Iraq Worse Than Vietnam

[Sonia]

I have seen Bush and American commentators scoff at the idea that Iraq is comparable to Vietnam. In at least in 3 ways the Iraq Quagmire is even worse then in Vietnam:

• S. Vietnam had a legitimate government that invited the US in to help them fight the communists, In Iraq the US Invaded and is now trying to invent a government.
• S. Vietnam had an army of a million solders and a pretty good air-force. This army had a legitimate command structure. The Iraqi police-civil defense forces are mainly there just to get a paycheck and don't really take orders from this new government, whenever there is fighting they take off or join the rebels, and the security forces are segregated, Sunni security forces for Falluja and Shiite security forces for Najaf. In the event of an American pull-out these security forces will immediately collapse and various anti-american rebels groups will immediatly seize control, the Americans can't even pull out of the cities w/o the place going into chaos.
• In Vietnam the fighting was mostly in the jungle, the urban population of S. Vietnam mostly supported the government and it's US ally, but the problem was most of Vietnam's population resided in rural areas, and in the rural areas the communists were stronger. In Iraq the population is mostly urban and the fighting is in the cities-so the Americans have engaged such tactics as house-to-house searches, checkpoints, mass detentions, and sieges. These tactics alienate the population and makes them more resistant to any government that the Americans install.

As far as casualties are concerned, not as many as in Vietnam which was in the thousands each month; but 2-3 dead US soldiers a month + scores of dead American contractors, mercenaries, and foreign troops. The current coalition body count is about a thousand + another 100-300 ‘contractors’. In addition to that the cost is enormous, at least $5 billion a month an amount that guarantees huge budget shortfalls each year that the US stays there, that will slowly make the US economy less completive and drive down the economy in the long term, forcing the US to consider any possible exit stategy in the next few years, even ‘cut and running’. Another similarity with Vietnam is the unrelenting pace of the guerilla campaign, 40-50 attacks everyday and a daily bloodletting, not to mention Iraq’s borders are porous so the guerillas will always have sufficient weaponry & funding. Given these insurmountable obstacles the US is better off getting out ASAP, like within 6 months and turning security over to the best possible option, even if it means the collapse of the infant government that was installed and civil-conflict.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sonia,

As desperate you guys are to try to make Iraq worse than Vietnam. You aint going to prove it unless some nuclear weapon goes off in Iraq and obliterates all of our troops. Its just not true.

Regardless there are several problems ive seen with the Vietnam War.

1)President Johnson tried to frickin assasinate our allies in South Vietnam during the war. What the heck was this.

2)pushing the war into Cambodia. That wasnt the best move on the President.

3)Not finishing the job. Thanks to John Kerry and his fellow Democrats millions of Southeast Asians were killed under communist rule in South East Asia. What more is all those troops on our side died in vain.

no my friend. Iraq will never become Vietnam. There is a major difference. A Republican is in office.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by Sonia
I have seen Bush and American commentators scoff at the idea that Iraq is comparable to Vietnam. In at least in 3 ways the Iraq Quagmire is even worse then in Vietnam:

• S. Vietnam had a legitimate government that invited the US in to help them fight the communists, In Iraq the US Invaded and is now trying to invent a government.
• S. Vietnam had an army of a million solders and a pretty good air-force. This army had a legitimate command structure. The Iraqi police-civil defense forces are mainly there just to get a paycheck and don't really take orders from this new government, whenever there is fighting they take off or join the rebels, and the security forces are segregated, Sunni security forces for Falluja and Shiite security forces for Najaf. In the event of an American pull-out these security forces will immediately collapse and various anti-american rebels groups will immediatly seize control, the Americans can't even pull out of the cities w/o the place going into chaos.
• In Vietnam the fighting was mostly in the jungle, the urban population of S. Vietnam mostly supported the government and it's US ally, but the problem was most of Vietnam's population resided in rural areas, and in the rural areas the communists were stronger. In Iraq the population is mostly urban and the fighting is in the cities-so the Americans have engaged such tactics as house-to-house searches, checkpoints, mass detentions, and sieges. These tactics alienate the population and makes them more resistant to any government that the Americans install.

As far as casualties are concerned, not as many as in Vietnam which was in the thousands each month; but 2-3 dead US soldiers a month + scores of dead American contractors, mercenaries, and foreign troops. The current coalition body count is about a thousand + another 100-300 ‘contractors’. In addition to that the cost is enormous, at least $5 billion a month an amount that guarantees huge budget shortfalls each year that the US stays there, that will slowly make the US economy less completive and drive down the economy in the long term, forcing the US to consider any possible exit stategy in the next few years, even ‘cut and running’. Another similarity with Vietnam is the unrelenting pace of the guerilla campaign, 40-50 attacks everyday and a daily bloodletting, not to mention Iraq’s borders are porous so the guerillas will always have sufficient weaponry & funding. Given these insurmountable obstacles the US is better off getting out ASAP, like within 6 months and turning security over to the best possible option, even if it means the collapse of the infant government that was installed and civil-conflict.

First post? Welcome! Would you be so kind as to source; 1) The budget estimates you give 2) How you arrived at the conclusion of "but 2-3 dead US soldiers a month + scores of dead American contractors, mercenaries, and foreign troops. The current coalition body count is about a thousand + another 100-300 ‘contractors’"?

Here I will give you a leg up on #2 http://icasualties.org/oif/

You wrote a nice post, but I disagree with the assessment of your three bullets as pertains to Viet Nam and our current situation. Apples and Oranges. There is no way you can use those points to support your claim that Iraq is a "quagmire". Unfortunately, you have latched on the our "elite" media's interpretation which has no basis in fact. The two conflicts are entirely different in nature and scope.

:cof:

 

[pegwinn]

Hi Sonia, Welcome aboard. Since this is your first post, I for one will go easy on you.

Originally posted by Sonia
I have seen Bush and American commentators scoff at the idea that Iraq is comparable to Vietnam. In at least in 3 ways the Iraq Quagmire is even worse then in Vietnam:

• S. Vietnam had a legitimate government that invited the US in to help them fight the communists, In Iraq the US Invaded and is now trying to invent a government. You need to go a bit deeper. We didn't invent anything, we are helping them to establish a democratic government of thier own that will allow representation with a muslim pov. Go to google news and type in transfer of power.

• S. Vietnam had an army of a million solders and a pretty good air-force. This army had a legitimate command structure. The Iraqi police-civil defense forces are mainly there just to get a paycheck and don't really take orders from this new government, whenever there is fighting they take off or join the rebels, and the security forces are segregated, Sunni security forces for Falluja and Shiite security forces for Najaf. In the event of an American pull-out these security forces will immediately collapse and various anti-american rebels groups will immediatly seize control, the Americans can't even pull out of the cities w/o the place going into chaos. The SV were not known for fighting for themselves according to many family members who visited there on the Johnson travel plan.

• In Vietnam the fighting was mostly in the jungle, the urban population of S. Vietnam mostly supported the government and it's US ally, but the problem was most of Vietnam's population resided in rural areas, and in the rural areas the communists were stronger. In Iraq the population is mostly urban and the fighting is in the cities-so the Americans have engaged such tactics as house-to-house searches, checkpoints, mass detentions, and sieges. These tactics alienate the population and makes them more resistant to any government that the Americans install. You are correct on the tactis used. I know you share our pride that the Administration and Military leaders have shown such admirable restraint. A mere 50 years ago, such restraint would've been unthinkable. Glad you concur.


As far as casualties are concerned, not as many as in Vietnam which was in the thousands each month; but 2-3 dead US soldiers a month + scores of dead American contractors, mercenaries, and foreign troops. The current coalition body count is about a thousand + another 100-300 ‘contractors’. In addition to that the cost is enormous, at least $5 billion a month an amount that guarantees huge budget shortfalls each year that the US stays there, that will slowly make the US economy less completive and drive down the economy in the long term, forcing the US to consider any possible exit stategy in the next few years, even ‘cut and running’. Another similarity with Vietnam is the unrelenting pace of the guerilla campaign, 40-50 attacks everyday and a daily bloodletting, not to mention Iraq’s borders are porous so the guerillas will always have sufficient weaponry & funding. Given these insurmountable obstacles the US is better off getting out ASAP, like within 6 months and turning security over to the best possible option, even if it means the collapse of the infant government that was installed and civil-conflict.

You really need to post proof in the form of links or source docs. This will prevent rabid late night fact checker geeks from attacking you. Go here for starters. http://icasualties.org/oif/ Don't forget to wish your dad a happy fathers day .

 

[KarlMarx]

I have seen Bush and American commentators scoff at the idea that Iraq is comparable to Vietnam. In at least in 3 ways the Iraq Quagmire is even worse then in Vietnam:

• S. Vietnam had a legitimate government that invited the US in to help them fight the communists, In Iraq the US Invaded and is now trying to invent a government.

The Nazis were also a legitimate government that were voted into power (unlike Saddam's government that was established as the result of force). The legitimate Nazi government invaded other parts of Europe and practiced genocide much like the Saddam government. So following your line of logic, the Allied invasion of Europe was also illegal. Who says that the Left is nothing but a bunch of apologists for dictators? (me for one!)


• S. Vietnam had an army of a million solders and a pretty good air-force. This army had a legitimate command structure. The Iraqi police-civil defense forces are mainly there just to get a paycheck and don't really take orders from this new government, whenever there is fighting they take off or join the rebels, and the security forces are segregated, Sunni security forces for Falluja and Shiite security forces for Najaf. In the event of an American pull-out these security forces will immediately collapse and various anti-american rebels groups will immediatly seize control, the Americans can't even pull out of the cities w/o the place going into chaos.

Boys and girls, the Leftist word for today (and the next 100 years) is "quagmire"! You know what to do anytime America uses its military force! That's right ---- throw a tantrum! This is the same bunch of people that said that the Iraq war was going to produce hundreds of thousands of American deaths. Of course, you are ignoring history, too. After WW II, when the Allies occupied Europe and Japan, simiiar attacks took place. We just stuck it out.

• In Vietnam the fighting was mostly in the jungle, the urban population of S. Vietnam mostly supported the government and it's US ally, but the problem was most of Vietnam's population resided in rural areas, and in the rural areas the communists were stronger. In Iraq the population is mostly urban and the fighting is in the cities-so the Americans have engaged such tactics as house-to-house searches, checkpoints, mass detentions, and sieges. These tactics alienate the population and makes them more resistant to any government that the Americans install.

Most of the Iraqi population is pro-occupation. The attacks are centered in the region around Baghdad called the "Sunni Triangle" which is a small amount of the total Iraqi countryside.

As far as casualties are concerned, not as many as in Vietnam which was in the thousands each month; but 2-3 dead US soldiers a month + scores of dead American contractors, mercenaries, and foreign troops. The current coalition body count is about a thousand + another 100-300 ‘contractors’. In addition to that the cost is enormous, at least $5 billion a month an amount that guarantees huge budget shortfalls each year that the US stays there, that will slowly make the US economy less completive and drive down the economy in the long term, forcing the US to consider any possible exit stategy in the next few years, even ‘cut and running’. Another similarity with Vietnam is the unrelenting pace of the guerilla campaign, 40-50 attacks everyday and a daily bloodletting, not to mention Iraq’s borders are porous so the guerillas will always have sufficient weaponry & funding. Given these insurmountable obstacles the US is better off getting out ASAP, like within 6 months and turning security over to the best possible option, even if it means the collapse of the infant government that was installed and civil-conflict.

Vietnam and Iraq do not have many parallels...the Vietcong were supported by a major superpower i.e. China and were numerous (i.e. in the millions), whereas the insurrgents in Iraq number less than a few thousand and their funding sources are slowly being choked off. One similarity to Vietnam is the Left's willingness to stop the fight and its unrelenting efforts to undermine the war effort. After the Tet Offensive in 1968, the Vietcong were almost annhilated, but because of the Left, the Johnson Administration gave up the will to fight instead of pressing on and finishing the job. The present day insurrgents are counting on the same thing happening in Iraq. Another similarity to Vietnam is that after the Vietnam war, the Communists butchered, tortured and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, what do you think would happen if we pulled out of Iraq now? Notice that the attacks are not happening on American soil, Al Quada's efforts are focused on the Middle East and in countries where security is not as tight as it is here.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Nice try once again jowlover, say goodbye once again!

Banning again? How many times has this guy tried to get on? cant you just ban the ip?

 

[leojoeyjoe]

Yet there have not been as many casualties in Iraq as there were in 'Nam in a week....unintelligent people love to make illusory correlations...useless apple and oranges comparisons to help sway the feebleminded....blanket generalizations....the truth is that there is a VOLUME of reasons that the two conflicts are not even comparable...they have in common....well, bullets...the insurgency in Iraq is still what is called "low intensity warfar"...whereas in Vietnam there was an entire enemy government that controlled an entire half of the country....we are talking about bombs going off here and there and VERY limited firefights....I saw a soldier last night talkng about how crazy it all was because (paraphrasing)...."we work nine days in a row...repairing schools, restoring power and services...and then on the tenth day there's an explosion and all of the sudden all of the cameras and reporters show up...and i'm like 'they're only getting nine tenths of the picture...we're doing great things and the people are greatful.'" Anyone who doesn't describe the conflict as it TRULY is..with all the WONDERFUL pros and all the HORRIBLE cons....both having almost no similarity to vietnam...which seems to be the only little tiny tidbit of info that liberals even know about the history of warfare...is being purposely intellectually dishonest in order to sway more ignorant people with blanket generalizations, giving aid and comfort to our enemies who quote the "anti-war" movement on a nearly daily basis now.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Worse than Viet Nam? Not yet or forseeably. Before the kind of troop losses and atrocities happen in Iraq that happened in Viet Nam, the U.S will pull out.

 

[Doc Holiday]

SOnia, the problem with your analogy is that we have more popular support in Iraq then we did in Vietnam. Makes all the difference in the world.

 

[TheReturn]

Just a few comments on the otherwise much appreciated critiques of the article:


* The assertion that the US has popular support in Iraq is challenged, A recent poll shows 90% of Iraqis want the US to leave, I heard that one on Fox, more then half want the US top leave immediately and in the Sunni areas the Americans are totally hated. The Shiites don't like them either. When American convoys are attacked, people dance in the streets over the dead Americans and damaged vehicles, this has happened repeatedly, not exactly a sign of overwhelming popularity ..also Vietnamese didn't have a sour relationship with the Americans prior to the war, in this case Iraqis are already angry with America for the sanctions/attacks they were subjected to before the war and for America's support for Israel.

* There is no indication that the rebels ar having a 'funding' problem and the borders of the country are porous and open to endless weapons trafficing. There is no reason to think that the current level of violence will ever decrease as the rebels have maintained a continuance of violence + these demoralizing upsurges in violence, notably November and April. Although not backed by a superpower, the Arab countries and greater Muslim world can provide sufficient funding to multiple organizations, guerrilla warfare is done on the cheap.

* Most importantly the security forces being cobbled together by the coalition seem to be non-cohesive, they don't respect a central leadership and there is no evidence that they are taking orders from the new Iraqi govt. Obviously they will try to change this; But even if they start, I still don't see how that government will ever maintain control w/o 100,000s of American troops to back it up, as long as that’s the case the Americans are stuck there spending billions a month and suffering casualties.

* The media tends to focus on bloody events and possibly under-reports humanitarian work, but it also under-reports the other 30+ attacks everyday that didn't result in fatalities or serious injuries, and as long as this "low-intensity warfare" continues the country is insecure and it's economy fails, and that makes it very expensive.

* Monday-4 US Marines were ambushed and killed in Ramadi, 1 US additional US soldier killed elsewhere, 4 Iraqi civil-defense soldiers were killed in separate bomb attacks, A Portugese security guard killed, A South Korean is probably being killed by his captors, workers are struggling to get at least 1 pipeline operational (sabotage had brought oil exports to a complete halt) and American troops battled insurgents in Samarra and called in air support. Troops were attacked twice on Monday in the predominantly Sunni Muslim city of Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, said Maj. Neal O'Brien of the 1st Infantry Division. In the first attack, one soldier was wounded by an improvised explosive device — a homemade bomb. In the second attack, two soldiers were wounded by small arms fire and evacuated to the 31st Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad, O'Brien said. All three are in stable condition.
Just another single day of 'low-intensity warfare' like the exact same kind we had a year ago..

 

[JIHADTHIS]

* The assertion that the US has popular support in Iraq is challenged, A recent poll shows 90% of Iraqis want the US to leave, I heard that one on Fox, more then half want the US top leave immediately and in the Sunni areas the Americans are totally hated. The Shiites don't like them either. When American convoys are attacked, people dance in the streets over the dead Americans and damaged vehicles, this has happened repeatedly, not exactly a sign of overwhelming popularity ..also Vietnamese didn't have a sour relationship with the Americans prior to the war, in this case Iraqis are already angry with America for the sanctions/attacks they were subjected to before the war and for America's support for Israel.

You're watching way too much CNN. Try getting some info from a different perspective. All of your posts seem to have this "America's support for Israel" slant to them. What's your real agenda?

* There is no indication that the rebels ar having a 'funding' problem and the borders of the country are porous and open to endless weapons trafficing. There is no reason to think that the current level of violence will ever decrease as the rebels have maintained a continuance of violence + these demoralizing upsurges in violence, notably November and April. Although not backed by a superpower, the Arab countries and greater Muslim world can provide sufficient funding to multiple organizations, guerrilla warfare is done on the cheap.
Hence the GWOT. Attack their finances in addition to the militants.

* Most importantly the security forces being cobbled together by the coalition seem to be non-cohesive, they don't respect a central leadership and there is no evidence that they are taking orders from the new Iraqi govt. Obviously they will try to change this; But even if they start, I still don't see how that government will ever maintain control w/o 100,000s of American troops to back it up, as long as that’s the case the Americans are stuck there spending billions a month and suffering casualties.
Do you really believe that the terrorists are going to win in Iraq? Their measures are growing increasingly desperate as the 30th draws near. The Iraqis will get sick of being blown up in their streets.

* The media tends to focus on bloody events and possibly under-reports humanitarian work, but it also under-reports the other 30+ attacks everyday that didn't result in fatalities or serious injuries, and as long as this "low-intensity warfare" continues the country is insecure and it's economy fails, and that makes it very expensive.
The media focuses on blood and death because that's what sells newspapers and spot time.


* Monday-4 US Marines were ambushed and killed in Ramadi, 1 US additional US soldier killed elsewhere, 4 Iraqi civil-defense soldiers were killed in separate bomb attacks, A Portugese security guard killed, A South Korean is probably being killed by his captors, workers are struggling to get at least 1 pipeline operational (sabotage had brought oil exports to a complete halt) and American troops battled insurgents in Samarra and called in air support. Troops were attacked twice on Monday in the predominantly Sunni Muslim city of Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, said Maj. Neal O'Brien of the 1st Infantry Division. In the first attack, one soldier was wounded by an improvised explosive device — a homemade bomb. In the second attack, two soldiers were wounded by small arms fire and evacuated to the 31st Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad, O'Brien said. All three are in stable condition.
Just another single day of 'low-intensity warfare' like the exact same kind we had a year ago..

So you've repeated all of the bad news from yesterday, does that make you feel better?

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Here is what's going on in Iraq.

I'm sure liberals will say that it's all lies (but they will, of course, believe every word of any article in the NYT or other liberal sources).

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
multiple ip's is the problem here!

So what do you use to track them? MAC addresses?

-Douglas

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by Shazbot
So what do you use to track them? MAC addresses?

-Douglas

no - he means the guy is using different computers - i think. each box typically puts out it own number.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Shazbot
So what do you use to track them? MAC addresses?

-Douglas


And here I thought Sir Evil went house to house with his axe

 

[Jule]

Did the U. S. have any set goals in the Vietnam war? We at least seem to have some with Iraq: to install a democratic government and then leave. I'd like to get out as soon as we can, and I guess most Americans would. Is there any difference between the "left" and the "right" as far as short and long term goals in Iraq, and the steps and methods for acheiving them? Or is the question more limited to how bad Iraq is and did we make a mistake going there in the first place (which seems a somewhat useless debate, although finger pointing is always fun).

 

[leojoeyjoe]

to "defeat" the communists in the north by not letting them take the south

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Jule
Did the U. S. have any set goals in the Vietnam war? We at least seem to have some with Iraq: to install a democratic government and then leave. I'd like to get out as soon as we can, and I guess most Americans would. Is there any difference between the "left" and the "right" as far as short and long term goals in Iraq, and the steps and methods for acheiving them? Or is the question more limited to how bad Iraq is and did we make a mistake going there in the first place (which seems a somewhat useless debate, although finger pointing is always fun).

Welcome Jule.

Vietnam was about stopping the spread of communism.

If you hang around long enough, you'll get your answer on Iraq, since it is the subject of a lot of the debates on here