I just wanted to know what everyone thought of this war being compared to Vietnam. Is this war “un-winnable?” Are we just sending our troops to die in a foreign land for no reason, taking it out on someone? The article says that the reasons we went into Vietnam were “murky.” What about this war?
Here’s the link sans-ads. 
Please share your opinions.
Vietnam Ghosts
As Americans fight the war against terrorism, we assure ourselves that this conflict is completely different from the one we carried out a generation ago in Southeast Asia. Yet Vietnam’s ghosts are still here. They do not tell us that our current fight is less than just or necessary. But they steal away the old certainty that the end will inevitably be triumphant. And Americans of a certain age will always shiver when the debate turns to the use of ground troops in far-away, inhospitable lands.
[remainder of copyrighted work deleted]
[Edited by bibliophage on 11-12-2001 at 10:15 AM]
Hello, Razz, welcome to the SDMB.
There are several forums on this board which serve different functions. I think you’ll find a post like yours would be more appropriate in the Great Debates forum.
Another issue the moderators of this board have always been very sensitive about is copyright infringment. You might want to keep in mind in future posts that they discourage people from reposting other people’s writings.
Try GD, not GQ.
In the US, the military is controlled by civilians. There is a difference between what CAN be done, and that is ORDERED to be done.
To answer your question I saw the author interviewed today. I agree that it is very dishearting to see that President Johnson believed he had to carry on a war that we could not win.
At the end of the interview it was stated that the war in Afghanistan is important because if we win the war it can rid our country of the stigma that Vietnam created, which they said was distrust of our leaders.
The differences that I see start with the fact that in Vietnam, we had no idea of why we were there, except the domino theory, which proved not to be valid. In this war I certainly hope everyone knows why we are there.
Also Vietnam was during the Cold War and Russia and China both supported the Vietnamese. We were fighting on the other side of the world without anyone assisting us. In Afghanistan we have support from most countries including Russia, and China and basically have Afghanistan surrounded. Note that recently reports have said that they are not firing back in the same volumn they have been. Could this be because we have bombed their arsenals and they cannot get any resupplies?
Also so far we have not been sending in foot troops, just special troops. The media keeps trying to get someone to say we are sending in more troops, let’s hope no one listens to them.
The biggest problem will be setting up a government that can rule after the war. If we don’t then it’ll just revert back into a haven for people like bin Laden. This is what we did wrong when we supported the Afghans against Russia.
While I think the warfare is similar(geurilla warfare) than in Vietnam, we’re not walking around a jungle with an M16 and a steel helmet in Afghanistan. We have a hell of lot better technology now, it’s amazing what the army has. We could probably outfit the soldiers with Kevlar head to toe, slap some night vision on, and attack during the night. It’s not exactly the same.
Maybe you can but a battle rifle will still knock you down unless you are wearing really thick armour which would be #1 heavyish
#2 bulky
when they knock the soldier down out come the bayonettes or what ever knives they have which means steel or ceramic plates = more weight and bulk which isn’t ideal for the terrain.
There are some MAJOR differences between the current operation and VietNam, which make a comparison silly.
First, we have a clear objective in this conflict - we want to destroy Al-Qaida (or however the hell it should be spelled) and the faction that supports and shelters them. Taliban out of power, Al-Qaida smashed, then our job is done and we help the Afghans rebuild.
Second, we have very few troops on the ground right now - this is mostly a Special Forces fight, not one where we’re sending hundreds of thousands of troops over to capture territory in the morning and abandon it that night.
Third, Hi, Opal.
Fourth, there is no military draft in place, which means that every single soldier, sailor, airman and Marine is a volunteer who took his/her training seriously and is better prepared to perform his or her duty.
And the big difference - the indigenous forces we’re helping are apparently capable of winning victories on their own, with nothing but air support from us.
Just playing the Devil’s Advocate here – Isn’t that how our involvement in Vietnam started?
I don’t think this is another Vietnam, but I think we should have gone against Bin Laden directly instead of the Taliban. That is, send some Special Ops types over covertly. Have them develop some HUMINT (not an easy task in that part of the world). Then Al Qieda members just start falling over. Leave the Taliban until later.
Not very practical. Al-Quaeda and its affiliates are spread over a huge area, with a great many members. Try to destroy them all would have provoked war anyway. And we’ve had Spec Ops there for a long time.
Why are we going into Afghanistan? It’s simple. Our country was attacked and 5000+ civilians killed on our own soil. We have reason to believe the perpetrators are holed up in Afghanistan. We’re going in to get the bastards. Clear?
Can we win? Yes, we can. Will we? That depends. Unquestionably, our technology is far superior. We outnumber the Afghanis. The question is - are we willing to do what is necessary in order to win? That may mean a long ground war with heavy casualties. Are we angry and bloodthirsty enough to stomach the body bags? In the Civil War and WWII we tolerated the carnage. Eventually, in Viet Nam, we decided it wasn’t worth it.
The other big factor is how the Afghanis really feel about the Taliban. If the majority are really just waiting for an opportunity to throw off the Taliban then the war will wrap up relatively quickly and we can get around to helping Afghanistan rebuild. If the majority support the Taliban then we will need a ground war and it will get bloody.
…What Broomstick said…
No tidier summary than that!
General Questions is for questions with factual answers. This is a Great Debate, so I’ll move it.
Quoting copyrighted works in their entirety is copyright infringement. I have deleted most of the text you posted from the New York Times. In the future, please provide a summary or quote at most a couple of paragraphs.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
Just one thing to add… Just because a war is fought in the jungle does not make it unwinnable. WWII was fought mostly in island jungles against a fanatical foe. IMHO politics plays more of a role in determining victory than terrain. The politics of Afghanistan are completely diferent from 'Nam
Gail Collins is a moron. How in the world did whe come to be editorial page editor of the NY Times?
Apparently she came of age during the Vietnam War, so she evaluates each new war in comparison to it. Big mistake. I don’t need to re-state what posters here have already pointed out. There are so many differences that the Vietnam comparison is simply unhelpful in understanding the current conflict.
I’m amused that right after the Times’s silly edtorial appeared, we and the Nothern Alliance won a big victory in Mazur e Sharif – a victory that dramatizes the difference between the current conflict and Vietnam. Maybe Collins will run an editorial saying, “I was wrong.” Nah!
BTW the Democratic Underground is on the same wavelength. They have a article today explaining how the US is really doing badly in Afghanistan. In view of the current military success, it makes funny reading – almost worthy of The Onion. http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/11/12_bungled.html
Why not get rid of the Taliban while finding and
destroying Bin Ladin? As long as we are using our
money on bombs,
shouldn’t we be getting our moneys worth?
And have less problems down the road?