Vietnam and Iraq

[mystic brew]

the comparisons (or denials of same) are made so frequently it's already a cliche.

that i thought it might be interesting to actually see what peoples opinions about this contentious issue are.

I don't think this is a party political issue, though i may of course be proved wrong here.

what are your thoughts?

[Lazul]

I dont see that many links between them.

First of all, alot of those that opposed the war in vietnam also supported the people fighting back.
In iraq, few of those that are opposed the war support the terrorists.
I know alot of people, that are very critical towards the US but that by no means support the terrorits in Iraq and their methods.

[Brenus]

No comparison at all, except the fabric of incidents and proofs (WMD & link with AQ= Gulf of Tonkin incident).
BUT, the Vietcong had the support from the North Vietnam, China (more or less) USSR and other Communist Countries.
Their ideology was possible to understand and to federate people as separate than Buddhists, Nationalists and Communists.
They had a clear objective, to kick the Americans (after the French), to reunify the country and to impose their Ideology.
They play politic and media before military. The US didn’t lost one major battle (they were closed in Khe San) but the image of the US Embassy occupied by the Vietcong, the fact the Vietcong always had the initiative to fight or to withdraw and the sterile search and destroy operations, the dropping from helicopters of Vietcong prisoners just made the political support in their favour.
I don’t think, except few mentally sick persons, will be in favour of AQ, world wide.

[sharrukin]

Vietnam wasn't 'Vietnam' at the time either. It is only in retrospect that we look back, and it becomes the 'Vietnam experience'. There are similarities in the American approach to the Iraqi war, and the lack of a comprehensive strategy to deal with the unexpected. The lack of American preparation for the occupation is a case in point regarding the poor planning. War always presents unexpected challenges and the administration did a poor job in meeting such eventualities.

We are currently facing the problem of finding exit strategies from Iraq, and this too has parallels in Vietnam. The two conflicts are different of course, but to say that they are not the same is to miss the point. Vietnam had some hard lessons to teach, and we will pay a heavy price if we choose to ignore them. There will never be two conflicts that are the same, but the lessons of one can be used to avoid costly mistakes in the next.

Micromanagement of the war effort driven by an addiction to technology without understanding the overall need to secure war aims.

Generals on the ground being second guessed by political decision makers higher up the chain of command. Pentagon desk jockeys calling the shots with the result that decision making is slowed down and opportunities are missed. The De-Baathification is a case in point;

On April 19, 2003, ten days after the fall of Baghdad, an advance “jump group” of Americans commanded by retired Lieutenant General Jay Garner was flown into the city to manage the occupation of Iraq.

Browning decided early on that in order to get things done he needed to work with members of the Baath Party.

Not long after, Garner himself was fired, and President Bush named L. Paul Bremer III as the head of what became known as the Coalition Provisional Authority.

On May 16, 2003, Bremer issued a sweeping ban of the Baath Party: all senior party members were barred from public life; lower-level members were also barred, but some could appeal. In effect, Bremer had fired the entire senior civil service. The origins of the decree have never been clarified, but Coalition officials I spoke to said they believed that Bremer was following orders from the White House. A week later, he disbanded the Iraqi Army.

Browning recalled a meeting that he and other officials had with Bremer before the announcement. “Bremer walked in and announced his de-Baathification order. I said that we had established a good working relationship with technicians—not senior-level people—of the Baath Party, and I expressed my feeling that this measure could backfire. Bremer said that it was not open for discussion, that this was what was going to be done and his expectation was that we would carry it out.

An American special-forces officer stationed in Baghdad at the time told me that he was stunned by Bremer’s twin decrees. After the dissolution of the Army, he said, “I had my guys coming up to me and saying, ‘Does Bremer realize that there are four hundred thousand of these guys out there and they all have guns?’ They all have to feed their families.” He went on, “The problem with the blanket ban is that you get rid of the infrastructure; I mean, after all, these guys ran the country, and you polarize them. So did these decisions contribute to the insurgency? Unequivocally, yes. And we have to ask ourselves: How well did we really know how to run Iraq? Zero.”

The American military during the Vietnam War was superb tactically in the field but their operational understanding of the war was poor.

This is one reason that men such as Clinton and Bush, lacking military experience can be so dangerous as they do not understand the military or war. They can replace this experience with the wisdom to trust those who have such expertise. President Reagan knew to trust the right men, while Clinton and Bush failed on this account. Lacking both they become dangerous fools.

[Red Harvest]

This is one reason that men such as Clinton and Bush, lacking military experience can be so dangerous as they do not understand the military or war. They can replace this experience with the wisdom to trust those who have such expertise. President Reagan knew to trust the right men, while Clinton and Bush failed on this account. Lacking both they become dangerous fools.

I disagree with the characterization of Clinton here. He actually did a decent job overall and dealt with the Serbian problems. And the GOP opposed him for his strike against Osama...said it was a distraction from the BJ witchhunt. You can point to Somalia, but I can also point to Reagan's equivalent, Lebanon. Both were ill conceived in that the situations were too chaotic for America to do much about. Both had the sense to pull out when it became apparent that it was either going to require much more committment, or a pullout.

[King of Atlantis]

There is one reason why i always see Iraq as another Vietnam. If you look at the details you will find many differnces, but in the end the reasons for going in are very similar.

In both wars we were trying to change a government to our liking. I believe internal politics are up to the country involed and no one else, unless other countries are effected.

[Red Harvest]

There are some comparisons, but it is too early to tell. It really depends on whether the local govt. can get up and running and obtain majority legitimacy among Iraqi's. If it fails to gain that legitimacy, then yes, the situation would be similar to Vietnam.

Casualty wise there are some similarities: Looking at the 1961-1965 period, Vietnam KIA were 1,864 and WIA were 7,337. Iraq so far has had 1,352 KIA and 13,438 WIA. So if going by time period alone, American casualties don't compare favorably to Vietnam. However, the casualties in Vietnam were highest from 1966 to 1969. Seems unlikely that we will see a repeat of that. Worse case would suggest more fo the same rather than an order of magnitude increase in fighting.

I don't see the external drivers present in Iraq as in Vietnam that would cause outside destabilization of an Iraqi govt. There are some, but I don't think they are sufficient to match what North Vietnam did. The only real driver is one of religious fanatacism and whether or not Iraq will regress to some sort of theocracy. After a hated secular dictator, such a reactionary event is quite possible.

[Kagemusha]

There are some comparisons, but it is too early to tell. It really depends on whether the local govt. can get up and running and obtain majority legitimacy among Iraqi's. If it fails to gain that legitimacy, then yes, the situation would be similar to Vietnam.

Casualty wise there are some similarities: Looking at the 1961-1965 period, Vietnam KIA were 1,864 and WIA were 7,337. Iraq so far has had 1,352 KIA and 13,438 WIA. So if going by time period alone, American casualties don't compare favorably to Vietnam. However, the casualties in Vietnam were highest from 1966 to 1969. Seems unlikely that we will see a repeat of that. Worse case would suggest more fo the same rather than an order of magnitude increase in fighting.

I don't see the external drivers present in Iraq as in Vietnam that would cause outside destabilization of an Iraqi govt. There are some, but I don't think they are sufficient to match what North Vietnam did. The only real driver is one of religious fanatacism and whether or not Iraq will regress to some sort of theocracy. After a hated secular dictator, such a reactionary event is quite possible.

I agree mostly to what Red Harvest is saying.But i have a fear that after US presence in Iraq ends i think that Iran could intervene very much to Iraqs domestic policy backed by the Shiia majority of Iraq itself.

[PanzerJaeger]

The comparison is nothing but a cheap political tool used by some leftists in this country and abroad to evoke painful memories and an emotional response. However, when you start to look at the facts, the comparison falls apart.

[drone]

Well, we can no longer ask Gen. Westmoreland for his opinion on this subject. It would have been interesting to hear his take on the current situation.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/18/obi....ap/index.html

[Franconicus]

The comparison is nothing but a cheap political tool used by some leftists in this country and abroad to evoke painful memories and an emotional response. However, when you start to look at the facts, the comparison falls apart.

Why not compare. Everybody here does, even you. Because there are things that are similar, other that are not. People died, there is a war of military against non military fighters, there are non-military fighters against civilists, there is the influence of the media, there is no clear way to end the war, ... both in Vietnam and in Iraq.
Other things are different. During Vietnam there were never attacks outside of Asia (right?) and so on.

So I think you can compare some things (if you like to). Saying both are the same is silly!

[Al Khalifah]

Other things are different. During Vietnam there were never attacks outside of Asia (right?) and so on.

A Muslim in not an unusual sight in modern day Britain and they represent a considerable portion of the population in many urban areas. Therefore Islamic terrorists can easily blend in. It would have been very difficult for a member of the Viet-Cong to operate without attracting a lot of attention in 1960's America.

[Ser Clegane]

It would have been very difficult for a member of the Viet-Cong to operate without attracting a lot of attention in 1960's America.

You think so? I would not bet too much money that most people would be able to tell a Vietnamese from a Chinese and I believe that in the 60s/70s there were already sufficient numbers of e.g., Chinese living in the US for a Vietnamese terrorist not to attract too much attention.

[Proletariat]

The comparison is foolish. Pho is sublime and Fish Broth-Sayyadieh is nauseating in comparison.

[Goofball]

The comparison is nothing but a cheap political tool used by some leftists in this country and abroad to evoke painful memories and an emotional response. However, when you start to look at the facts, the comparison falls apart.

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.

But you're right, beyond that, there are not a lot of similarities.

I think the American experience in Iraq can be much more accurately compared to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.

[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.