A couple of things. First, there were also 5 times as many Americans acting as targets in Vietnam as in Iraq and the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese weren’t targeting the civiliam population. The Iraqis are doing so more than targeting US forces. Second, US armed forces personnel were and being killed in both places. That’s sort of a similarity.
And speaking of the scale of things. If there were 555000 US troops in Iraq the 1600 killed in two years could be more like 8000. That’s 2000/year and for 15 years adds up to 60000. A meaningless calculation exercise but so is arguing that Iraq is nothing like Vietnam because fewer US troops have been killed.
The point isn’t that Iraq is precisely like Vietnam. No two events are ever exactly alike. However, the same sort of bafflegab is being used now as was used then.
…and the daily casualties in the Korean War exceeded the casualties during the Vietnam war, and World War II exceeded the Korean War. Nobody is arguing that.
What folks are concerned about is whether we’re in a quagmire with no/little hope of full victory, which is most easily represented in American conciousness in the experience of Vietnam. Certainly you’re not arguing, Walloon, that the number of American casualties relates inversely to our chances for victory?
I don’t see your point though. Northern Ireland has a population of something like 1.5 million. only a very small %age of them being involved in the troubles. The IRA only had active member numbered in the hundreds for a lot of the struggles. Even with these small numbers they couldn’t be stopped.
Anyway my point was to show that even with advantages like proximity, language, support and cultural and a hard-line aggressive policy against the terrorists and their supporters. Internment, shoot to kill policies etc. and still they couldn’t keep the IRA down.
Iraq is different but also doesn’t have a lot of the advantages the Brits had in NI.
Iraq is nothing like Vietnam because Iraq is mostly desert and Vietnam is mostly jungle. Duh. The Iraqi Army is nothing like the South Vietnamese Army because, well, the ARVN existed. The losses can’t be compared because in Vietnam there were some set-piece battles between the US and the NVA with massive losses on both sides while in Iraq we’re being nickel and dimed with suicide attacks, mortars, RPGs, and crappy little firefights like with the Vietcong. But not JUST like with the Vietcong because of that jungle/desert thing and besides the Iraqis probably don’t speak Vietnamese.
“We were waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool said to push on.”
So how does it relate? I don’t quite understand how the number of casualties relates to whether or not we are achieving our objectives or not. The number of deaths may be lower than in previous conflicts, but we rarely hear about the number of personnel that have been seriously wounded and injured (not to mention the number of personnel who will be returning with PTSD and other psychological disorders). I’d like to see a breakdown of the number of deaths/wounded as a percentage of the total number of personnel who have been subjected to actual combat/insurgent attacks versus other conflicts.
I’d really like to see someone explain to me what our objectives are in Iraq, and what would constitute the successful achievement of those objectives. I agree with David Simmons, the rhetoric is sounding an awful lot like Vietnam.
I think the final similarity will be the inconsequence.
Viet Nam was taken over by our enemies, and resumed trying to struggle towards third world status. It might very well have been the first time since Godknowswhen that Viet Nam was more or less at peace. Some of the Viet Cong were hiding in tunnels their grandparents dug to fight the French, the Japanese, etc.
And having lost, we lost…what? Not much of anything, really, the dominoes that fell fell in the woods where no one heard nor cared. A “Communist” regime is in place in Viet Nam, and they make socialist sneakers. Whoop-de-fuck-a-doo.
There will be some form of governance in Iraq, the oil will flow because…well, because its there, isn’t it? And armed men will be deployed to ensure that the flow is unhindered. Someone will rule, my guess is a Shia strongman with enough lip service paid to Islamic law to satisfy those he cannot silence. Whatever form this governance takes, we will declare such an unparalleled success, mission accomplished and he’s so much better than Saddam.
Net result after a gazillion bucks and God alone knows how many innocent lives: D for diddly squat.
I won’t claim to have a definite answer, but there are many things that look quite bad. First of all, the US doesn’t seem to be managing too well and that likely won’t change for the next 3.5 years at least. AFAIK the Iraqi economy doesn’t seem to be going anywhere fast. This is necessary for people to buy into the government and for them to be able to support a military conflict.
So long as the insurgency has the support of a decent percentage of the population, I don’t see them going away. Their most effective tactics are really not that expensive (home made bombs and clandestine executions). From what I know of the US’s heavy handed tactics, they seem to be inspiring new recruits all the time.
I think the underlying implication is probably that we have little hope at this point which is something worth debating. But yeah, I don’t think that there’s that much mileage to get out of the comparison, except maybe in analyzing the administration’s spin on the conflict.
Where does this quote come from? I’ve heard a song in french with this sentence (well…the french equivalent), and I’ve always been pretty certain it was a french version of an american song.
Not that I am a great lover o this particular song, but I’d like to know where this singer found his sources…
It was written in 1963 by Pete Seeger about WWII, but it gain prominence in 1967 when the Smother Brothers show was cancelled because CBS wouldn’t let Seeger perform the song, which was perceived as anti-war and critical of LBJ.
Recently, the Guardian did several peices on the thirtieth anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the end of the war in Vietnam. The interactive guide was especially interesting to me, especially the 1955 marker:
The next marker goes on to say that in preparation for the election, communists, socialists, journalists, trade unionists and religious leaders were arrested.
We assisted in installing and maintaining a government which more closely reflected American values, even though the majority of the populace did not want a democracy. Was, in fact, prepared to vote for a communist government. How is this not parallel?
Popular opinion in the States is that we should not commit our forces to a war that may not be winnable for next to no return. A huge outcry was made when large numbers of civillians were killed on more than one occasion. The excuse was made that these civillians were supporting the Viet-Cong, although little proof of this was ever brought to light. (That is not to say I don’t believe they weren’t, just that there wasn’t a lot of proof that such was the case.) During the Tet offensive, huge numbers of Viet Cong forces were destroyed with relatively small numbers of American losses. We leave South Vietnam. Simply walk away. And North Vietnam invades, abosrbing South Vietnam and continuing with what would have happened had we not spent those years there in the first place. We accomplished nothing that would not have been accomplished had we simply allowed it to happen. So…you still can’t see any parallels?
I would hope, although I’m just not that optimistic, that we will not walk away. That we will be able to help clean up the mess we’ve made. But we are there with no plan for extricating ourselves, and it’s only getting worse.
As a purely personal observation; I would say that I have noticed that of the people who say “there are no parallels between Vietnam and Iraq” were not alive when the former went down. The feeling in this country is as divided now as it was then. The rift was huge. And it took decades to heal.
I was alive during Vietnam (teen ager at the time)…and I still fail to see the parallels. My dad fought in the war…and he says he doesn’t see anything remotely similar combat wise. I also don’t see the parallels between the feelings in the country then and now…unless we are still around 1965 (or before) on the parallel time line.
Ok, assuming this is true and the South Vietnamese government in fact did this, I suppose there could be a parallel as Saddam obviously did similar things. However, if you are comparing it to whats going on in Iraq NOW I’m not seeing the parallel…unless you are claiming the recent elections had ‘communists (Ba’athists?), socialists, journalists, trade unionists and religious leaders’ arrested? If not…where exactly is the parallel here?
Ok, I conceed…that is indeed (somewhat) of a parallel. In theory the South Vietnamese would have voted to become communist, and certainly in Saddams version of ‘democracy’ he always won 100% of the vote. Again though, if you are talking about the recent election, I’m not seeing the parallels here either. WE didn’t force the Iraqi’s to adopt a government that reflects US values…we let THEM elect whatever they wanted (within some initial constraints I conceed). Doesn’t seem a very close parallel to me.
Are you sure YOU were alive during the Vietnam war? This is more an attitude in the late 60’s…not in the early days. I don’t recall ‘popular opinion’ in the states being that the war WAS unwinnable, so it wasn’t really a debate…least not till the late '60’s. Even THEN it was debatable, and I think making a claim it was ‘popular’, if you mean majority opinion, is tenuous until we are in the 70’s at least. I don’t want to refight the Vietnam debate here though…so again, I’ll ask, where is the parallel? Today I’ve still seen no ‘huge outcry’ against the Iraq war. Certainly there is protest, but it seems pretty muted to me…even compared to what I remember as a kid in the mid-60’s.
Yes…but when is ‘Tet’ supposed to have happened (or will it happen in the future) in Iraq? When is the Iraqi resistance going to do something remotely resembling Tet…or any other set piece or even battalion level operations? So far the only ‘offensives’ we’ve seen have all been by the Americans/allies. Well, unless you count the actual invasion…and I REALLY don’t see much parallel between that and Vietnam. Either that or I missed the whole ‘we invaded North Vietnam’ part.
Um…no. We haven’t left Iraq yet. Perhaps if we do I’ll come back to this thread or ones like it and say something like ‘ok…NOW I see some parallels between Iraq and Vietnam’. Unless you have a magic time machine hidden somewhere I don’t see how you can see a parallel to an event that hasn’t happened yet. And if you DO have a magic time machine, what the hell are the lotto numbers going to hit this week in New Mexico? There is like $210 million riding on it if the bill boards are still right! Come on…hook a 'mano up!
Oh, I agree completely. However, again, where are the parallels between the civil war (or war of re-unification) between North and South Vietnam (which we certainly jumped in the middle of) and what’s happening in Iraq? Where is the charismatic insurgent leader in Iraq leading the Iraqi people with his vision of the future (whatever that vision is)? For that matter, where was the civil war before the US jumped in? It certainly existed between North and South Vietnam if one considers the partitioning of Vietnam into a North and a South and the desire by one half to re-unify through force of arms a ‘civil war’…where is the parallel in Iraq?
Sure, I agree. However let me pose this question in another way. Its not a very good analogy (but at least as good as the Iraq=Vietnam thing) but: Do you suppose that the tactics used by Palestine terrorists will eventually bring down Israel? Are they going to seriously affect Israel’s industry or seriously damage the nation’s ability to continue? Or are those attacks simply going to continue to kill civilians and basically just keep the hatred simmering along nicely? Would there be an independant Palestine without outside pressure on Israel to allow one…or could the Palestinians, through continued attacks very similar to what the Iraqi resistance seems capable of, eventually secure their homeland without such outside aid?
My answer to that is the same as for the Iraqi resistance. Without modern high tech weapons and an influx of money the Iraqi resistance can certainly carry on for years to come…but they can only carry on in the back ground. And their ability to carry on at even the levels we’ve seen over the past 2 years is going to decline (IMHO) as the stockpiles of weapons and ammunition dwindles, are discovered or destroyed. Its going to be damn hard to bring in additional weapons and ammo as Iraq tightens its borders (which it eventually will). All the will to fight in the world (and I give full credit to the Iraqi insurgents in this regard, misguided as I think it ultimately is) will not bring down Iraq without outside assistance…unless the US bolts in the fairly near future.
Every year that goes by, and every election that happens in Iraq will strengthen the government there, will allow them time to build back up their armed forces…and will further weaken the insurgency. Oh, I have no doubt that car bombs will continue to bloom in Iraq for years to come…but then, the Palestinians have been doing that for years too and I don’t see them taking over Israel or even securing their own ‘homeland’…not without outside pressure. Without outside pressure (even by the US) Israel would NEVER be forced to concede an independent Palestine…they could simply continue to settle and soak up the occasional suicide bomber.
So…you want to limit this specifically to the 70’s, right when we left South Vietnam?
Burning draft cards. Burning flags. Kent State. The DNC. Berkeley. And on and on.
WE are the ones that put Saddam in power in the first place. Remember that? Not to mention the fact that, as you said, there were a great many restrictions on the recent election. And a great deal of backlash against the elected government. Assassinations, bombings.
Would any of those constraints be “no Ba’ath party on the ballot”? Was the election, in fact, pretty much steered in exactly the way the current administration wanted it to go? concede, incidentally.
No huge outcry against the Iraq war? Hundreds of thousands of people protesting all over the world? All the arrests at the RNC? Where are you living, a hole?
Actually, we did drop bombs and make attempts at invasion into North Vietnam. Didn’t work. And no, we haven’t pulled out of Iraq, yet. Nor do we have any exit strategy. As I said, I’d like to believe we’ll actually manage to accomplish something there. So far, I’m not seeing what, beyond killing a bunch of civillians and putting money in our VP’s pocket. The country doesn’t appear all that much better off.
Um…no. We haven’t left Iraq yet. Perhaps if we do I’ll come back to this thread or ones like it and say something like ‘ok…NOW I see some parallels between Iraq and Vietnam’. Unless you have a magic time machine hidden somewhere I don’t see how you can see a parallel to an event that hasn’t happened yet. And if you DO have a magic time machine, what the hell are the lotto numbers going to hit this week in New Mexico? There is like $210 million riding on it if the bill boards are still right! Come on…hook a 'mano up!
