Vietnam and Iraq

[Tribesman]

Was that ever disproven?
Yes , though you will find thousands of "history" books and websites that still use that statement as a fact , even though the person who made the statement has long since said it was rubbish .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think most would agree now that the Vietnam war began long before the actual declaration.

Yes about 20 years before.

[Tribesman]

I think most would agree now that the Vietnam war began long before the actual declaration.
Yes , just look at Thai , Loatian and Cambodian air accident records in the previous years for some ...um...unusual incidents

[drone]

I think most would agree now that the Vietnam war began long before the actual declaration.

Er, what declaration?

[drone]

Not a declaration, per se, but the offical date given as the start of the "Conflict"

Was there even an official date? Advisors, special forces, air/naval support and logistics, at some point we started shooting at NVA/VC.

Another similiarity between Iraq and Vietnam: no formal declaration of war. Granted, Congress voted to fund the military action in Iraq, but they didn't authorize the war constitutionally. While not the PC thing to do at the time (declare war on a Arabic-Muslim nation), support for the war in the US would probably be higher. Without the formal declaration, this is just a foriegn policy exercise by the executive branch of the US government. Congress handed over the responsibility with the money to the president. By bypassing Congress (and, in theory , the will of the people), the objectives, long-term planning, and accountability for the war were placed in the hands of armchair generals and groupthink-neocon policy makers/advisors.

Saddam needed to go at some point, and the invasion proper worked out well. The military can not be faulted for that. The post-war decision making, however, has been erratic at best.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh, I don't know. They are both unpopular wars that were sold to the American people on false pretenses. That's a big similarity.

Unpopular? By whose standards? You should have seen the anti-war and pro-German rallies during both world wars. Sure there are some far left nuts who decry the evil that is Bush and his war, but most people understand where Iraq fits in to our foreign policy. (Check out JAGs thread for a complete run down.)

As for false pretenses, what were those in Vietnam and what are those in Iraq? People understood Vietnam was about stopping communism in southeast Asia.

People also understand that Saddam had to go for a number of reasons, and that he created a climate of fear about his supposed WMDs.

[Goofball]

Unpopular? By whose standards?

Apparently, by American standards:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060700296.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...raq-poll_x.htm

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

As for false pretenses, what were those in Vietnam and what are those in Iraq?

Please see the posts above for Vietnam. As far as Iraq goes, take your pick. WMDs, AQ connections, the list is long, but not distinguished.

People also understand that Saddam had to go for a number of reasons, and that he created a climate of fear about his supposed WMDs.

Well, at least you were truthful enought to call them "supposed" WMDs. As far as people understanding that "Saddam had to go" (from the last link provided above):

"When it comes to the war in Iraq, do you think that removing Saddam Hussein from power was or was not worth the number of U.S. military casualties and the financial cost of the war?"


Worth it: 44%
Not Worth it: 49%
Depends: 4%
Unsure: 3%

[mystic brew]

First, thank you for the thoughful responses.

I have been considering this a fair ammount, since i am something of a student of the Vietnam war, both before and after US forces were involved.

I don't find the situations entirely similar, but its quite clear Vietnam stands as a prime example of a palpably inferior force achieving it's objectives in spite of facing a hugely superior army.

As for false pretenses, what were those in Vietnam and what are those in Iraq? People understood Vietnam was about stopping communism in southeast Asia.

People also understand that Saddam had to go for a number of reasons, and that he created a climate of fear about his supposed WMDs.

In Vietnam, it was quite clear to to the American govt that Vietnam was about presenting the spread of communism, but the Vietnamese understood an entirely different picture. To them, communism was a form of nationalism, and no matter how hard they tried, the Americans couldn't convince the locals of the American narrative.

In terms of the trigger, there were two alleged incidents that started the bombing raids on the North, and ended with full scale military deployment. these incidents were alleged attacks on US warships. the first incident seems pretty cut and dried, the US defence dept recovered North Vietnamese shell fragments from the ship involved, but the second was the one that triggered the order, and that has long been shown to be highly dubious.

[KafirChobee]

First, excellent post Sharrukin, many good points. Goofball, thanks for the insightive polls.

Polls, just as in the early days of our 'Nam involvement - most Americans supported the military and saw it as necessary for us to fight Communism - stop the "domino affect". The Tonkin incident was equated as a Pearl Harbor style attack and given immense press coverage. The Tonkin resolution passed with only one dissenting Senator - much as the present resolution for war was passed.

The real comparrison between the two disparagent events is that those leading us and those fighting for us, never understood the philosophies of the regions or their cultures. Both tend (ed) to promote those that supported their train of thought on how to conduct the military affairs of the areas - versus those that comprehended the region (s) geopolitical (religious, etc) history (s). Or, simply - we don't care about what the people of the region are, so much as trying to reprogram them into being more like us (the spreading of American ideals, etc).

For most of the Vietnam era (of our involvement) the philosophy of guerrilla warfare was ingnored. Other than the military understanding that it takes a 10-1 ratio to win or control a region with such a warfare. An example would be that Mao Tse-Tung's book on Guerrilla Warfare was chiefly ignored during the conflict and is no longer being taught (again) at West Point (though I did hear it might be brought back).

Today, we are doing the same things wrong we did then. We are not using our experts of (on) the region, but are instead using the people that agree with an administrations philosophy for its conduct. Again, it is not the military conducting innovative methods to win the "hearts and minds", but a civilian body (administration) trying to propagandize why we are failing - principly by blaiming their our public for not getting 100% behind a bad idea. It's a "If we lose, it's because the American people didn't support the troops". BS!


Finally, "body counts" is beginning to raise its ugly head again. Body counts is how we defined our "victory" (s) in 'nam. How, we determined if the officer corp was doing their job. It has started again, and needs to be suppressed. The only gauge to verify our successes in Iraq, will be the popular support given to our troops and theirs (more importantly). We must stress their bravery, not ours. Their endurance, not ours. Their resolve to be free, to have a democratic society of their choosing - and not to be born-again Americans (which they can never be - they are Iraqis after all).

In the arguement that we could have won in 'nam it is always pointed out that:
1) We won all the battles
2) Our military was handcuffed and not allowed to invade the North (or Cambodia, or Laos) - which had the promise of starting WWIII with the Chinese and USSR.
3) The American public was to blame, because they lost heart - and 58,000 sons.
4) We betrayed our ally (RVN) by pulling out. Just another 500,000 troops and we coulda won.

Truth is, had we stayed - we would still be there and who can predict what the toll of dead would have become. And, the only way to keep us there would have been by an American military junta.

Americans aren't afraid of a fight, but they won't support one that is built on deception and prolonged through propaganda and out-right lies. That is what we had then, and it seems maybe what we have now. Time will tell (in another 12 years).