useful purpose. We are where we are and, as former Army chief-of-staff Shinsheki said prior to his dismissal for telling Congress the truth, we should be prepared for 8 plus years in country and 250,000+ troops. Thanks be to the Almighty my DD214 is on file in the courthouse and I've finished my military obligation. For you under 30, repeat after me "I wet the bed, walk in my sleep and although not a practising homosexual, I'd be willing to learn (sic)" That or better start practicing your Arabic or Farsi or Korean or Georgian or Chechen or Uzbek or Pashtun or Hindi and just to be safe, Chinese. Old men make war and young men fight it. And as I informed my basic training buddies from the Texas Nat'l Guard when a group of us informed them of their possible Federalization and as group they said they would go to Canada, the friendly Canucks now have an extradition treaty for deserters and draft-dodgers. Conscientitious objectors would be advised to look into the Quakers, Amish/Mennonites, or the Church of the Brethren which are the only Federally recognized C.O. status churches. God bless Enton Eller for standing up to registration w/o C.O. checkbox. If the draft is reinstated, everyone who elects C.O. owes this son of a Brethren minister a debt of gratitude, I wish I had had his courage in the early 80's.

[PatrickHenry]

Awesome post, tribeman. Nothin' there for me to argue with. Gotta look up Summers' book. Couldn't find it on Amazon, Abe's or Powell's.

[tribeman]

PH,
Summers book was published by the Presido press in 1984 (my copy). Unfortunately, I loaned to my youngest nephew when expreessed a desire to join the Army. Figured he needed to see how politics affect the military. The book was used as a text in an America in Vietnam course I took in school - might be out of print but worth getting a used copy of. If not, try the DOD's website and link to Carlisle barracks to either purchase or use inter-library loan. Excellent book by a combat, line officer that doesn't follow the blame someone, anyone else line. One of the best contemporary histories - boy, that's an oxymoron - I've ever read: actually fair and balanced.

[Ragin Trajan]

The similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is this: the radical Left is passionately opposed to the war. That's really the extent of the similarity. I think it is largely due to opposition to global capitalism and American hegemony.

What the communists learned in Vietnam was that it was possible to beat a democracy by a number of persuasive methods: first, it is possible to convince a democratic populace that fighting on defense and leaving enemy sanctuaries unmolested is a "winnable war," along with the opposite tack that argues taking the fight to the enemy will only make them angrier and the war wider. Personally, I only think that the latter point gained currency in American foreign policy when China began to participate on the North Korean side during the Korean War. In Vietnam, this allowed the North Vietnamese to continuously resupply the guerillas and NVA regulars in the South with impunity. The North Vietnamese only agreed to peace talks when Richard Nixon began bombing Hanoi and Hai Phong harbor in the 1970s.

Second, the communists learned that sowing domestic dissent in political circles was a successful approach to countering democratic resolve. All politicians have domestic ambitions that do not include warfare. Since the resources required to wage war are a natural source for reallocation of funds, antiwar movements can gain popularity within political circles when targetted politicans don't stand to gain from the war itself and may in fact sympathize with the enemy.

Third, despite incredible losses, the North Vietamese showed that they could win a war of attrition (Westmoreland's strategy, which didn't have the resources to counteract domestic dissent).

Originally posted by "Catch 22"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Catch 22")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't see the similarities because the situation is much more different from Vietnam. In Vietnam we were fighting on the behalf of a client state against both highly organized guerillas and an enemy state. [/b]

In Vietnam, the insurgents were invisible, but everyone knew that the Russians were the primary suppliers. In Iraq, the insurgency is visible, but the sponsor states remain invisible.

The big lie about Iraqi history is that Saddam Hussein was a U.S. puppet. He was in fact a French puppet with deep ties to Jacques Chirac--starting in the 1970s when both Saddam and Jacques were much younger, and the U.S. was preoccupied you know where. The fingerprints were rather obvious: Mirage fighters, Exocet missiles, nuclear technology, etc. The Soviets also curried favor with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war by supplying arms to Iraq (e.g., Mig 29s, SCUDs, AK-47s, etc). The U.S. didn't oppose it, because they feared Ruhollah Khomeini's regime. Saddam basically bled Iran white. However, Iran was a U.S.-U.K. client state before the Ayatollah's coup.

The Iraq war also has another dimension. UN officials and other politicos profited hansomely from the UN oil-for-food program. Saddam used it as a bribery mechnamism to wage war on the U.S. diplomatically. The U.S. countered by usurping prior UN authority to engage Iraq.

Originally posted by "dotComa"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("dotComa")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also, we have not declared war, nor has the UN legally given us permission to invade Iraq, so I don't see how Iraq is really different. Care to explain this?[/b]

The United States basically gave authority to the U.S. president to wage wars pursuant to UNSC resolutions or Congressional resolutions following WWII. The legal notion of war was essentially set aside by our participation in the UN. However, the UN is not a supranational government. It has no sovereignty itself. It is merely a corporation that brokers treaties and conflict resolution procedures. It has no authority itself; however, we could view the current crisis as Kofi Annan's Investiture Struggle to become the president of the world.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Milton Bradley"@
1.) I think one could argue that Vietnam was nothing more thatn weapons testing, to see if we were keeping up with the Soviets, and also a wonderful way to get rid of a lot of surplus WW II munitions that were aging, and needed to be used, or destroyed.

2.) Vietnam was when the East showed the West that they had mastered guerilla warfare, and that they needed an entire new doctrine for war.
[/quote]
1.) Far too cynical.
2.) Vietnam did provide the impetus for advanced listening devices, defoliants, smart bombs, helicopter gunships, spooky gunships, and bunker busters. A country wouldn't piss away 50k troops for testing purposes. You could argue that Slobodan Milosevic's decapitation was a test of American air power and smart bomb campaigns. The U.S. conventional forces were completely remade by the Vietnam experience. Most of the rest of the world lags behind militarily at this point.

<!--QuoteBegin-"tusaki"
Also, this is more of a quagmire than Vietnam, because the US must stay in Iraq to play police when there are multiple factions just waiting for an opportunity to slit each others throat. [/quote]
That is the strategic genius of this war: we cannot simply abandon Iraq. Hence, there is no viable political alternative to George Bush. However, the U.S. can turn over police duties to the local forces and merely aid in suppressing rebellions. This will begin starting with the handover on June 30th.

The UN wants to be a part of the handover, because it wants to be recognized itself as the legitimate government of Iraq. It wants to claim that it has the right to confer sovereignty (and to rescind it), which the U.S. isn't likely to countenance.

America's enemies on the continent have to rely on a UN strategy, because none of them are powerful enough to take on the U.S. individually. That is why the rely so heavily on propaganda. We've seen throughout the presidential cycle attempts to pry apart the Bush administration--i.e., to suggest Cheney abandon the ticket, to blame Rice for 9/11, and currently to suggest that Rumsfeld resign on prisoner abuse allegations. Each attempt has failed so far, but the fact that there is an attempt suggests that America's enemies have some very interesting tactics of their own.

[harami]

There is a world of difference. Vietnam was part of the cold war, and so "containment" was an acceptable outcome, as it was in Korea. For example, as long as all of SE Asia did not fall to communism or the Chinese did not enter the war, cool heads (but not the populace nd press) could claim victory. Outright victory could have led to instability and nuclear war, as in N Korea. However I think the Vietnam war could have been won without triggering the undesired instability.

To make an analogy, you have to posit that the new cold war is with radical Islam. But this is not a unified force, nor is it is a block of countries with explicit goals, as was the Communist block in the cold war.

Historically, it took the British about 4 years to pacify Iraq and institute a new government of Sunni muslims, which lead to Saddam. The amount of time the US had to spend occupying Germany and Japan before they could stand on their own was several years. Bosnia/Kosovo is not yet "pacified". So,it seems to me preposterous to expect that Iraq be "pacified" and a new democratic government be set up in 1 year.

If you search the web for more insightful news and analyses, it seems to me that you will find that the US is doing rather well. Sadr has been marginalized. Unemployment is sinking fast and private enterprise, freedom of the press, and civic society are growing rapidly. Only renegades, Sunnis, Baathists and infiltrators are causing the disruptions we hear about in the mainstream news. These are not to be discounted as trivial, but the other 25M people are pretty content, even if a bit restless.

It is remarkable that the factionalism one could expect between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites as been so muted. In Vietnam, the US never managed to insulate the folks in the countryside from the Vietcong and to convince them that they would be better off with a new government, since the S. Viet rulers were so corrupt. Polls show that the average Iraqi does not have this pessimistic view. It appears to me that Bremer and our military have done an excellent job in adapting to the circustances as best they can, even if they have not done everything perfectly. Clearly, the Islamacists who want to see our effort fail have been sending in much money and fighters. This is what has not yet been contained. In addition, it seems that some of the radical Sunnis and Baathists have not yet been sufficiently stifled, but I think that our military will get on top of this.

So, where is the parallel with Vietnam? The military and Bremer have been given free hand to adapt to local necessities (and are doing so quite well), and are not micro-managed, as was the case in Vietnam. I think the situation is still in flux, but headed in the right direction.

The mideast is full of passionate people, with a long history of religion, philosophy and strife. Quite a complicated situation. I think things are going pretty well in Iraq, but are still dicey.

[rationalist]

it's just nation building just like in vietnam more usefull land for the u.s. and further spread democracy.

[tribeman]

Harami,
Still believe there was monlithic Communism that would lead to the Domino theory. "Vietnam:A History in Documents" by Gareth Porter, "Without Honorefeat in Vietnam & Cambodia" by Arnold R. Isaacs, or the mass market history "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan all conspire against your position. Chairman Ho may have been a Communist but first and foremost, he was a nationalist. And he fought against 2 occupying powers France and the USA. Defeated them both and the Iraqi's issued his book to their troops in late 2002. Impossible to defeat w/o killing a HUGE number of innocent civillians and smart bombs don't work against insurgents: you need to win hearts and minds to get good intelligence, not torture that gets you what the detainee thinks you want to hear.

4 years to pacify? My histories of the Middle East tell of 13 years of occupation and numerous British dead and an Empire in retreat at the end. Facts on your position please.
Of the many holes in the analogy w/ Germany and Japan, the biggest problem is they were a unified country prior to the war and they had surrendered. Iraq has 3 distinct nationalities, was NOT unified - gas the Kurds, machine gun the Shia - and I must have missed the surrender ceremonies. But that's all just details.
Check other websites? What's their axe to grind, who checks their facts, who pays their bills? Does that mean that if I post a website from here in the USA, it is a valid view of the occupation b/c it comments on it. The BBC, CBC, Deutsche Welle, or ITV all seem to give the lie to your rosy assertions. Don't believe what your government tells you, it has it's own agenda.
Your next paragraph really bothers me. You can't insulate from a popular uprising: it is by definition from the people that you seek to insulate. Polls prove what their designers assume from the beginning and polls, as proven here in 2000, can be very wrong and misleading. And you bought into the gov't assertion that our problems in Iraq are due to Wahibi outsiders. Domestic insurgency is what you refer to in the very next sentence and it is much more important to the outcome. A simple rule - if it's suicide, Wahibists or IED, insurgent. And the final sentence, "stifled". "STIFLED". I apologize, but I thought the new party line was we are bringing Democracy to Iraq. Which dictionary provides a definitionof "stifled" that is congruent w/ Democracy?

Lincoln micromanaged not Johnson or Nixon. Free-hand? I wish we could see the classified documents (maybe in 75 years) and IMHO, you would see Rumsfeld and Chaney as an imperium. Read "Worse Than Watergate" by John Dean (went to prison from the Nixon Administration) and you can see the meddling hyand you don't now see.

Finally, simple substitution of Middle Eat w/ China, India, etc. It can be said of anywhere in the world. And you will not see the Civil war in Iraq until American deaths exceed 100/week as the benchmark. Heading that way b/c the military is back to body counts. The military sees what's coming and they are not prepared, trained, or staffed to deal w/ it. Patrolling at 45 MPH in Baghdad does not mean things are going well - read about French occupation and defeat in Algeria.

[gecko]

i admire your modesty "intelligent skeptic"
you do realize that while it is always important to be skeptical, you can go too far with it. Its like that movie conspiracy theory, there comes a point when you can suspect EVERYTHING.

The US has no or little need of iraq. We have more than enough oil suppliers, hell we requested their embargo in the first place!
Vietnam was a correct action, because at the time communism was a valid threat, and for anyone who forgets the lessons of eastern european communist states, communism is bad newsto it own populace generally speaking. Ask the average bulgarian or ukranian how much they liked being communist.

ANd then for comparison, ask the average Iraqi is they enjoyed saddam's rule much.

[gecko]

its funny how the US is given every negative intention, and countries like iraq and its leaders are given such ennobling traits.

WHats next? saying we were wrong for retaliating pearl harbor? that the germans were innocent during BOTH world wars?

do we really need to list the aspirations of all the nations of the world?

there is not ONE country that isnt built on the bones of another.
France thought to become an empire, enlgand, germany, need we forget the waves of VIOLENT conversion the muslims began when they were first created by muhammed?
or how about the mass catholic conversions in the nordic states when luther became so popular?

all this finger pointing is sickening

[sixmillman]

I would say that the similarities that exist between Vietnam and Iraq are the same as the similarities that exist in all wars. Deception, horror, costs in lives and treasure ect.
But if forced to compare Iraq with another conflict I would be at this point optimistic and compare it to Korea. Although we (and allies) left a divided country and ongoing military presence South Korea is a flourishing democracy and economy that provides well for it’s people in stark contrast to the North which thru tyranny holds on to a failed political system.

[Sonart]

While there are indeed similarities between Iraq and Vietnam - started under false pretenses, guerilla war, etc. - I believe there's a much more pertinant analogy.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.