Most of the villages do not not appear to be fighting then.
I think there are quite a few parallels, myself. I’ll try to make a short list.
-
US intervention in the country before the war actually starts. In Vietnam, the US worked to prevent an election that would likely have resulted in the unification of Vietnam under the Vietminh, propping up an unpopular dictator who represented their interests. And who was assassinated once he became too much of a burden.
In Iraq, the US worked to prevent the oilfields from being nationalized, eventually propping up a murderous dictator who represented their interests. (Rumsfeld/Hussein handshake, anyone?) And who was deposed by force when he became too much of a burden. But not before the country he ruled was literally starved into submission by international action. -
Popular resistance. The invasion was almost immediately marked by protests from the Iraqi populace - I remember seeing signs saying “Get out from our country” and “Sooner or later, US Killers, we’ll kick you out” very early on in the war. True, the casualty rate is nothing close to what it was at the peak of the Vietnam conflict, but remember also that it took several years for the casualty rate to get that high.
-
Domestic opposition. In many respects, the anti-war movement today is miles ahead of where the anti-war movement around Vietnam was at the same point in its lifespan. The demonstration in Washington on Oct 25th was led by organizations of military veterans, and families of servicemen and -women in Iraq. It took years for the domestic anti-war movement around Vietnam to link up with soldiers’ and military families’ organizations. Which leads us to…
-
Opposition within the military. Everyone who was old enough to remember the Vietnam war probably has at least heard stories of soldiers questioning orders, refusing to obey orders, or taking a number of other measures, both moderate and extreme, to keep themselves out of combat while at the front. This was a result of extremely low morale, which sprang from several sources, including questioning why the hell they’d been sent over there in the first place. What about troops in Iraq? This Washington Post article, quoting a study from Stars and Stripes, speaks volumes. Were the dissatisfaction rates among the troops in Vietnam that high less than a year after the war started?
In short, the US has involved itself in a war in a country it’s been messing with for years, but which has provoked popular resistance and opposition domestically and within the military. I’d say there are some strong parallels.
From Rashak Mani
I don’t see this. From the militaries perspective, the initial goals couldn’t have been clearer in the Iraq conflict. Go in, destroy the Iraqi army with as few civilian deaths as possible, kill or capture Saddam if possible, destroy his government. Whats unclear? The war plans, as far as I know, were pretty much left in the hands of the military. Contrast that to Johnson’s micromanagement of the Vietnam war…picking targets, deciding on what intellegence the military would recieve, etc. There WERE no goals in Vietnam, except some nebulous defensive strategy and a gradual ratchetting up of stategic air bombing over the North.
Even the post war there are real goals. That doesnt mean that the plan has been a good one, or that it worked correctly or AS planned…for one thing we didn’t deploy enough troops initially IMO to really do the job right. I suppose you could make the comparison to the gradual escalation of troops deployed to Vietnam, but IMO you’d still be reaching. I just don’t see how this conflict compares.
From Rashak Mani
Well sure…but this is the case with ANY conflict where you have resistance coming from a native population to an outside invader. I suppose its valid, but its a bit broad for a comparison isn’t it?
From Rashak Mani
Well, again, thats probably fairly true of any conflict the US is involved in, including post WWII. However the key difference is that Vietnam was never really VITAL to the US…while Iraq really is. The US HAS to make this work, and from what I remember reading they have already begun re-evaluating what they are doing there and determining what to do differently to ‘fix’ the fuckups. This is vastly different than what I remember in Vietnam, where the only ‘fix’ was to gradually ramp up the level of conflict…AFTER the Vietnamese had ramped up THEIR levels (i.e. lets bomb Hanoi AFTER they put in an advanced SAM defense system). Again, I’m no expert on Vietnam, so correct me if I blunder here please.
From Rashak Mani
What I was trying to portray is that the level of conflict here is literally an order of magnitude different…both from the military casualty perspective as well as a civilian casualty perspective, as well as from a raw ‘Iraqi resistance fighters in the field’ perspective. In addition, I was trying to show that, at least IMO, we won’t SEE an escalation of more violence OR more Iraqi fighters in the field (though I suppose its possible we see less in time…not holding out much hope, but it IS possible). The situation is too different from Vietnam. The tactical environment is different (jungle vs desert), the level of conflict is different (a very small number of Iraqis in the field, as opposed to literally regiments of VC and NVA in the field at any given time), the capabilities of the Iraqi resistance is different (what they have as far as arms go they have without much prospect IMO of getting more or better)…its just, well, different.
As to todays military being composed solely of ‘poor whites(h) and blacks’ I kind of resent that. I have several family members over there…and they certainly aren’t ‘poor’ NOR ‘white or black’. There are a lot of hispanics in the military…and many of them are there because they love their country. Many of the kids in my cousins units are basically somewhere in the middle class range (from the low to middle of the middle class range I’d guess) and while this isn’t exactly a representative sample (and its anacdotal to boot!) it at least showed ME that not all our troops are po’ white and black boyz over de’r just 'cause de’y needed da money.
-XT
Olentzero:
Your list of similarities are pretty much what one would see in any war. Of course there are going to be some similarities. But what are those similarities unique to these two situtations?
Very basic point, relating to the OP, being missed here:
There exists no motive for comparing the current conflict in Iraq with the Vietnam war, short of using it as a “smear” against America’s efforts there.
It’s simply a “hot button” a critic can push, an attempt to characterize the Iraq situation as a “quagmire” (can’t talk about Vietnam without the Q word, ya know) in an effort to create the same kind of feeling about Iraq as exists regarding Vietnam-- a deep, national embarrassment for the most part.
For Christ’s sake, the thing isn’t even over yet and you amateur historians want to lump it in with the failure of Vietnam. You might want to let the ink dry in your ongoing history books for a second, there… If, as is possible, we leave Iraq a year or two from now as a flourishing (more or less) democratically elected government using its oil resources to raise the standard of living for all Iraqis, you’re gonna need to go back and scratch out your “Quagmire Chapter.”
You can selectivley pick out common themes between any two conflicts in history, depending on how tenuous a link you want to try to establish between them. How 'bout the stunning similarities between the Russo-Japanese War and the War of 1812? The mind boggles.
It’s like the comparisons people try to make between Bush and Hitler. Hitler gets stuck into the comparison not because of any actual relevance, but because he’s a useful hot button. Bush could just as easily (and mistakenly) be compared to Churchill, Mao-Tse Tung, Napoleon, or DeGaulle-- but that wouldn’t have the emotive power of the “link” intended by the critic. Labelling the Iraq situation as “another Vietnam” is more about a thinly veiled attempt to create an unpleasant association than it is about any sort of scholarly, historical perspective.
Suffice it to say that the differences between the campaign in Iraq and the Vietnam war FAR and substantively outweigh any superficial similarities that may exist. Of course, that won’t stop those with an agenda from jumping up and down, pointing at Iraq, and screeching, " Look! Look! A quagmire!"
:rolleyes:
Oh, my heavens! I had no idea we had been so shrill and hysterical over such a calm and sedate issue as pointless, needless and aggressive war. Allow me to personally make amends by stating, as quietly and unemotionally as I might:
“Iraq is very likely a quagmire. On the other hand, there is comparatively little sand in Viet Nam, and no camels at all to speak of.”
There now. Happy?
If it looks like a quagmire, walks like a quagmire, and quacks like a quagmire… then I’m gonna hafta call it a quagmire. YMMV.
** elucidator**:
The point was, and is, that no more credible “similarities” exist between the current situation in Iraq ( which, since it hasn’t even played out yet, would seem to beg for the passage of a wee bit more time until the harsh lens of history looks “back” at it) and the Vietnam war than would exist between just about any two conflicts somebody could pull out of their ass at random… and probably less.
The corollary of that point is that Vietnam, in particular, was plucked out of history not because of it’s stunning relevance to the current operation, but specifically because it was an embarrassing FAILURE. And, again-- those with an agenda are eager to hold up the spectre of Vietnam not because the parallels, such as they are, are so compelling-- but rather because it’s a negative connotation they can make that carries with it some emotive power.
To date, your list of startling similarities consists of this gem:
Using that logic, we certainly could have left Germany “the fuck alone” in 1941. That “simple expedient” would have perhaps kept us off the beaches of Normandy. Harder to ignore would have been the Japanese strike at Pearl Harbor, but again… rather than wage an “aggressive war” (to borrow another one of your brilliant terms) against them we could have simply watched them roll over the Pacific, unimpeded. For that matter, every single armed conflict in history could have been avoided had one party simply left the other one alone-- so I guess the obvious conclusion is that Iraq is just like every other war in history.
Are there lessons learned from the Vietnam experience which we would be foolhardy to dismiss in Iraq? Sure. Collectively, lessons from ALL of our previous conflicts shape and re-shape our warfighting doctrine. The current war was conducted using the hindsight of many of them.
Quagmire, schmagmire… call it what you will. It bears no more meaningful relationship to Vietnam than it does to the French and Indian Wars-- but then, THAT doesn’t look quite as sexy on a protester’s placard, does it? 
Well, from my point of view, the overriding unique similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is US imperialism. Vietnamese unification under a Communist Party was unacceptable to the US, period. So the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations sent in “advisers”, then soldiers, to make sure that didn’t happen.
Iraq, on the other hand, has a seriously large reserve of a very economically valuable commodity. No matter who uses it (and it’s quite clear more Iraqi oil goes to Europe and Japan than the US), controlling its extraction and distribution is a very profitable enterprise. So the US first interfered to keep the Iraqi government from completely nationalizing the oilfields, then supported a dictator that both a) kept his own population quiet and b) kept other hostile powers in the area (namely Iran) in check. When he proved to be too much of a hassle, the two Bush and Clinton administrations starved and bombed the country to try to get Hussein to toe the line and then finally took him out under the transparently false veneer of the “war on terror”. Now Halliburton and Bechtel are in there, beneficiaries of no-bid contracts, and are the companies controlling the distribution of oil to US economic rivals who are heavily dependent on it.
In both cases (and these are not, of course, the only ones), the US has intervened both politically and militarily in other countries’ affairs to ensure that its interests, generally at the expense of the interests of the local population as a whole, are being served to its satisfaction.
As regards the debate about whether or not Iraq is a quagmire - it may not be yet, but the factors that led to Vietnam being one are already well in evidence. See points 2 and 4 of my last post.
Olentzero:
The processes of US intervention in the two wars are actually quite different. The US entered Vietnam with the consent of, and at the request of IIRC, the S.V. gov’t. As for Iraq, the whole process started when that country invaded Kuwait. No Vientman parallel there. Before Kuwiat, Iraq was a nominal ally of the US (nominal in the sense that we supported them in the Iran Iraq war).
The US has the bad habbit of intervening in the internal affairs of so many countries, that to draw a parallel here is rather meaningless.
I’m not sure what you mean “at the expense of the local population as whole” unlless it is that the local population would have been better served by having SH remain in power. I don’t think the poll info of Iraqi’s supports that conclusion.
Brain fart-- sorry. For “poll info of Iraqi’s” read “Iraqi poll results on the subject”
Don’t believe what Cheney says that poll says, or anything else he says for that matter. Read Kristof:
Zogby’s reputation is “The Republicans’ Favorite Pollster”, mind you.
As for the Vietnam comparison, sure, any analogy breaks down if you press it too far, and the more obtuse can claim that invalidates it, but you can still be enlightened by thinking about one. The key broader similarities exist here:
-
US is an occupying power that was not welcomed by the people both broadly and warmly.
-
No strategy or even clear, realistically achievable goals were set beforehand, despite some attempt to define them after the fact, making their sincerity dubious. That includes exit strategies.
-
No sincere attempt to level with the people, even of the US, about the situation exists either. A pattern of self-delusion, filtration of facts, and simple lying about the facts exists, though.
-
Our good, young people are getting attacked and killed and maimed almost daily. Some half-hearted attempts to blame outside insurgents exists, but not based on real facts.
-
Attempts to win the locals’ hearts and minds are haphazard, and mixed with actions that can only alienate them.
-
The Administration and its cheerleaders blame setbacks on peaceniks and, worse, Democrats back home who dare to question them, but never themselves.
That enough of a definition of “quagmire” for you, gang? Now go read Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly. I can’t stress that enough.
Just saying Vietnam was ages ago and in the jungle… vs Iraq in the desert isn’t an argument in this thread. Parallels can be made between the two… I want to know if these comparisons are minor and irrelevant to analysis of the current quagmire.
If the same "things" that made vietnam into a lose lose situation are starting to show up in the Iraq situation I think its relevant. Naturally many things are different... history doesn't repeat itself perfectly. Still the same US govt structures are there... the two Parties... even some of the same people too. (Different positions like Powell)
Also I didn't come defending the comparison in military terms... but more in political aspects in fact. That is where I see similarities.
Well I will respond to xtisme points:
When I said military objectives I was talking of the CURRENT situation. The invasion was nice and fun… quick and well done. I was talking of the military situation now. Do you think the military have a clear objective and means to accomplish them ?
Ok natives dubious loyalties can be for any conflict… but still the fact that many Iraqi have two faces seemed eerily similar. “invisible enemies”.
ok… again I agree… official Bull shit is a tradition… but the US now has the vietnam experience and they know what happens when government puts sugarcoating on reports and sucesses.
My final point about poor whites and blacks was in vietnam... not the current army. (You read it fast didn't you ?) Which is exactly my point. Soldiers now are valued specialists and aren't seen as disposable as they were in vietnam. (Though of course many see the high latino percentages as the blacks of former armies.) The high number of reservists means even more political costs for dead soldiers.
From what I read the soldiers that will be sent to Iraq to substitute the current garrison are even more heavily Nat.Guard and Reservists than the troops now in Iraq. Bush is certainly going to pay a political price on that...
Overall I do agree with your points... militarily the situations arent comparable... what about politically ?From ElvisL1ves
-
Are you claiming the US was an ‘occupying power’ during the Vietnam conflict?? I dinna think that word means what you think it means if you are. If you ARE really saying that, after passing me the drugs you are using, can you back that up perhaps? My own (admittedly limited) memories of the conflict seemed to say that we were invited there. Now, I’m sure the government at the time WAS a dictatorship, and possible not everyone was exactly thrilled to see us there, but are you REALLY saying that the same level antipathy towards the US was shown by the South Vietnamese people as by those in Iraq?
-
No strategy was set? Funny we managed to win, no? Maybe we just lucked into it. Oh, maybe you mean POST war. Well, I’d STILL beg to differ (though you guys are certainly trying very hard to forget the actual military phase…where we basically crushed the Iraqi military. Where’s the comparibly analogy to THAT in Vietnam???)…there WAS a strategy for post war too. That it didn’t work, was ill considered, pie in the sky, and full of wholes does not negate the fact we had one. Now, afaik, we did NOT have anything even resembling a stategy in Vietnam. To me, you guys are comparing apples to oranges in your reach to make these two things match. In Vietnam we never won…so there WAS no ‘occupation’, etc…the conflict was on going. In Iraq, we definitely defeated the Iraqi military. Yes, there is still some resistance going on. But its nothing like the full blown conflict that was Vietnam, even in its early days.
You would have more firm ground to stand on IF the US had of actually won in Vietnam, had of invaded the North and conquered the main field army, deposed the government, and REALLY been an ‘occupying power’. I have zero doubt that the resistance THEN would have made Iraq seem like a church social, but it would then be a better analogy than what happend in real history.
-
I’ll agree with you here. I think the government thought the people were too stupid or too weak to give the REAL reasons for the war in Iraq…and I think the government during Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon) did very similar things. You shoot, you score!!
-
The conflict goes on. But the comparison to the death toll in Vietnam is not even close. Also the underlying assumption that this conflict will drag on and on is, frankly, pure speculation on your part. At this point we have no idea, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that even this modest level of resistance we are seeing atm is not sustainable without outside assistance. Weapons and ammo don’t make themselves, and if they REALLY want to hit at the Americans, they will need plenty of both. They will need things like the shoulder launched SAMs they used against the helecopters, and that kind of thing doesn’t exactly grow on trees. Where do you suppose they will get such things, say, next year? The year after? After that? After all, if we catch some country aiding the rebels, it won’t go well for them (especially if your name is Iran, Syria, SA, etc…).
-
Again, I agree with you. Thats a good analogy. Only time will tell if we straighten up on this account, but at this point I’m not exactly overflowing with optimism.
-
Well, this is one that all administrations do. I think its a bit broad for a comparison between the two conflicts.
From ElvisL1ves
If the situation is the same or worse in 5 years time, then I’ll agree with you that its a ‘quagmire’…and I’ll also start to maybe see some parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. I think its a bit early in the game to be screaming ‘quagmire’ right now thought, personally.
-XT
/aside
I think I’m going to start a thread entitled “Is the SDMB REALLY powered by hamsters, or is there something else that makes it so painful to try and access it sometimes??” I’ve never been on a board that was at once so interesting and so painful to use…
/aside
From Rashak Mani
Well, my point was that the TACTICAL environment is worlds different. It makes a HUGE difference, as you yourself pointed out. There won’t BE regimental or brigade level rebel groups massing…there isn’t any where for them to hide. If they were ever stupid enough to mass together somewhere, they would be very dead very fast. I think this is one of the critical differences to be honest.
As to the whole ‘quagmire’ thing…again, IMO its simply too soon to tell. We aren’t even done with the FIRST year yet. Start a thread this time two years from now if the situation is either the same or worse, and I’ll be willing to begin siding more fully with ya. At this time, I believe its too early to tell how its going to work out.
From Rashak Mani
But thats my point…the same things AREN’T showing up, at least on the military side. There isn’t a major power out there supporting the Iraqi’s with money, arms, training and advisors. There AREN’T vast jungles for them to hide out in. There ISN’T a ‘home base’ of a nation state like North Vietnam for them to hide out in, rest, re-equip, eat, etc. In short, its completely different IMO…the few parallels I’ve seen brought up are the same ones you could bring up in comparison to ANY conflict the US was ever in -vs- Iraq.
From Rashak Mani
I know you are…but its hard to just forget that part. It WAS part of this mess after all, and there are zero parallels to it in the Vietnam conflict that I’m aware of.
As to the rest, do I think there is a clear objective? Sure there is. The clear objective is to pacify Iraq, restore order, restore services, get the oil flowing again, etc. Those are DEFINITELY the OBJECTIVES. Now, do I think they have the means to accomplish them? Thats tougher. I think the CAN do it, though its in my mind that they are attempting to do it on the cheap…regime change and democratic stability on a budget. I think that their initial reading of what the post war period would be like was definitely rose colored, and they have made a multitude of mistakes. In the end though, I do think that it will work out…simply because America NEEDS it to work out. We could basically afford to fail in Vietnam when all was said and done…they didn’t really have anything vital to the US. We can’t afford to fail in Iraq.
From Rashak Mani
Well, thats true…and you already answered yourself. Its true of any conflict of this type. Its too broad a brush to allow for a comparison. You could just as easily compare the Iraq war to myriad conflicts the British were involved in. You could compare it to the Revolutionary War in the US for that matter. There are similarities to the post war period following the Civil War. You could compare it favorably to the British wars in Wales and Scottland. Why Vietnam?
From Rashak Mani
lol, ya…I read it fast. I’m a bit sensitive about such things. The white and black boys aren’t the ONLY ones here, etc etc. I like to think of ‘my’ people as pulling their own weight here too, and I definitely misconstrued what you were saying. My appologies. 
You are right…they are specialists now. THats one of the reasons I used it as a contrast…they definitely aren’t seen as ‘disposable’ now, at least not like they were then. They are all volunteer, though I expect that the reserve soldiers especially are thinking that it might have been better to pass on that. Its a different army with a different attitude now. I can’t speak for all of them, but I know my cousins are still pretty upbeat about being in the Army anyway. I also remember from my time in the Navy that folks were always bitching about being in and about leaving.
I think that, for the time being, the current rate of loss is reasonably acceptable to the America people. Its only if this thing drags on and on that you will see REAL opposition to all this. If thats the case, I’ll be one of those that DOES oppose the continued presence there as well. You have to look at the loses in perspective though. Its tragic that those boys and girls have lost their lives and my heart goes out to their families…but the death toll for the entire conflict to date isn’t even 300, with what, another 2000 or so wounded? As for the Iraqi dead and wounded, again, my heart goes out to them and to their families, but again their loses are what? 10,000 dead, maybe twice that wounded? In terms of Vietnam thats not even a drop in the bucket. Granted, Vietnam dragged on for a decade and this conflict hasn’t even lasted a single year yet…but thats my point. Unless you ASSUME that it WILL drag on that long, its too early to make that comparison.
From From Rashak Mani
Agreed. Bush is going to pay several political prices for this mess, and its my hope it costs him the election next year. And I don’t disagree with you guys who are saying that the post war planning could and SHOULD have been a lot fucking better, either.
Politically? I think that there really is no comparison between Bush’s actions and Kennedy’s, though I have an open mind and can be convinced. I think that their reasons are vastly different for why they did what they did, and their methods were certainly different. On the military side, I think GW pretty much tured the military lose, where as Kennedy and Johnson didn’t. To be honest, in the fighting stage, this was the best thing to do (IF you are going to fight at all, fucking fight to win and get it over with). I’d rather have Kennedy or Johnson for the post war period though.
I’m not sure I’m addressing this point properly though…could you expand some on what you think the parrallels are politically? If you did earlier and I’ve forgotten I appologize. I’ve been going nuts just trying to bring up the threads and attempt to post, and haven’t read back through this one but only read the new posts (when I can get the damn things to load).
-XT
I saw a thoughtful op-ed the other day in the paper (which now I can’t find on google, dammit) that rejected the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam, and instead argued that Iraq is more like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
A few similarities that pop to mind: Both invaders based their action on that the subject was falling under the influence of a belligerent power (ie, Afghanistan to Iran, the West, China, and just about anyone else the Soviets disliked; Iraq to Al Qaeda) which would give rise to a direct threat. Both wars were met with broad international opposition. Both wars were an attempt to remake the political culture of the invaded country.
More importantly, both wars mobilized opposition movements funded by foreign elements using terrorist/guerrila tactics (depending on your pov). In both cases, a very rapid military victory turned into a costly occupation, and the future of each conflict was based more upon the tolerance of the folks back home for casualties rather than the situation on the ground in the occupied country.
It’s also worth noting that Soviet losses were at a significantly lower rate in Afghanistan than US losses in Vietnam: approx 20,000 over ten years, as opposed to 57,000 over eight in Vietnam.
Food for thought.
But again, in Afghanistan there was a major foreign power funding the resistance…namely the US. We gave them money, weapons, as well as CIA ‘advisors’. Its the thing that kept them afloat basically…I seriously doubt they could have maintained such a high level of resistance without all those goodies and money, reguardless of how nasty of fighters they were (and they WERE…they have a tradition of being extremely nasty resistance fighters. Ask the British).
I do see more similarities between the Afghan war and Iraq than I do between Vietnam and Iraq though…but I don’t see the sustainability of the resistance at this point, and if thats the case, the comparison completely falls appart…IMO at least. Again, I guess time will tell.
At our present casualty rate, I’d estimate aproximately 3000 combat deaths for US forces in a 10 year period (figuring aproximately 300 deaths a year)…IF they are able to sustain their present resistance levels for 10 years, which I highly doubt. I pulled that number from my bum btw…just based on an extrapolation of current deaths.
-XT
I am sure there will be no shortage of funding and supplying for the resistance. Enemies and competitors of the USA can get a lot of bang for their buck. For every dollar you give the resistance you are making the US spend hundreds of thousands. It will be done secretly but it will be done. Countries who proclaim they are neutral will be giving money under the table. Having the USA bogged down in Iraq for a decade or more is a worthy objective for many countries. Rather than let the US enjoy the oil, let them spend a fortune trying to stay afloat. China, Russia and other countries may not say it openly but you can see how they salivate.
Time is on who’s side? The Iraqi’s live there. The US has to spend a fortune sending people and equipment there. Iraqis can wait for the right moment to attack. I do not think time is on the side of the USA. I think there was a window and it is closing fast. if the USA cannot assert itself, cannont ensure tranquility, cannot rebuild the economy, then time is definitely against it. All the Iraqis have to do is sit by their front doors and wait to see the next humvee being taken out by an rpg. An rpg which costs little and which will be gladly donated by a major competing power near you can take out soldiers and equipment which costs millions to put in place. The USA will be supplying targets at a tremedous cost for no visible gain. Time is not on the sie of the USA.
I conceed, you could be right Sailor…time will tell. Personally I think it takes more to fund a true resistance than you think it does. Right now the Iraqi’s are still operating at the annoyance level, and still able to use all those toys scattered about. To say it another way, they are a tactical threat, but they aren’t even close to being a stategic threat. To ramp it up to a full scale resistance a la Vietnam or Afghanistan when the Russians were there would take more than a few dollars slipped covertly under the table. Sometime next year, the resistance will start running dry of the toys on hand. I’m sure they have plenty of guns and RPGs atm, but they can’t have vast caches of the things…and even if they do, we discover them all the time. Sometime or other, the well will start to run dry…and they don’t have exactly the best logistics scenerio, even IF someone is willing to pony up the cash and amunition to keep them rolling at their current levels.
Its also gona take more than RPG’s and AK47’s to throw us out at this point, its gona take SAMs and TOWs (or some more powerful anti tank weapons at any rate) and other more advanced weapons systems to do the job right (i.e. to hit us where it REALLY hurts, down our air craft, take out our M1A1’s and Bradleys and such)…and those cost real money. After all, thats what helped the Afghani’s throw out the Russians…and what the VC/NVA used against the US. IMO, we can sustain (both militarily and politically, though thats more dicy) the current casualty rate for several years, and can even sustain the monetary costs (gulp) as long as the American people perceive that there is some light at the end of the tunnel…and that its not a train coming the other way. At this time, that perception is still there that this thing is do-able…at least thats my take on the mood of the country atm. How long it lasts is anyones guess, but I’d say if things don’t get worse any time soon, the situation here at home won’t change radically either…not any time soon anyway.
In addition to the materials of war, its gona take lots of training IMO (‘advisors’ and such). No? Then why did the US send ‘advisors’ to Afghanistan? Why did Russia and China do the same in Vietnam? And honestly, the Iraqi’s NEED that training, more than the VC/NVA or Afghani’s ever did. Sure, a lot of the resistance guys are probably former Iraqi army troops, but they weren’t trained to exactly a high level…and they collectively just got their ass’s kicked twice in a row, not to mention a long an bloody stalemate with Iran before that. I’m sure their confidence isn’t exactly peak atm.
Money, training, advanced weapons…those kinds of things would tip the hand of anyone trying to play it fast and loose under the table I’d think…something no one wants to risk with the US right now. I can certainly see someone like Russia or China (or more likely Syria, Egypt or SA) slipping a million here or a million there under the table (very carefully)…and that could keep this conflict going at this level for a while. But its not going to throw us out of there on its own. At that level, only the American people can throw us out, if they become dissatisfied to the level where we pull out.
Still, you might be right, and I might be wrong…I certainly see your points and even agree with them, if certain circumstances happen. Ask me a year or so from now, and I might have a totally different take on whats happening as I learn more and see what the trends are.
Certainly the relative costs of an RPG (what, $50 US?) vs even a hummer staggers the mind. And I’m sure there won’t be a shortage any time soon of volunteers to take that RPG out there and die for the cause. If the resistance drags on for several years, it could certainly hurt the US in many different ways, and REALLY start costing us some serious dollars (as if it hasn’t already).
But whats your thoughts on the OP? Do YOU see a clear comparison between this conflict and Vietnam?
-XT
I generally agree with this assessment, and my biggest fear in the conflict is that the window might already have closed. It is a very different paradigm than Vietnam, though – Afghanistan may be closer, or in some ways the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Raising the specter of the Vietnam experience for the US is a bit out of place regarding Iraq at the moment though – it generally implies an intractable quagmire with no way out and heavy casualties, neither of which has happened yet, though they may in the future. The Philippines was itself a quagmire, but the US was ultimately able to win out in the end.
Disclaimer: I in no way feel that the invasion of Iraq was justified.