Will Iraqi insurgents have their own TET?

[StrongHeartsWin]

In Vietnam the North Vietnamese along with the Viet Kong launched a TET offensive to achieve military goals -- nearly all of which were not realized. Strategically on the ground, TET was a failure for the NVA and the Viet Kong. However, it was the assault on the U.S. Embassy in Saigon that sent shock waves through the American public. Seeing the enemy running amok in an area always said to be secured just cemented the growing feeling that the war was not winnable and that emboldened louder voices in the anti war effort.

Will the Iraqi insurgents use the TET offensive in Saigon as a blue print for a political strategy targeted at the U.S. public? If I were them, I would. Already the war is quite unpopular, but if insurgents could breech the surrounding perimeter of the Green Zone and get a few dozen running amok within it, with news cameras from all over the world filming it, it would be the death gnell for U.S. involvment in Iraq.

Do you think it is possible and do you think a serious effort will be launched by the insurgents to do so? What do you think the rammifications would be? Would they be immediate, or would they be gradual?

[Slevin57]

I think if they could breech the green zone, they would have.

The situation for them is still not very good. They can bomb a market, this takes a while to plan.

We can pick up a radio and have an entire town leveled and be sitting down for lunch to watch the game. The only thing our military leaders want is a legitimate excuse to do so. Trying to topple the green zone, I'd say that would warrant another Fallujah type offensive.

What did we do in Fallujah?

Four armed contractors were ambushed. They were making a food delivery. They were dragged from their car, beaten, set on fire, dragged through the city and hung over what is now unofficially referred to as "Black water Bridge" on the Euphrates.

Shortly after that the Us announced the "pacification" of the city. Operation Phantom Fury as it was called resulted in the death of 1200 insurgents.

The residents were allowed to return, after being subjected to biometric identification, with over 60% of the city destroyed.

We do reimburse the residents for the loss of their homes, at about a 20% rate. Most however don't have the means to get the funds.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Slevin57 I think if they could breech the green zone, they would have. The situation for them is still not very good. They can bomb a market, this takes a while to plan.

That is why I posited my question in the thread title with the future tense. I think the Viet Kong wouuld not have been able to play much of a role in the TET offensive if it had not been coordinated by the NVA. Likewise, I would expect that the insurgents would not be able to puncture into the Green Zone of Baghdad without sufficient support from Iran.

We can pick up a radio and have an entire town leveled and be sitting down for lunch to watch the game.

We could pretty much do that as well in Vietnam.

The only thing our military leaders want is a legitimate excuse to do so. Trying to topple the green zone, I'd say that would warrant another Fallujah type offensive.

Yes, perhaps. But, was our victory in Fallujah a political win for us and did that ring true to our citizens back in the States? I think the victory was pretty much lost on them, just as our ground battle victories during the TET offensive was lost on the U.S. public then. The political or pshychological victory laid with the NVA and Viet Kong -- not the U.S. military that won the ground battles.

That said, the insurgents do not need to "topple" the Green Zone to register that political/psychological victory with the U.S. public, but only need to get a few dozen insurgents running amok around in the Green Zone causing havoc -- even if for a short time. It would be a horrible psychological blow to admin and off duty front line troops who relax in the Green Zone if while they were playing pool or sitting in a massage chair at a USO center all of a sudden they are being shot or killed -- and that would shock and awe the U.S. public.

It would also amplify to the insurgents and other people in the mid east who side with them that David surely can slay Goliath.

[Mr.Vicchio]

They all ready have in place a media ready to announce American Failure, it wouldn't take much of a disturbance in the Green Zone to give them a political victory.

That's the worst lesson any enemy of America learned, the Tet offensive.

You don't have to beat us militarily, hell no country could if it came down to an all out war. Sorry but take the gloves off and we could flatten ANYONE. That's not boasting, it's a fact. But that aside, you don't have to beat us militarily, you just have to "shock" the bleeding hearts in the States and we'll lose for you.

Think about how bad that is for us.

[fushigi]

Heck, the insurgents already bombed the parliament; how much more "inside the Green Zone" can you get?

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq MPs condemn parliament blast

I don't think it's going to take one big event to end US involvement in Iraq. It's going to be the nagging irritation of the long-term, widespread insurgency that will be the ultimate send-off IMO.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Vichio Think about how bad that is for us.

Whether bad or good, the reality is that the more developed or civilized a country or culture gets, the less likely they are going to have the stomach for long term war -- or at least the civilan population. A culture of convenience doesn`t want to do things that take a long time and is hard. To change that fundamental outlook on a society, one may have to erase all the convenience stores, air conditioning, TV games, instant gratification etc... and become a more hardened and Spartan society.

But who wants to live in a Spartan society?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: fushigi Heck, the insurgents already bombed the parliament; how much more "inside the Green Zone" can you get?

I think the image of insurgents running around creating pandamonium for several hours within the Green Zone would be more psychologically damaging to U.S. civilian viewers. Something about seeing the enemy alive and stalking you strikes a baser element in our psyches than does just viewing the aftermath of a blown up area. In that case "it" is over -- with the enemy running around things are unfolding and leaves question marks in our thoughts as to how it will play out.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq MPs condemn parliament blast

I don't think it's going to take one big event to end US involvement in Iraq. It's going to be the nagging irritation of the long-term, widespread insurgency that will be the ultimate send-off IMO.

Could be. Depends on how impatient Iran gets I would say. If Iran stays patient then I think your scenario will play out, if not, or if Sadr gets impatient, they may take a gamble for a hit on the Green Zone -- a successful invasion of it even on a limited scale would take over the front pages of all news orgs.

[brien]

Sorry but take the gloves off and we could flatten ANYONE. That's not boasting, it's a fact. But that aside, you don't have to beat us militarily, you just have to "shock" the bleeding hearts in the States and we'll lose for you

.

Mr Vic; I think you are off base here. Much like the Viet Cong in Viet Nam, the US troops in Iraq, at times,can't tell the enemy from the allies. What would you have the US do, nuke all of Bagdad, Falusha, or the other Iraqi cities? Bomb them into submission. It couldn't be done in Viet Nam and it can't be done, without total annihilation of the entire country, in Iraq. Would you completely destroy the entire country of innocent people simply to destroy the terrorists? This can't be done and that is why the US will never prevail in Iraq. The US has no weapons that can tell foe from ally and that is the real reason the military can't prevail.

This has nothing to do with the "bleeding hearts" subterfuge that those in the US use as a strawdog to redirect the debate away from the reality of the situation in Iraq. Iraq is a continuous sandstorm in which, once again, the US troops are mired and never belonged in the first instance. This US occupation of Iraq is fruitless and continues to point to a non resolution of the insurgent conflicts there. Just how long would you have the US remain in Iraq? How long will it take to "get the job done", whatever that may be? Even the US generals have stated this is something that can only be solved by the Iraqis themselves. The US needs to close down this debacle a soon as possible. It is obvious to me, the power brokers in DC didn't learn lesson one in Viet Nam because if they had, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You don't have to beat us militarily, hell no country could if it came down to an all out war. Sorry but take the gloves off and we could flatten ANYONE. That's not boasting, it's a fact. But that aside, you don't have to beat us militarily, you just have to "shock" the bleeding hearts in the States and we'll lose for you. Think about how bad that is for us.

That's not boasting? Then what in hell is it? 58,000 fine American soldiers died in Vietnam. Apparently that was not enough for you. How many would have preferred be slaughtered in that pointless war?

Bush has managed to almost destroy our military, over-stretching our resources and personnel, sending in troops without adequate equipment or training, using strategies meant to fight conventional wars against guerrillas with predictably disastrous results. And the best you can do is bar-stool-boasting that we can "flatten ANYONE".

It would be funny were not so many good Americans dying for nothing.

[RickSp]

If the insurgents follow up with similar attacks like yesterday's attack on the US patrol base in the Diyala Province, the "surge" might fail dramactically.

Is the Surge Backfiring?

The strike was what U.S. soldiers call a complex attack, one involving elaborate planning to maximize casualties. Initial assessments suggest that first a suicide car bomber rammed a vehicle into the gates of a small U.S. patrol base outside Baquba in the same area where single car bomber attacked a patrol base last month. A second suicide car bomber apparently followed the first in yesterday's attack, however. And at the same time insurgents fired small arms and rocket propelled grenades, according to soldiers from the 82nd Airborne. In the end, the patrol base was all or mostly destroyed, with several soldiers dead beneath the rubble. At least one other U.S. patrol base remains in the same area of the Diyala River valley as American troops struggle against insurgents who appear to be increasingly bent on turning the territory around Baquba into the most deadly front of the war in Iraq for U.S. forces. It remains to be seen whether the dozens of other combat outposts popping up around Iraq amid the surge will come to face similar attacks aimed at sending U.S. troops back into heavily fortified compounds and, in the hopes of insurgents, ultimately home to the United States in defeat.

[Slevin57]

I think if they could have breached the Green Zone, they would have.

There are a few attacks from time to time inside the Green Zone, but nothing major as of yet.

The problem is the bombs they make are fairly heavy, a man or even a group of men could not discretely carry them in.

They need to be driven into the green zone.

The Green Zone is completely surrounded by high concrete blast walls, T-Walls and barbed wire and access was available through a handful of entry control points, all of which were controlled by Coalition troops. This has led the insurgents to frequently shell the Green Zone with mortars and rockets, though these attacks cause few casualties. In October 2004 it was hit by two suicide bombings, which destroyed the bazaar and the Green Zone Cafe. On April 12, 2007, a bomb went off in the Iraqi Parliament cafeteria, killing one person and injuring 22. Among the dead was Mohammed Awad, a member of the Sunni National Dialogue Front.

In other words, it's a mini Rome inside Baghdad. Your not getting in easy.

[Night]

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

1. Iraqi insurgents are not even close to being comparable to the Viet Cong. They are not centralized, they are not supported by any major powers, and most of all, they do not help each other in large military operations.

2. As it stands, insurgents in Iraq are more interested in killing each other then killing Americans.

3. The Iraqis know that there is just no way to take the green zone with anything short of 100x their man power and materials.

Someone like Al Sadr could possibly launch an attack, but there would be no chance of success, because lets face it, his "soldiers" are not trained professionals, and with all of the leaks inside the insurgent community, its just not going to happen.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Hi Night,

Welcome to Volconvo and the discussion.

Quote by: Night ABSOLUTELY NOT! 1. Iraqi insurgents are not even close to being comparable to the Viet Cong. They are not centralized, they are not supported by any major powers, and most of all, they do not help each other in large military operations.

Isn`t Iran or Syria strong enough to support them to a degree that would enable them to breach the green zone? After all, Iran is now supplying them with IEDs that can penetrate thick steel.

2. As it stands, insurgents in Iraq are more interested in killing each other then killing Americans.

Yes, as it stands, but surely any insurgent group knows that their status within the insurgency group heirarchy would immediately skyrocket if they breached the green zone and caused pandamonium for several hours. I`m not talking about a lone bomber or gunner getting in, or mortars landing within it (see Sleven57 post above); I am talking about a Saigonesque Embassy style assault where the film images of insurgents running amok in an area we psychologically and strategically beleive to be secure.

3. The Iraqis know that there is just no way to take the green zone with anything short of 100x their man power and materials.

The TET Offensive did not result in any taking of anything by the Viet Kong or the NVA; what it did do was drive home the message of imminent defeat for the U.S. within the U.S. public.

Someone like Al Sadr could possibly launch an attack, but there would be no chance of success, because lets face it, his "soldiers" are not trained professionals, and with all of the leaks inside the insurgent community, its just not going to happen.

Success in this case would merely mean breaking the will of the U.S. public to continue supporting the war. It would have nothing to do with "take and hold." As it is,the support is already low. A severe jolt to those die hards would likely knock out the last remnants of the war supporters.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Slevin57 I think if they could have breached the Green Zone, they would have. There are a few attacks from time to time inside the Green Zone, but nothing major as of yet.

The Iraqis might disagree with your rosy assessment. The US cannot even guarantee security with the walls of its own fortress.

Blast Kills 8 at Iraqi Parliament Building
Lawmakers Dead In Suicide Attack; Bridge Destroyed

A suicide bomber detonated a vest packed with explosives inside Iraq's parliament building Thursday, killing at least eight people in the worst-ever breach of security in the heavily guarded Green Zone.

[Night]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Hi Night, Welcome to Volconvo and the discussion. Isn`t Iran or Syria strong enough to support them to a degree that would enable them to breach the green zone? After all, Iran is now supplying them with IEDs that can penetrate thick steel.

Why would they? There is no benefit to Iran, it would just leave them threatened by Americans if the guns were traced back to them. Iran is only supporting insurgents to fight a slow, brutal war to "bleed" the US, breaching the green zone wouldn't benefit Iran's plans.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Yes, as it stands, but surely any insurgent group knows that their status within the insurgency group heirarchy would immediately skyrocket if they breached the green zone and caused pandamonium for several hours. I`m not talking about a lone bomber or gunner getting in, or mortars landing within it (see Sleven57 post above); I am talking about a Saigonesque Embassy style assault where the film images of insurgents running amok in an area we psychologically and strategically beleive to be secure.

It would still take thousands of insurgents, which most groups just don't have access to, and the ones who do don't have the capability to transport them all there and keep the op secret.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin The TET Offensive did not result in any taking of anything by the Viet Kong or the NVA; what it did do was drive home the message of imminent defeat for the U.S. within the U.S. public.

They're doing this already.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Success in this case would merely mean breaking the will of the U.S. public to continue supporting the war. It would have nothing to do with "take and hold." As it is,the support is already low. A severe jolt to those die hards would likely knock out the last remnants of the war supporters.

True, but it would probably fail, and the insurgent commanders know this.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Night True, but it would probably fail, and the insurgent commanders know this.

The Tet Offensive failed too, militarily. It wasn't designed for military success. The Vietnamese only had to show that Lyndon Johnson and the Pentagon were not telling the truth about "progress." People talked about "the credibility gap" during the days and months that followed.

We won't see a "Tet Offensive" in Iraq. The Iraqis don't need one. A few suicide bombers accomplish what several divisions of VC sappers did during Tet. Everytime Bush or Cheney pronounces "progress," the insurgents assassinate a politician or blow up a bus or attack a vulnerable American outpost, as they did recently. All we can do is react. They have the initiative.

What we may see, however, is a spectacular attack against the Green Zone and other targets on the same day. That wouldn't require many men or the same level of coordination that we saw during Tet. The recent bombing of the Green Zone proves that it can be breached with inside help. We might call it a Mini Tet for maximum effect.

[brien]

1. Iraqi insurgents are not even close to being comparable to the Viet Cong.

The other points aside, the Viet Cong were unrecognizable to the US forces in Viet Nam. My comparison to the Viet Cong is valid because the US troops can't differentiate the Musliim terrorists from the Moderate Muslim in Iraq. Furthermore, just how does one recognize a Sunni from a Shiite? This was the the very same situation the US faced in Viet Nam. The US couldn't eradicate an enemy it couldn't recognize. This is the failed lesson to be learned from Viet Nam by the current Administration.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Another horrible blunder in this whole debacle is the failure to properly define the enemy. How many times have we heard that we are at war with terrorism i.e. the war on terror -- and that is made to order to stick on to Iraqi insurgents. Terrorism is not the enemy -- it is a tactic -- a tool of the trade of the insurgents. In Vietnam did we say we were in a war against tunnels, guerrilla warfare, or fox holes? Of course not. It seems that our present president and his advisors are strategically less developed than the Vietnam war era commanders.

Without properly identifying and defining the enemy, the Green Zone is surely as vulnerable to a Saigonesque raid or Beiruit Marine Barracks bombing, both of which were an embarrassing punch in the nose to the U.S. -- so much that we could not recover from them because our citizens lost faith in the credibility of the administration to turn their plan into victory, or at least one they were willing to accept for a certain amount of time and bodies that required investing in.

I wouldn`t be surprised if some bold contingencies on the Green Zone have not been already drawn up or are in the works of being drawn up. The time to play that move is just depending on the mind of a chess player, and I would bet that Iran is the one who would be the hand that moved that piece without much care if it pointed back to them because they know that our public is not going to stand for a widening of the war.

[RickSp]

From a military point of view, the war is effectively lost. The strategy has been reduced to playing Whac-a-Mole with the insurgents. The insurgency has broad popular support whereas all opinion polls show that the vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave.

Likewise the American people, at this point, are largely opposed to the war even if a consensus on how we should pull out has not yet formed. If, or perhaps when, the "surge" fails, or as Time magazine suggests "backfires", this final consensus may develop. Whether there will be a single dramatic act that journalists can tag the Iraqi "Tet" remains to be seen.

[The Decider]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Without properly identifying and defining the enemy, the Green Zone is surely as vulnerable to a Saigonesque raid or Beiruit Marine Barracks bombing, both of which were an embarrassing punch in the nose to the U.S. -- so much that we could not recover from them because our citizens lost faith in the credibility of the administration to turn their plan into victory, or at least one they were willing to accept for a certain amount of time and bodies that required investing in.

If I read Night correctly, he's disputing the "Tet Offensive" analogy based on the numbers of Viet Cong and Vietnamese troops involved. It was a highly coordinated and massive attack. The Iraqi insurgents have neither the central command nor the numbers to replicate such an event, at least not yet. When you think about it, the smaller numbers and factionalism of Iraqi insurgents makes their success against the world's mightest military that much more impressive. All they need is a stalemate. We need a "win."