Iraq, another Vietnam

Great Debates
1

It would appear that the Saddam party are hoping and working for a Vietnam situation where the American people would get tired and eventually convince its government to get out of Iraq, also the British government.

If there are 20% of the Iraqis who are die-hard Saddam fans, willing to kill and get killed and do everything like the Vietcongs and the North Vietnamese fighting the American military then, the Saddam party might succeed.

But the Saddam party need support from outside to continue indefinitely.

Like from Russia and China, for example, if possible, as the Vietcongs and the North Vietnamese had in their times.

Who will come to the aid of the Saddam party?

Susma Rio Sep

2

The answer to your General Question based on the available evidence is “no nation directly, perhaps Syria indirectly.”

But this is really more a GD thing. I’ll move it there.

3

There is no chance of Iraq becoming another Vietnam.

For one thing, the terrain doesn’t support it. Vietnam was full of jungles and mountains - perfect terrain for a Guerilla war. Iraq is mostly open land, with nowhere to hide. Urban combat is bloody business, but it doesn’t lend itself to a multi-year guerilla war. The Iraqis could harass the Coalition for some time, but they can’t cause enough pain and damage to cause the coalition to leave.

Technology has improved greatly. If the Vietnam war happened today, Satellite imagery would locate the heat vents from underground tunnels, and they would be bombed from the air with smart bombs.

Vietnam could have been ‘won’ by the U.S., if it hadn’t withheld much of its firepower and set up rules of engagement that made it very difficult to achieve anything. For example, the air force was not allowed to destroy supply lines coming from other countries, and for much of the war the industrial centers of North Vietnam were off-limits.

4

Iraq is more likely to become an American west bank than another Viet Nam. Given the precident we’ve set for invading countries that piss us off, I rather doubt that any nations will overtly support a continuing insurrection against the occupation. However, once Saddam is out of the way, whatever terrorist groups want to take a whack at American interests will find a convenient set of targets in the occupying force.

5

We might end up looking back on Viet Nam with fond nostalgia. Me and Sam agree on one thing: we’re gonna be in Iraq for a loooooooong time.

6

Also, and this applies to any country on the planet, but a lot of folks overlook a simple reality regarding guerilla warfare - namely, that for guerilla tactics to succeed, those guerillas must be able to recede back into the local population after a firefight - they have to be fed, and given shelter, and the local population has to be complicit in this.

Certainly, Vietnam was a classic example of this scenario because ultimately, Ho Chi Minh’s struggle was a struggle for independance against French Colonial Rule - and there was much support for this in the South too. Hence the presence of the Vietcong.

However, Iraq is a different kettle of fish. It’s a country which has descended from the “Golden Era” of the mid 1970’s into a permanent siege mentality and woeful, horrible economic mismanagement over the last 20 years. The estimates are that Saddam has poured even MORE than the Soviet Era into military buildups and military projects at the expense of civilian projects in the last 25 years - over 30% per annum of GDP. Consider that the USA spends only 4% per annum and you’ve got an idea how genuinely reckless Saddam was/is in terms of quality leadership. And all to waste - it’s all being destroyed as we speak.

Iraq is now a country fill with institutions designed to uphold the “Cult of Worship” revolving around just one man - hence the statues and murals everywhere.

There’s enough evidence to argue that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi’s - at the very least - wish to return to the “Golden Era” of the 70’s - and any vestiges of the regime that catapulted them into the darkness from 1982 onwards is silently condemned now - ergo - the de facto permission by the population to allow a “guerrilla war” to fester is most likely not there. What happens then is that the locals will simply start “notifying” Coalition forces of Fedayeen hideouts etc and the syndrome will die out.

Most importantly, the “Cult of Personality” that totalitarian states like to implement is one which is easily undermined by Coalition Forces commandeering local TV and radio - a different message can be sent and the playing table changes.

7

The worst case scenario is a lot closer to the Gaza strip.
The war will be easy, stabilizing Iraq post-Saddam is going to be verrrry interesting.

8

Its not Iraq per se that worries me. Its the destabilizing effect on places like Egypt, and especially Saudi that worries me. Our actions have virtually assured that the moderate voices will be drowned out, and the radicals will have the floor. And thats assuming that there are no heavy civilian losses.

Fearless Misleader has bet our asses on this gamble. If he’s right, we win a toaster.

9

You say that like it’s a bad thing. I don’t see it that way.

The U.S. has been in South Korea for 50 years. It’s been in Japan and Germany for 58 years. That’s the type of presence I expect to see in Iraq after, say, the next two or three years.

Having a ‘permanent’ U.S. presence in a friendly country in the Middle East could be a stabilizing influence. Especially in comparison to the alternative, which was to have a homicidal maniac like Saddam sitting in the center of the Middle East, allowing his neighbors to justify repression and poverty of their citizens because of huge military buildups.

With Saddam gone, Syria and Iran will no longer have an excuse for their huge armies. A democratic, free Iraq could have an economy that outstrips its neighbors. That in turn will put pressure on them to modernize and reduce restrictions on their own populations.

A free Iraq with a pro-U.S. population would be a powerful counterforce to the anti-American religious nuts in Iran and Saudi Arabia. If Iraq is freer, richer, and more peaceful five years from now, that’s going to be a powerful message for the Iraqi government to take to the Arab world.

A powerful U.S. military presence in the area would restrain Hezbollah and other terrorists groups - or it might wipe them out.

Now granted, things could go the other way. Iraq could devolve into warring factions. The Sunnis and Shiites might not play well together. The Kurds could demand their own state, along with the Kurds across the border in Turkey. Turkish troops in Iraq, with the U.S. looking the other way, could cause Iraqis to feel betrayed.

All of this could happen. I have hopes that the worst outcomes can be avoided, and the best outcomes encouraged. It will take some skillful diplomacy. It will take partnership with the more moderate governments, such as Jordan. But it can be done.

At least there’s hope. That’s something that has been sorely lacking in the Middle East for a long time.

10

Yeah, skillful diplomacy. That’s us for sure.

11

Winning the physical war – the shooting and bombing and fighting – will be easy. The United States has such overwhelming superiority to the Iraqi army, it’s downright embarassing to watch (which is why there are so many accusations of “bullying” behavior from the rest of the world).

Winning the emotional war – convincing the rest of the world that our motives were just, that we didn’t wage war just to grab Iraq’s oil fields and improve our geopolitical power – will be nigh impossible. Especially if (as expected) the post-war Iraqi government will be one that the United States keeps on a short leash. We’re already giving every Middle Eastern extremist more reasons to hate us, and our allies in the area are already feeling the heat from their own populace. If the US continues to stumble through the region with more ham-handed moves (What’s that? Bush wants to go fight Syria and Iran next? :eek: ), things will get really ugly really fast.

12

C’mon look at the success the Israelis had.
A couple episodes of Seinfeld, and they’ll be humming Yankee Doodle Dandy.

13

Sam, all the firepower in the world, with 2003 technology, would not have won the Vietnam War. I don’t think you’re getting the right lesson out of the Vietnam debacle.

The idea that the U.S. lost Vietnam because of a failure of arms is utterly, totally false. The U.S. armed forces outperformed the Vietnamese in every facet of warfare throughout the war. There was no lack of firepower. There was no lack of technology. The Americans mastered the terrain as well as the Vietnamese did.

The war in Vietnam was lost because, simply put, the Americans lacked a winnable objective. They were an imperialist power attempting to prop up a phony government in the face of the opposition of the vast majority of the population, who just wanted the damned foreigners to get the hell out. The only way to achieve success would have been to kill pretty much everybody in Vietnam, which of course would have been no victory at all.

Whether or not Iraq will present the same problem has absolutely squat to do with terrain, technology, or firepower. Those things are irrelevancies. What DOES matter is what the U.S. will do post-war, and how the Iraqis will react to it. IF the U.S. decides to stick around a long time and impose a non-representative government on the Iraqis that elicits violent resistance, it’s possible the experience could become a horrible quagmire.

14

Note that Rumsfeld has warned Syria to stop arming the Iraqis. US Special Forces have punished Syria, by destroying part of the Kirkuk-Banyas pipeline that was used by Iraq to export oil to Syria outside the UN’s oil-for-food program. The Americans also destroyed part of the railway link between the two countries _ both actions a clear message to Damascus that a US-dominated post-war Iraq may look unkindly on Syria. It’s not inconceivable that Bush might consider a direct attack on Syria, if he believed such a thing was necessary.

OTOH the US would never have attacked Russia in order to deter their support of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

15

Yeah, but the USSR could kick back a lot harder than Syria.

16

Sam Stone, I’m wondering if you’ve been reading Collounsbury’s thread in this forum that seems to be expecting the exact opposite of what you suggest, and seems to be based on more than speculation. While that doesn’t make him right or you wrong, I was just interested in any comment you may have on it.

17

gex, m’lad, clearly you have not read The Plan. Yes, Virginia, there is a Plan. By the heretofore unrecognized Reverse Domino Principle, our “liberation and guidance” (read: invasion and occupation) will lead to a massive realignment of Middle Eastern nations. In a veritable orgy of egalitarian joy, previoius dictators will rush to divest themselves of power and transform thier nations into shopkeepers and Starbucks entrepreneurs. Ariel Sharon, the “man of peace”, so fondly remembered for his vigorous pacification of Lebanon, will swear allegiance to co-existence with his Palestinian brothers, resolving to set aside thier petty squabbles. Islamic fundamentalism will shrivel in the sunlight of a new Dawn, brought to you by Coca-Cola and MTV. And the lamb shall lie down with the lion. Well, perhaps within the lion. Close enough.

18

I like the plan, given the alternative:

Wait for all the totalitarian regimes in the area to burn themselves out through war or military spending, or until their nations naturally devolve into chaos. Hopefully, when and if it happens, something better will arise. Makes the “Starbucks” plan sound eminently practical.

19

I said it before, but it bears saying again: arguing the present with historical analougies is silly. We might as well worry whether Iraq will be another Crusades. And there are always counter-analougies, leaving us with ridiculous dueling analougies: “but it’ll be another Munich! No, it’s be another Franco! Another Afghanistan!.”

—With Saddam gone, Syria and Iran will no longer have an excuse for their huge armies.—

Yes, I believe this is China’s rationale for its current massive disarmament: no huge threats in the region to worry about anymore! Right?

—The Americans also destroyed part of the railway link between the two countries _ both actions a clear message to Damascus that a US-dominated post-war Iraq may look unkindly on Syria. It’s not inconceivable that Bush might consider a direct attack on Syria, if he believed such a thing was necessary.—

How quickly it’s turned from "this is international law aw huh you watch out, do what we say, or we will punish you good! Iraq is ours, UN comes when we call!

—Ariel Sharon, the “man of peace”, so fondly remembered for his vigorous pacification of Lebanon, will swear allegiance to co-existence with his Palestinian brothers, resolving to set aside thier petty squabbles.—

Sharon would never allow a peace. His whole administration thrives on there being chaos and dischord: without it, he’d never stay in power.

20

gex gex: Collounsbury may well be right. That’s why I’m cautious in stating that things MAY work out this way, and that there is a POSSIBILITY for a good outcome, etc.

Collounsbury’s knowledge of the area is certainly greater than mine by a country mile. But that does not make him the oracle of wisdom, or the only source of the truth. There are plenty of experts who know more about the middle east than Collounsbury who do not agree with his very pessimistic viewpoint. Bernard Lewis, Stephen Pollack, Daniel Pipes, etc.

The future is not pre-ordained. Nor is it predictable. If it were, the very smart Arabists in the old Colonial British government wouldn’t have made such a balls-up of the Middle East.

I have hope that past patterns in the middle east do not need to propagate into the future. Fundamental differences between what’s happening now and what’s happened in the past change the equation. Plenty of people with more knowledge of the area than myself agree with that, and I’m basing my own opinion on their judgement. Certainly many others, including Collounsbury, disagree. That also affects my judgement. As a non-expert on the Middle East, all I can do is listen to as many viewpoints as possible, and form my opinions from them.