Iraq and Comparisons to Vietnam...

Great Debates
41

A government which was the result of direct US involvement in Vietnamese political affairs almost from the day the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, if not from the end of the Second World War. The division of Vietnam into North and South dates from agreements in 1945 as to which armies would accept the surrender of the Japanese, and was cemented after the Korean War by the Geneva Accords - with the provision that there would be a general election within the next two years around unification and who would run the country. That election never happened because the US knew full well the Vietminh under Ho Chi Minh would win handily. Instead they engineered the selection of Ngo Dinh Diem, whose conservative Catholic regime alienated pretty much everybody and whose attempts at rapprochement with the Vietminh in 1963 to save his own skin got him assassinated.

All well and good, but I’m not trying to compare the events which precipitated the wars.

I fail to understand your logic here. Why should an arguably common thread between two events separated by time and distance be rejected on the basis of its being the common thread?

Read that line again, John. I said the interests of the local population as a whole. And given that I’ve argued that Saddam Hussein’s regime was the result of direct US intervention into Iraqi domestic politics in order to assure that the money made from drilling and exporting oil didn’t actually stay in Iraq, I fail to see how you could think I’m arguing for his regime to have remained.

42

Sailor’s “Time in against the US” is eerily very correct… I think it more or less sums up a situation that even if it doesn’t get worse… will produce less and less positive results for the future. Even if resistance petters out… that window of opportunity might have passed. Willingness to colaborate or work within a US framework gone.

Xtisme you have kept your analysis quite on the military aspect... and I don't think the resistance will run out of material so fast. You're going to finish their supplies by just plain taking the shots and rockets ? Even if it is a low level of aggression its taking enough US and Iraqi lives to be a political liability of high cost. In the end a few RPGs and a lot of ammunition can keep the "resistance" going for years. I don't know about you... but I have a feeling that much of this guerrila style war was planned and stores hidden away. Its one thing to have a AK47 handy... but RPGs are much harder to hide. Eventually some contraband can help supply the fighters too... the point being that since its not military size units... you don't need big supplies to keep 'em going.

 One political aspect I think valid is that the Vietnam war was never winnable militarily.... and Iraq seems to me the same thing. Your simply not going to shoot enough resistance people to stop this whole mess. The US has tech and hardware advantage... and we don't see many results from that. This is not the kind of fighting armoured troops or even marines are best at. Its the "hearts and minds" phrase that harks back clearly to vietnam. How do you win "hearts and minds" with a heavy military occupation ? It's never happened that I know...  

 One has only to see Africa has no terrorist movements... yet they suffered the same interferences, poverty and colonial disregard. Naturally a lack of oil meant less western conflicts. Still africans aren't blowing up people outside their countries. This means that Arabs/Middle Easterns have something beyond poverty that motivates fighting the foreigners. We could call it sense of regional identity... religious identity... but it basically sums up to a notion of pride and militancy unknown in other parts. This means that all of these countries around Iraq do feel kinship or a hurt pride in the US invasion. This isn't only about pacification of Iraq.... their is a festering wound in regional feelings that will only fuel more resistance. The tendency is to work against US presence ever more... in the long run this means Iraq will never work with a US presence in it. Not with the meager planning and money. Time is way more against the US than what most think. More soldiers won't solve this... 

 In the end the problem is that the US invaded irresponsibly and mostly alone. Casualties no matter how big or small... were avoidable to a good degree. This won't change no matter how sucessful the enterprise in the long run.
43

Here’s an article making a case for the similarities:

Vietnam and Iraq compared

**

Personally, I see the Russian occupation in Afghanistan as a more valid comparison for what is actually happening on the ground – however, from a political POV, I think the policies that led to this conflict, are as misguided/obtuse as they were in 'Nam. Which is the main case put forth in the article.

44

That’s been mine all along, Collounsbury thought it pre-emptive but I don’t see how the comparison can be avoided now.

Fwiw, I can’t see the Vietnam analogy in military terms at all. Maybe you could draw some comparisons with the impact within the US, the way it’s sucking in manpower and dominating the domestic agenda but militarily, it’s far more like Afghanistan circa 1980, imho.

Also, while the opposition isn’t being supplied by the CIA (as it was then), one assumes, the ‘cause’ is once again sucking in radicalised youth from all over the Muslim world. Which is how ObL got to be in Afghanistan and learn all about opposing occupying forces when he was a young man; different generation, different enemy, same cause.

The difference here might be that a significant portion of this population are sympathetic, imho, to some of the aims of the occupying power – that wasn’t the case in Afghanistan. Still, the arrogance of a super-power kept the youth of the USSR dying on foreign soil in a lost cause for nearly a decade.

Btw, while a bit of fun I don’t think these comparisons work terribly well and I’m not sure what they’re intended to achieve; learn the lessons of history, sure, but we’re reading from the wrong book here. YMMV.

45

I agree that as long as the US is there, resistance to some degree will continue in some areas. But in the context of comparing the current situation and Vietnam militarily I still believe that the resistance which is coming from one major area inside Iraq will need to ratchet up attacks throughout the country before any Vietnam analogies can be made. Can they still do this? Yes. I also believe it will get harder as time goes on because the areas to the south are not showing signs of resistance or very little as evident on the amount of attacks on British troops. Is this because the British are doing such a great job or are things getting better for the average person in those areas & they are getting on with their lives. I don’t know the answer.Can the resistance that is largely coming from the Sunni triangle convince the Shiites that this is a strictly Anti - American occupation resistance or is it a resistance that will get Saddam back in power? If the will of the majority of Iraqis is to see the US leave and Saddam restored to power then there will be no way for the US to continue this.

46

Thanks Redfury… great article.

This part sounds so true:

47

I don’t believe i’ve seen a single post address the foreign jihad fighters pouring into Iraq at an unknown rate. Syria, Iran, and several other middle eastern countries can sneak in covert fighters to harass U.S. military forces indefinitely. How is this different than the “non combat” zones that the U.S. faced in vietnam? The answer there is no difference there are clear zones that the U.S. can’t touch in this war either without expanding the conflict to involve peripheral countries.

Leaving the occupation and day to day infrastructure to local Iraqis won’t work for a number of years. No clear domestic Iraqi leaders have emerged out of this. We have a number of puppets like Chalabi but noone that can actually move the people towards this “democratic” state. Add in the factional divisions within Iraqi society and there’s a huge longterm problem.

48

You could always read the post three up.

49

Just re-reading through the posts and had another thought. I don’t know the answer to this one, but I’ll toss it out and see if anyone else has some thoughts on it.

Commitment. In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese were basically willing to do whatever it took to win. Loses meant nothing to them. The costs meant nothing to them. Millions of them died, but they kept coming…until they won. Now, does anyone know if the Iraqis are willing to do the same? On an individual basis there are certainly folks willing to kill themselves to cause harm…no doubt there. But collectively are they, as a people, willing to do what it would take to toss America out. In Afghanistan they were willing to sacrifice millions again to toss out the Russians. So far I’ve yet to see that kind of commitment from the masses in Iraq. From the evidence I’ve seen, it seems to be a fairly small number of folks (probably only a few thousand) who are doing the majority of the fighting.

If someone could make a good case for this, that could be a point of comparison I suppose.

From Rashak Mani

I’ve stuck to mostly the military aspects because to me thats the weakest part of the analogy. I just don’t see any connection between these two conflicts from a military perspective…yet. I’ve said that if things drag on I will modify my position, but to my mind its just too early to draw more than the broadest comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq…or Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter, though the comparisons are a bit better there.

Personally I DON’T think the current levels of casualties have got people all riled up here…yet. Just my take on the mood of the country, but I think that most of the people howling atm are the people that were howling before anyway. The vast unwashed masses are still fairly comfortable with things…though I see the unease spreading slowly. It would take a serious ramping up of the resistance though to really push things now…you’d have to see more episodes like the downing of that helecopter repeated weekly to REALLY start having a political down side for Bush and Co.

For myself, based on my own reading of the situation, I DON’T think its a quagmire…yet. I don’t see how the Iraqi’s can sustain even their current levels of resistance for more than a year or so. Sure, they have foreign fighters coming into the country, but sooner or later those holes will be plugged more throughly. No, they will never eliminate them completely, but if you just curtail the entrance of foreign fighters a bit, it will put a huge damper on their abilities to sustain the resistance. Unless things change radically, and the Iraqi people themselves join the resistence en mass, I don’t see it. Anyone have any hard figures on the resistances casualties atm? From what little I’ve read they are losing more folks in most of their raids than we are…and how are they caring for their wounded that they take from the field? Logistics logistics logistics! In this kind of attrition war, the US has the advantage…there simply AREN’T millions of resistance fighters willing to die for the cause…yet. Thats why I said that, as things stand NOW, this is my view, Rashak Mani.

I agree with you btw…I also think vast stores are cached throughout the country. Not sure if SH really planned for this phase of the conflict (I’m still of the opinion he never thought it would come to this, but thats another story) or if he was just a paranoid asshole, but I think there are huge stores of AK’s, RPG’s, ammo, etc, burried out there in the desert…goodies waiting to be picked up, or already picked up by the resistance. Thats why I expect the resistance to fight on at this level for a few years (without those goodies, we wouldn’t even see the resistance we are seeing now, as light as it is). Of course, caches are static and can be discovered, destroyed, used up, etc…however its a valid point. Its another difference though…the Vietnamese and Afghani’s were being constantly supplied from external sources, and its really what kept their war machine going.

The current caches, no matter how vast they maybe, can only keep the resistance going for so long at its current level…and don’t really provide any chance of ramping up the conflict to the level where it really penetrates the American radar to the point where you have popular protests HERE…and thats the key. At their current levels, IMO anyway, the Iraqi resistance don’t really have a chance to win on any level, either by out and out victory, though attrition, or politically (by setting off the kind of protests that hit America during Vietnam…or Russia during Afghanistan?)…just kill, cost money, and set back the Americans. To be like Vietnam (or Afghanistan) from a MILITARY standpoint, the Iraqi’s would need to have broadbased support…military support that is…from the general population. They’d need to be committed to the fight just like the Vietnamese and Afghani’s were (i.e. willing to sacrifice literally millions…do whatever it takes…to get rid of us). They’d need outside funding and outside logistical support to get them weapons that could REALLY hurt the Americans.

I’ll leave the political discussion to you. I asked you before, and maybe I missed it, but could you lay out what you think are the parallels in the political situation. I read Redfury’s cite, but what are your thoughts (if you layed them out already I appologize for asking again…I missed it).

BTW, I’m NOT a supporter of the war at this point. I think it was an unnecessary thing to do, and stupid to boot. The fact that the government was either wrong or lied is a heavy stroke against as far as Im concerned. The money we are pouring into Iraq could be better spent elsewhere, and the deaths could have been avoided. My main pet peeve is, our military is now tied up indefinitely, and what happens now if we need it. Can you say North Korea? There was no compelling reason I’ve heard for us to HAVE to go there now, and do what we did.

Afghanistan I could see, and to my mind we should have done that and then poured money and effort into that country to make IT a model democracy in the area. As distastful as it may be, the war happened. Its in the past. The situation is what it is. People are dieing over there daily, there is no doubt.

But lets not blow it all out of proportions, folks. We are talking about a resistance that is most likely less than 10,000 fighters ‘in the field’ atm…probably considerably less than that (my own WAG would put it in the 1-2000 range). Thats just a guess on my part, based on what I’m seeing, so please don’t ask for a cite. We are seeing casualties of about 1 dead per day (average) with maybe 4 wounded per day (average…this might be high or low…its basically a WAG). Its NOTHING like either the loses we faced in Vietnam or that the Russians faced in Afghanistan. And look how long the US and USSR stuck in those two places before finally calling it quits.

I’m NOT unsympathetic to the families of those who are losing folks over there (and I’ll be devistated if either of my cousins is either wounded or killed), but thats not exactly a heavy toll atm. As I said, even if this conflict goes on for 10 years at its current rate (god help us if it does), thats only 3-4000 American dead, and maybe 20-30,000 wounded. Again, its sad, but I think that it would be acceptable loses to the American public…IF progress is being made (or perceived to be being made). I think we are a lot better able to handle those kinds of loses than people think we are…IF we think progress is being made.

The money thing though…THAT might be a bit harder for us to swallow if this thing drags on and on than the casualties to be honest (I know it sounds cold, but I think that its the case here). If there is an popular uprising in this country against the war, I think THIS will be the key aspect this time. If that happens, then you might just get your link to the Vietnam conflict after all.

-XT

50

I believe the Russian Afghanistan war is a better comparison also

This is a good article for anyone interested -
http://www.vfw.org/magazine/mar02/soviets.htm

One paragraph jumped out at me as amazing.

"About 620,000 Soviets served in Afghanistan, with officers doing a two-year tour and enlisted men putting in 18 months.

Official Soviet casualties total 14,453 dead: 9,511 killed in action; 2,386 died of wounds; and 2,556 lost from disease and accidents.

Some 53,753 were wounded. An incredible 415,932 men were hospitalized for a serious disease during their tour of duty"

415,932 hospitalized for a serious disease. Has anyone heard of any such thing happening to US forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

51

Wonder what the ‘serious disease’ was for them. My god, thats nearly half a million men. No, I haven’t heard of vast numbers of US soldiers hospitalized for any diseases…in those numbers, not since maybe the first world war or the Civil War.

-XT

52

There’s a big difference. In Vietnam, the NLF set up supply lines in the form of the Ho Chi Minh Trail running through Laos and Cambodia. Laos and Cambodia were formally neutral in the conflict, but major combat formations of the NVA and VC were based in these countries, and frequently used them as sanctuaries from which to launch raids across the border and into South Vietnam, as well as a relatively safe haven which they could retreat to. They were only relatively safe because the US was bombing Laos and Cambodia throughout the war. There were also a couple of incursions into Cambodia and Laos by US and ARVN ground forces. Syria and Iran haven’t allowed their soil to be used in such a manner, and probably won’t – it would provide a ready made excuse for the US to take action against them. They are, after all, part of Bush’s infamous ‘Axis of Evil.’

A better comparison would be with Pakistan during the Soviet’s time in Afghanistan or Northern Iraq during the early days of Turkey’s fight with Kurdish separatists. The borders were porous enough to allow foreign troops and supplies to flow through to some extent, but the territories weren’t being heavily used as military sanctuaries because the host governments wouldn’t allow it and unlike Laos and Cambodia, they are able to prevent it.

53

From an American perspective there is no comparison.

U.S. War Dead

Protecting Vietnam _________ 53,000 killed
Freeing Iraq _________________ 500 killed

But in some ways Iraq resembled Rwanda. Genocide!

Iraqi Government (Saddam Hussein )_____ 300,000 murdered
Rwanda Hutu elite ___________________ 800,000 murdered
Both regimes attempted to erase an entire people from the face of the Earth while the United Nations and France held whimpy committee meetings and sat on their respective multi-cultural and decadent-cultural butts.

In 1994 in Rwandaian * Tutsis* were murdered by the Hutuses at the rate of 333 1/3 Tutsis per hour for one hundred days running.
The time frame of Saddam’s mass murders were more whimsical and periodic.

54

I assume you’re referring to the so-called “Sunni Triangle”? If so, are you aware that it constitutes the majority of Iraq’s population? The “one major area” vs. “throughout the country” comparison is Bush spin, which has been gratefully seized on by the, um, cockeyed optimists.

You got that right, even without the Saddam part.

55

In essence, yes. The Thieu government “controlled” much of the country, but the US controlled Thieu, and the locals doubtlessly understood that.

And Najibullah “invited” the USSR into Afghanistan. The full story is a little more complicated, but the views of Nguyen van Nguyen out in his rice paddy didn’t have any influence on the matter.

Tough to quantify that, at different stages of the war, but much of the Viet Cong and even less-formal opposition came from the South.

We did? When? Tell the families of the good people whose lives are wasted every week there about that, kiddo.

That’s a refutation?

Well, thank you. I suppose. But note that most of the rest of the problems, in both cases, stem from that one.

It’s on a par with the same duration into the war, perhaps exceeding it.

Not entirely - it’s an extrapolation from what we see on the ground, and the most apt historical comparisons, of which Vietnam is aptest. But the assumption that it will end soon is at least as pure on the speculation scale, innit?

They don’t need to hit that hard militarily; they just need to make the occupation seem not worthwhile, and they’re succeeding. They don’t need that much conventional weaponry to do it, and there’s been a thriving market in that stuff for quite a long time.

Thanks for agreeing again, but I hope you also agree that it’s the entire point of the operation (at least in public). Without winning over the people’s hearts and minds there, what’s the point?

It does vary depending on the situation, but the key is not to get into a position where defeats and losses even exist to blame anyone for, huh?

That’s some of the value of studying history and considering comparisons. It lets you recognize mistakes earlier when they’re being made again.

56

Really? Please explain. I just checked 3 different websites that pu t the Sunni population at 30-37% of the total.

57

Where did you get the idea that only Sunnis live in the “Sunni Triangle”? Or even the idea that only the particular branch of Islam that an Iraqi adheres to is a significant factor in his opinions? They’re the local majority in that area, but not by that much - another example of how the name is simple spin. The “Sunni Triangle” includes Baghdad, which alone has a quarter of the country’s population, and they’re certainly not all Sunnis.

Quickie map linked to from this Christian Science Monitor story by a reporter who wasn’t content to be led around by US Army guides.

58

Um…I really don’t have a dog in this fight but…er, ElvisL1ves, where does it say in either of your links the population distribution? Am I missing something here? I read the article and saw this:

From CSMonitor article

Your map is also interesting…but again, it doesn’t give population densities (that I could see anyway)…just ethnic areas. Am I missing something here? If so, could you quote the paragraph you meant as well as give the link?? I’m not claiming you are wrong, mind you, just that I don’t see the information you are citing in your cites.

-XT

59

Never mind…I misunderheard you. I didn’t see you guys were talking about ethnic areas…I thought you were talking about population densities. My bad.

-XT

60

If you’re going to post pop-con porn, at least get your numbers straight, they aren’t very hard to find. US losses in Vietnam were 58,202 dead. US losses in Iraq as of 11/7/2003 stand at 394 dead.