In an effort to fight ignorance, I need to point out that this is incorrect. The US supported him in the Iran/Iraq war, but we did not “put Saddam in power”.
Thanks, John, I retract that statement.
You are right about one thing. It is a terrible comparison. The Palisinian terrorists directly threaten the nation of Israel. The Iraqi insurgents don’t directly threaten the US. They only act against other Iraqis, the Shiites, and once a day or so against US troops who are several thousand miles away from the US.
You persist in looking for an equivalent of Ho Chi Minh. You ask, where is the chasrismatic leader? Well, I don’t know but there has to be something important that leads people to blow themselves up just to take some Shiites or a couple of US Marines with them.
Once again. The parallels are not in how the war is fought. It is not about desert vs. jungle. Those are trivialities. It is about the US governmental dissembling by saying repeatedly that the Iraqis are gaining but they aren’t quite ready yet. I hope they are ready sometime but the Sunnis are a large fraction of the Iraq population and I don’t see how their opposition to the puppet government and those who work in it and to the presence of US forces in their country can be put down by force and held down indefinitely.
In that I see some parallels to our experience in Vietnam in trying to suppress and indigenous opposition group that had considerable in-country support and a large mass of the population who just wished to hell everyone would go away and let them make a living.
Not at all…just explain where exactly we are on the ‘its like Vietnam’ timeline. Are we in the early days of the war? Well, then I’d say there is about the same level of protest, but there is more awareness and skepticism toward this administration and this war. There is also more connectedness to this war and more of a sense by my fellow citizens that this war is vital to the US. Also, my guess is more of my fellow citizens can find Iraq on a map than could find Vietnam on a map in the early 60’s.
Hey, you are the one making the comparison. As I said, I’m not seeing it. Edumacate me…how does the recent elections in Iraq compare to the elections in South Vietnam? Do you see that the lack of a Ba’ath party candidate compares to the lack of, well, say a communist party candidate? If so, I’ll CONCEDE that this could be an apt comparison. How this makes Iraq=Vietnam except (as I’ve already said) from a superficial perspective you’ll have to flesh out.
BTW, thanks for the english lesson. You can not in that same post I spelled ‘concede’ correctly 2 out of 3 times, and for me thats pretty good, but I appreciate the correction.
I suppose our definition of ‘huge outcry’ is different then. In a country of 250+ million, a few hundred thousand (or even a million or two) don’t constitute a ‘huge outcry’ IMO. YMMV. Guess I’m living in some kind of hole…
Um…do you have a cite that we attempted to invade North Vietnam? Forget about the bombs dropped, gods know where you got that I was disagreeing with that…but when did we try and invade exactly? What was the size of the invasion army? How far into North Vietnam did we penetrate? How many divisions, how much armor, etc? What was the OOB for this invasion force?
As to the country being better off or not…well, time will tell on that. I’m unsure whether it is or not…but I’m also unsure how this plays into the Iraq=Vietnam thing either.
As to the Bush et al is evil thing…well, ok. But how does that play in? Was Johnson ‘evil’ too, and lining his pockets to get his war in Vietnam? Was his VP ‘evil’?
-XT
I think its unfair to attribute to Saddam’s rise to the US but I will note that the CIA have often been suspected of being involved in both the 1963 and 1968 coups in Iraq that brought the Baath to power. Saddam was No 2 to the man that came to power in 1968. Roger Morris, a former NSC staffer claims Saddam was being paid by the CIA in the 1960s. See here for instance or google “CIA Iraq coup”
Um…I think you are both wrong (i.e. about whether Palestinians actually threaten the nation of Isreal in any real, meaningful sense…can you expand on that?) and about what I was getting at with my analogy. I wasn’t comparing Israel/Palestine to US/Iraq (or US/Vietnam for that matter), but comparing the LEVEL of the Iraqi insurgency to the LEVEL of the Palestinian insurgency (or whatever it is). They are quite comparable, and they use very similar tactics. Go back and re-read what I wrote and if its still confusing and you are interested I’ll try and make what I was getting at clearer.
Well, I’m looking for some hard comparisons. I mean, if this conflict is getting more and more like Vietnam, where are the parallels? Afaik, good ole Unca Ho was the leader and visionary long before the US was dragged into our pals the French’s mess. Where is the comparable leader and visionary for Iraq? Perhaps they don’t need a leader…but thats not exactly the model of most rebellions, and certainly not the model in Vietnam, which you claim this is becoming more and more like. Now…if you wanted to compare Iraq to Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded…THAT may be an apt comparison, especially from a ‘no big charismatic leader’ perspective (though there WERE some prominent leaders even there).
Well, ok. So, the US government dissembled in Vietnam and in Iraq. The US also did the same thing in WWII and WWI. Well, ok, and in Korea too. In fact, I remember some dissembling in the war of 1812 as well. Is Iraq like any of those? Seems so if thats the level we are getting too.
Again, do you have any hard comparisons that aren’t indicative of ANY conflict, and especially any conflict the US was involved in?
Are you making a claim here that the Iraqi insurgency has the same level of support from the ‘indigenous opposition group’ in North Vietnam…or South? Can you support that, or is that just speculation on your part. Afaict the Iraqi insurgency doesn’t come close to the level of backing of the re-unification of the North Vietnamese people.
If you are talking about the South, perhaps some cites for how much projected support there was in the South for re-unification compared to how much support there is (again, projected) for the Iraqi populace as a whole for the current insurgency. Maybe you are on to something here…at least it could be a hard comparison.
-XT
All perfectly fair points. Mine was that the Iraqi conflict is a hell of a lot bloodier than N. Ireland ever was, and Northern Ireland was no walk in the park for anyone involved.
Ah yes, of course.
So, do you stick Kurdish soldiers in future Kurdistan, Sunni soldiers in the Sunni Triangle, and Shi’ia in Shi’ia areas? Because I think it’s clear what would happen.
Or are you going to mix them up, in which case all you’re doing is sticking non-Americans out there for target practice?
-Joe
Well, now that you ask, what’s worrying me at the moment is that the more Shia the (reasonably democratic) government of Iraq becomes, the more America becomes associated with one side of sectarian argument. The more Sunni the insurgency becomes, the less impartial we are compelled to be.
How difficult would it be for someone to finger a Sunni opposition leader as an insurgent? Being as we know diddly-squat about the people we’re dealing with, how could we possibly know the difference?
No, they don’t threaten the existience of Israel but they kill Israeli men, women and children within Israel but Israel can’t fold its tent and leave. The Iraqis don’t kill US men, women and children within the US and we can fold our tent and leave Iraq. The two situations, Palastinian terrorists and Iraq insurgents, or terrorists if you will, are entirely different.
While we are rereading posts you might try focussing in on the comparison I made. It was that in Vietnam we kept saying “It’s up to them but they aren’t quite ready yet.” and that is the same thing that is being said about Iraq. Let’s forget that there isn’t any Iraqi Ho Chi Minh that you can identify. There is at least an idea that seems to be pretty powerful to them whether or not you can see and understand it.
Agreed. Yet I keep coming back to the fact that our government with regard to Iraq is using the same words to make a case for the same need for our continued presence there as was the case with Vietnam. Sure, it’s only been two years so far. Well, at one time it was only two years in Vietnam too.
Oops (May 30,2005)
Oh yes. And I forget to mention that if you don’t agree with me that’s permitted. It’s legal, moral and is all a part of God’s wonderful plan.
And where are the rice paddies, and the oxcarts? Look, you are obsessed with the minutiae of the Vietnam experience, while ignoring that the U.S. is once again stuck in an unpopular war a half a world away with no exit strategy. Here’s a good one; the parallel between the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident that sparked the US entry into Vietnam, and the phony “weapons of mass destruction”. Ring any bells yet? Bush even has a bizarro “domino theory” about how democracy will spread throughout the Middle East, if only we win in Iraq. How about “destroy the village to save it” strategy in Fallujah and elsewhere? Iraqification? Bewildered soldiers who cannot tell who is friendly and who to shoot? A second term president with plunging approval ratings?
An’ it’s one, two, three, what are we fightin’ for…
…besides that.
I mean, really, if you can’t come up with one cogent paradigm…
-Joe, has word-a-day toilet paper
While I agree with the thrust of your post, I will just point out that that quote was probably made up by a journalist Peter Arnett, and was never uttered by a US official in Vietnam (though probably unofficially guided many of their actions)
Obviously you didn’t go back and re-read what I wrote…shame really, as you seem to be argueing about something I didn’t say. So, let me make sure you are disagreeing with what you think you are disagreeing with. Are you seriously saying that the METHODS used by the Palestinians are different than the METHODS used by the Iraqi insurgents? Because that was what my analogy was pointing at. If you are saying that the methods used to continue their struggle is markedly different, could you point out some of those differences?
Yes, I addressed this issue in a previous post. If you want to contend that Iraq is starting to look a lot like Vietnam and this is the reason, ok. Thats fine by me. If you want to contend that Iraq looks a lot like Vietnam even without a highly visible and identifyable leader, ok. We’ll just have to continue to disagree…as I said, I’m not seeing the comparaisons unless you want to squint through one eye, stand on your foot and rub you belly at the same time. I see many other conflicts that are better comparisons…why are they never used. I wonders…
Probably because of the way a democracy works. You have to convince the people to keep fighting other wise they do what democracies (especially in the US) want to do…go home and make money. Thats why similar propaganda has been used in every conflict I can think of involving the US…we got to stay the course, the end is in sight, we will be victorious, blah blah blah. You can’t TELL folks in the US that we are going to war…suck it up and just take it. You have to convince them that deep down they really want to be there, that its for the good of the nations, etc etc. In the case of Vietnam the words, in the end, rang hollowly for various reasons it would take a ‘why did we lose in Vietnam?’ thread to address. In the end though we pulled out and then left the South Vietnamese high and dry to face the music on their own. In Iraq the jury is still out on it. I don’t see the conflict as progressing the same way…I don’t see the outside forces in a similar configuration…I don’t see this insurgency having the long term determination that the North Vietnamese had. But its early days…and it certainly COULD go the way you envision. If it does I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong, and there really was a good comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. Gods forbid I’m wrong and you are right.
Horseshit. I’m looking at the key things that made Vietnam Vietnam. I haven’t sais anything about ‘well Vietnam was a jungle and Iraq is a desert!’. Another poster attempted to put those words in my mouth. I’ve talked about key things like outside superpower aid from the Soviets and Chinese (where is such help in Iraq?), the fact that North Vietnam was a soveriegn nation of its own (where is the comparison for the Iraqis?), the fact that (misguided as I think it was) the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong insurgents had a vision and a goal and purpose (where is the conherence in the Iraqi insurgency? Where is the goals and visions??) and they had a prominent and charasmatic leader (where is the equivenent in Iraq?). These aren’t minor nitpicks…they are the core of what made Vietnam what it was. The rest of what I’ve seen in these threads ARE the trivial bullshit or parallels that are apt in ANY conflict that the US (or any other nations) who is involved in an insurgency have.
Pretty weak if you ask me. Sorry, but I don’t see much similarities between the Guld of Tonkin incident and the WMD debate except they were both used as excuses to get us into the war. Have you considered that similar excuses have been used in every war the US has gotten into when it wasn’t directly attacked? Consider sometime some of the ‘reasons’ given that got us into WWI or the war of 1812.
The idea was to contain communism, where as the idea is to destroy terrorism in the WoT rhetoric…no? Seems pretty different to me. The idea for the domino theory, afaik was never to spread democracy throughout the world and that this would somehow defeat communism…certainly it wasn’t to attack communism directly and force it to democracy. Again…if I squint just right and stand on my head I can see the comparison…sort of. But its pretty weak. And it doesn’t make Vietnam=Iraq…unless Korea=Iraq too, since we were fighting for purportedly the same reasons (to contain communism).
Yeah…and we used a similar strategy in Japan during WWII. Atomic bombs…ring any bells (to put it in your own terms)? Does Iraq=WWII? How about the Civil War…Shermans march to the sea? Destroy the Confederacy to save the Union?
Can you expand on this? How close was the South Vietnamese model to what is being attempted in Iraq today? Seems to me we are letting the Iraqi’s do what they want as far as the government they are building, within some fairly reasonable constraints. How does that differ from what happened in South Vietnam?
Describes roughly every insurgency thats ever taken place in the history of man kind. Why Vietnam specifically? Why not Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion? How about the Boer War (or several other examples from the UK’s colonial history)?
Um…Johnson didn’t run for a second term. And Nixon won by a landslide with his whole secret way to win the war…his approval plunged because of Watergate, not Vietnam.
-XT