Iraq is not like Vietnam

[Strike For The South]

Most Americans felt Vietnam everyday.

[HoreTore]

Great geographical knowledge you show, young Strikewalker

[gaelic cowboy]

Iraq will be forgot soon enough but Vietnam will stay in the mind long after.

[Strike For The South]

Great geographical knowledge you show, young Strikewalker

I'm doing what I do best, poking and seeing what comes out

I got a few exwives who you could talk to about that

IYKWIMAITYD

[gaelic cowboy]

[a completely inoffensive name]

Most Americans felt Vietnam everyday.

Is the argument that Iraq is like Vietnam suggesting that the impact on Americans is the same? I thought that argument was simply talking about the motions of how the war is turning out, (troops come in, insurgents whittle our morale down back home and we can never completely eliminate the opposition)?

[rory_20_uk]

America has learnt a lot since Vietnam, if nothing else how important PR is. 1 year terms seemed to combine the worst features of giving as many as possible a taste and to spread the discord back home, whilst limiting moral in the field as everyone was already focused on ending their tour before it even began.

[Centurion1]

As someone who is going into the military immediately following University (legal obligation) and coming from a family deeply enshrined within the military I do not see the comparison as valid to Vietnam for several reasons.

A- The draft. The draft made the war nation wide in the 1960's people who did not want to serve were and were dying as well. Now the ones who truly wish to serve are serving and you don't hear as much muttering from the rank and file.

B- The nature of the enemy. Yes we are fighting to unofficial guerrilla movements but there the similarity dies. The NVA communist guerrilla forces were yes guerrillas but blowing themselves up wasn't the desirable income. Drastically different battlefields on a larger scale against more proficient opponents compared to the barbaric opponents we fight now (you can what you want its not a reflection of Muslim culture necessarily but the insurgency is barbaric.)

C- Reaction back home. In the 60's and 70's the Vietnam war was received by someone of my political persuasion and thought as......... treacherously. Yes you can say there is a lot of protest against the war now but the protest is directed towards the politicians and upper brass directing it where t should be rather than how it was in the 1960's where it was directed at anyone associated with the war from the returning draftee or to Jared McNamara. It is true that these extremists in the 60's were a fringe but they were listened to much more and were far louder than the fringe who behaves in similar ways now.

D-Loss of American life. Compared to Vietnam we have lost very few troops though everyone one of those lives is of course an immense loss to the families. Nonetheless the loss in life is not comparable, though of course Vietnam lasted quite a long time. I believe it would take an immensely long time for the loss of life to reach those sorts of numbers with the kind of war we are fighting in the age we are fighting it.

E-Afghanistan. Iraq is winding down Afghanistan is where people should be looking for the Vietnam comparison at this point. In the grand scheme of things Obama would have strategically better placed to concentrate fully on Iraq and leave Afghanistan. But that is another issue.

The people who are really hurting are the traditional military families. My father is no longer even in the military but as a result of his job had to go over for six months. One of my cousins is dead as of a year and a half ago. A close family friend was shot in his arm and has reduced movement. Just recently within a month ago one of my best friends from high school lost his left foot. This isnt even counting things like PTSD and undetectable brain issues, the number of such issues i would dread to know. I know another cousin was forbidden to go on another tour despite wanting to because he had ambien given prescribed to him for night terrors. My parents are becoming sick of the war which if you know my parents is shocking..... I don't know how i feel about it. To be honest i feel that i have no place to question it as in a short time if it is continuing I will be sent to it. The thing is while we are still there support should still be given those deployed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

America has learnt a lot since Vietnam, if nothing else how important PR is. 1 year terms seemed to combine the worst features of giving as many as possible a taste and to spread the discord back home, whilst limiting moral in the field as everyone was already focused on ending their tour before it even began.

Soldiers can only stand about 140 days in combat conditions before they break down, this has been known by the American military since WWII, but they persist in sending men off for 12-18 month tours and then wonder why they come broken.

So, actually, you have it backwards. Shorter tours in Nam would have reduced fatigue and increased effectiveness, the same being even more true of the current conflicts with their even longer tours.

[rory_20_uk]

I stand corrected

[HoreTore]

I stand corrected

Not really.

Your point is sound, as the tours in Vietnam was a one time thing by people who did not wish to gain anything from it. Those going to Iraq and Afghanistan today see it as a career choice, ie. They feel they will gain something from it. Also, there is no "longing for freedom", since people tend to go back for a second time.

[Centurion1]

Horetore is........ right......

They feel they will gain something from it. Also, there is no "longing for freedom", since people tend to go back for a second time.

its absolutely true. many soldiers do multiple tours. however, tours are unfairly close together especially for combat arms and you can now be sent for even longer durations of time.

Soldiers can only stand about 140 days in combat conditions before they break down, this has been known by the American military since WWII, but they persist in sending men off for 12-18 month tours and then wonder why they come broken.

all of those 12-18 months are not spent in combat conditions even for combat soldiers. though yes quite a bit of it can be.

[Ronin]

I have said from the very beginning that Iraq is nothing like Vietnam....
when it came to Vietnam Bush had an exit strategy!
*rimshot*

Thank you ladies and gentleman, I´m here all week.
Tip the veal, try your waitress!

[Furunculus]

Soldiers can only stand about 140 days in combat conditions before they break down, this has been known by the American military since WWII, but they persist in sending men off for 12-18 month tours and then wonder why they come broken.

So, actually, you have it backwards. Shorter tours in Nam would have reduced fatigue and increased effectiveness, the same being even more true of the current conflicts with their even longer tours.

the current british system for 'harmony guidelines is based on a 4:1 deployment ratio with six month tours, so twenty-four months off and six months on.

it is why the SDSR mandated a move to five multi-role brigades, so one can be in-theatre in perpetuity.