I’ve seen more detailed pop density maps of Iraq than this one.
However, I’m lacking access right now.
If I remember, I’ll post a link to a much more detailed .pdf map.
I seem to be Link Girl today, but here’s a New York Times article from yesterday about this very topic. The point of it seems to be, according to people such as John McCain, that debate about this war is so fierce because Vietnam was so debated, despite the facts that:
So, not another Vietnam, exactly; I’m pretty sure when Saddam dies, most of the resistance will die with him. But it’s touching some of the same chords in the country.
Mehitabel, other than those few ‘minor’ things that Mr. John McCain says, it looks exactly the same. 
I wish I had of read that article before I started posting here…he’s saying exactly what I wanted to say, but doing it much better of course.
ElvisL1ves, I just misunderstood what you guys were debating. I had already seen a population distribution map (I DO use google, but thanks for the head up :)), and the one you posted wasn’t showing what I thought you were trying to cite. Again, I appologize for misunderstanding you before.
-XT
Well of course it is not Vietnam exactly. I think what people are trying to say is that there are disturbing similarities.
For example, I believe Iraq has parallels to Vietnam based on these three things:[ul]
[li] it is a conflict which has very divisive effects that are polarizing our country; it is emotionally draining and alienating to fight about whether what we’re doing is right or wrong.[/li][li] it is sucking money that we can ill afford to spend; and I believe it will continue to be a money pit for a long time.[/li][li] it was difficult to extricate ourselves from Vietnam, and I believe it will be difficult to extricate ourselves from Iraq; this forms the core of my “quagmire” characterization.[/ul][/li]So, emotionally, financially, and politically there are similarities. Similarities that are not necessarily common to all armed conflicts.
By the way, I also concur that the Soviets in Afghanistan is a better parallel.
(I also hope I’m wrong.)
Alright, I give. It is nothing like 'nam.
How does that change anything that’s happening on the ground?
France didn’t ignore Saddam’s bad habits, it supplied them. US intelligence information + French and Soviet hardware = dead Iranians. That’s a point people always forget when they jump to attack the US: France being Iraq’s second biggest arms supplier during the first 10 years of Saddam’s reign. They sold him advanced missiles and advanced attack planes.
Another LAT article that picks up the story with Reagan in power. Saddam already was there and the Iran - Iraq war was underway. Somehow, it’s all his fault.
The US was trying to play Iraq and Iran off against one another so that neither nation would win. France went one step beyond and openly supplied Iraq with substantial advanced weaponry. The French wanted the Iraqis to win. Not a big deal really: arms sales, military assistance. But, since every US citizen has to go over modern history to engage in debate, I think it is only fair to bring up our biggest detractors on the world stage when their actions were more substantial.
Might I add that the French supplied Exocet missile info during Gulf War I in order to protect US ships ? That the US didn’t say anything about French supplying stuff or Iraq killing Kurds…
Christ… I can’t open those links…
I am less convinced now of the paralleles between Vietnam and Iraq... at least the situation now. Certainly militarily its very different.
Redfury... why compare ? We should always be trying to get some lessons from history to avoid repeating certain mistakes. If Iraq were Pretty similar to vietnam something could be learned from it and some stuff avoided. It could certainly speak of a need to reform how wars are decided upon and engaged.I think it’s too soon to tell yet.
The Viet Cong were supplied, via the Ho Chi Minh Trail, by the North Vietnamese government, which was supplied and funding by (at various times) China and the Soviet Union.
The Iraqi partisans have no such outside source of supply. Yet. No Islamic state will openly support the resistance. But there are a lot of sympathizers on the ground, in practically every Islamic country. It is not hard to envision some foreign Muslims sneaking into Iraq to serve as volunteer guerillas. (Indeed, during the war some Muslims snuck in to volunteer for Hussein’s army – and not, I am sure, because they had any respect for him.) And it is just possible they might establish some clandestine supply routes, via Iran or Saudi Arabia. A border that long is very hard to control, even when the terrain is desert and not jungle.
Aren’t there still 100 some odd large, unsecured weapon sites in Iraq? How long until the stashes of weapons run out?
Then we’re left with a palestinian type of resistance but with more opportunities for assistance than the P have.
One other thing the Iraq war/occupation has in common with Vietnam (and with WWII, and the Civil War, but not many other American conflicts): We can expect that Hollywood will be mining it for decades!
Prospects do not look good for the USA.
The American government can blame whoever it wants but the fact is that it cannot keep order in Iraq which is making reconstruction impossible. It is failing in its primary responsibility to Iraq and to the world.
Guys do remember that Iraq has a huge army compared to its population… and people have lots of ammo and weapons stashed away…
To think the US just needs to sit tight and hope their ammo runs out before the US runs out of patience isn’t my idea of a feasible plan.
Bremer is under orders now to expedite the “transfer of power” to the “Iraqi people” which I take it tio mean “Iraqi people who are friendly to the USA because we put them in place”. I do not thjink this “Vietnamization” is going to achieve much of anything. The Iraqis want to kill Americans so the Americans will leave and then the Iraqis can go on to killing each other. I am afraid Iraq has been destabilized and will remain destabilized for years to come, whether the USA stays or leaves. It does not seem easy for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to get along. Partitioning the country is not an option and getting them all to get along is going to be damn near impossible. The USA has taken on an impossible task.
Why do you think partitioning is not an option? In effect, that’s already in place, and possibly inevitably - the Kurds have been running their piece of Iraq themselves for a number of years now, the Shiites in the South have their own sense of identity and aren’t going to be easily convinced to be ruled by Baghdad again anyway. It was always a patchwork country without a real sense of national unity; how is that going to be imposed?
I’m also starting to wonder if this erstwhile unrealistic option might now be back on the chalkboard. I just can’t see how the US maintains control of the oil – as it must – and regains control of the streets without doing something radical.
Strategically speaking (on behalf of the US), if you parcel Iraq up a little, maybe they’ll fight amongst themselves more, in terms of internal feuding and against each other . . . the US has just got to ease the pressure on its forces. Doesn’t have to be much more than distinct ‘Administrative Regions’ for now . . . I guess its classically ‘divide and conquer’ stuff and I doubt they’d fall for it, but . . .
Just looking quite desperate from the administration pov, and the clock is moving fast . . . all I can see at the moment is a drowning man
>> Why do you think partitioning is not an option?
Partition means all hell breaks loose in the region. The same day an independent Iraqi-Kurdish state is procalimed, Turkey invades it. there is no way in hell Turkey is going to allow an independent Kurdish state. A few hours later you have Iran participating in the south under color of protecting the shiite minority. Other countries in the region then come to the aid of whatever faction they favor. And you have the hughest mess you can imagine.
It is not going to happen. If there is one thing the USA is committed to (at least for now) is to keep Iraq as a single country.
Um, wouldn’t at the very least Turkey object…to put it mildly…having an independant Kurdish area? I’d think that when/if such a partition happened, you’d have Turkish troops pouring in…and god knows what would happen after that.
I don’t see partitioning happening to be honest. Too many complications. If you ever tried, the troubles we are having now would look like a dance party in comparison to what the Iraqis would do.
-XT
Try a few and show us, then. There are a number of detailed similarities already in this thread. Can you show a better comparison with another “randomly selected” war, as you assert?
In fairness, there’s a pretty good historical comparison with the US occupation/subjugation of the Philippines as well.
As to the partitioning discussion, I was trying to point out that it’s the de facto situation already, and has been for some time. Consider that before dismissing its formalization.
Further, look at Yugoslavia - one can argue that simply separating the ethnic groups is what really ended the killings there. Partitioning India in 1948 also arguably stopped more killings than it created. (Certainly that’s debatable) If there’s a real fear that an Iraqi civil insurrection or outright war might break out if control were simply handed over to a feckless “central” authority, shouldn’t partitioning, with some serious international protection guarantees that might include UN-patrolled buffer zones as in so many other locations, at least be considered as the least bloody way ahead?
“…the clock is moving fast . . . all I can see at the moment is a drowning man.”
" It was always a patchwork country without a real sense of national unity."
" It (the US) is failing in its primary responsibility to Iraq and to the world."
Oh my, you boys seem to have forgotten that your armchair constructions of future events becomes a mere parlour game when elsewhere real men play out real events. Two things…
-
The Iraqi people are not stupid. They have tasted freedom and found it good.
-
George W Bush is a man of great resolve.
__>>>RESOLVE <<<
That’s it! That’s what Iraq and Vietnam have in common. In the Vietnam War the people of the United States sacrificed 54,000 of her most worthwhile people to keep Communist aggression at bay. But to demostrate the same amount resolve against terrorism in Iraq would require an occupation of Iraq for a hundred years. Not to worry, the success of our mission in Iraq will be manifested by next spring.
** ________ May God Bless Our Troops_____**