Well, the news from Baghdad ain’t good…59 people killedin a car bomb explosion. Most of the dead were Iraq police recruits.
So, the terrorists have targetted anyone who works with the US occupation force. The message is not subtle…basically hey are telling the Iraqi people: “Do not cooperate with the Americans…if you do,you willbe killed”. This is just what the Vietcong did in Vietnam. I fully expect that Alawi will be assasinated some day as he steps out of his office.
Is it time tocall it quits and just leave? In Vietnam. we had all of these signs and more…and Lyndon Johnson effectively washed his hands of he whole thing by 1968…only we held on for another 5 years, which resulted in another 30,000 deaths.
At what point do we decide that this ian’t working? 
Iraq is Vietnam with body armor.
Time to bring the troops home.
October surprise?
Oh, and…
Check out This land Is Your land while you still can!
No, comparisons to Vietnam are simplistic at best. The terrain, political situation, mission, it’s all much different. In fact, the only similarity is that there are guarillas. You mind as well compare Iraq the the American revolution. There’s about as much similarity to Vietnam.
There are many differences between Iraq and Vietnam, without a doubt. To name one, there’s no draft. But the biggest similarity is that Iraq cannot be won on the battlefield. General Myers and Condi Rice have both clearly stated that the only solution to the violence in Iraq is a political one.
That’s a bad, bad sign.
I’ve heard David Halberstam say that their are similarities between Vietnam and Iraq, as well as differences. Going into Iraq has most likely helped al Qaeda with recruiting. He said that’s an important difference; in Vietnam, they just wanted us to leave, they weren’t going to chase us home. In Iraq a situation exists where the terrorists will follow us home, or at least try to follow us home. For that reason, as bad of an idea as it was in the first place, it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to “cut and run.”
Vietnam 1968 was a quagmire. Iraq is a mirage.
In Vietnam, we had a clear objective – to keep the Communists from taking over S. Vietnam. We were stuck in the mud in acheiving that, but the objectifve actually existed.
In Iraq, the idea of a free peace-loving Iraq is simply a figment of our imagination, like an imaginery image we think we see on the horizon. The faster we chase it, the faster it moves away from us.
I think the political aspects in the US resemble Vietnam… not so much the military aspects.
Tonkin Gulf and Iraq War had ample Senate support. War as a means of defusing opposition. Also War as a means of increasing defense spending.
Both Wars seem to be unwinnable militarily and yet both times a military victory is still the main focus. Both times its a political liability to withdraw and its a political liability not to win. Tends to progressively increase the conflict.
Powell of all people should know that in both wars there wasn't a clear goal or plan by the civilian command, plus military casualties seem to be not so relevant once more. Once again hearts and minds are being lost instead of won.
Militarily speaking its once more small arms and ambush vs. military might. Urban instead of jungle though. The presence of troops itself a source of insatisfaction too.
At the beggining it wasn't so similar to Vietnam... I think its quickly becoming so.I think at this point we would settle for “stable”.
There are differences however the one similarity and probably the most important one is the lack of a clear exit strategy. Lacking a strategy, such wars quickly turn into a war of attrition which is an unwinnable strategy against insurgents.
As other posters have mentioned, there are huge differences. Still, I’d be hard pressed to come up with a war that was more like Iraq then the Vietnam conflict, so I think that looking back on Vietnam is a good place to at least go for some idea of what might happen in Iraq.
Some more similarities:
Similar to Vietnam, we’re not trying to conquer but to support a gov’t we’ve created with the eventual goal of handing the war off to them (also similar is the quality of the troops we’re trying to hand the war off to)
We've justified the war as part of a larger geopolitical stuggle against "evil" (communists, terrorists).
The specific justifications for the war (WMD, Gulf of Tonkin) were later found to be extremely questionable.
Never fight a land war in asia
I imagine Kerry, seeing these similarities, sometimes wakes from horrible dreams that in another two years, as president, he’ll be confronted by large numbers of protesters demanding he pull out of Iraq, despite his efforts to stay the course. Their spokesperson will be a young, wellspoken, disillusioned veteran recently returned from the war. In his dream, I imagine he looks in the mirror, only to see Nixon’s face staring back at him. I bet Thresa wishes he wouldn’t keep waking her up with that horrible screaming.
Hehe !! Great Stuff !!
A better parallel is probably Algeria.
(The film “The Battle for Algiers”, while never intended to be even-handed, gives much pause for thought if seen today, as others have pointed out:-
Including some within the Pentagon
Here’re some thoughts from the good folks at the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute:
**IRAQ AND VIETNAM: DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES, AND INSIGHTS**
Jeffrey Record
W. Andrew Terrill
May 2004
Dr. Jeffrey Record, formerly a civilian pacification advisor in Vietnam and author of books on both the Vietnam and Iraq wars, and W. Andrew Terrill, author and co-author of several SSI studies on Iraq, conclude that the military dimensions of the two conflicts bear little comparison. Among other things, the sheer scale of the Vietnam War in terms of forces committed and losses incurred dwarfs that of the Iraq War. They also conclude, however, that failed U.S. state-building in Vietnam and the impact of declining domestic political support for U.S. war aims in Vietnam are issues pertinent to current U.S. policy in Iraq.
Unfolding events in Iraq have prompted some observers to make analogies to the American experience in the Vietnam War. The United States has, they argue, stumbled into another overseas “quagmire” from which there is no easy or cheap exit.
There is simply no comparison between the strategic environment, the scale of military operations, the scale of losses incurred, the quality of enemy resistance, the role of enemy allies, and the duration of combat.
Such an emphatic judgment, however, may not apply to at least two aspects of the political dimensions of the Iraq and Vietnam wars: attempts at state-building in an alien culture, and sustaining domestic political support in a protracted war against an irregular enemy. It is, of course, far too early predict whether the United States will accomplish its policy objectives in Iraq and whether public support will “stay the course” on Iraq. But policymakers should be mindful of the reasons for U.S. failure to create a politically legitimate and militarily viable state in South Vietnam, as well as for the Johnson and Nixon administrations’ failure to sustain sufficient domestic political support for the accomplishment of U.S. political objectives in Indochina. Repetition of those failures in Iraq could have disastrous consequences for U.S. foreign policy.
A little from column A a little from column B.
OK, so Iraq is Algeria with pork, extra oil, a side order of ethnic tensions and supersized hyperbole to wash it all down.
Likely to bring you heartburn and a hangover. Plus possible cardiac arrest when the waiter brings the bill. And guaranteed to make anybody who watches the spectacle to closely sick to the stomach!
If Lyndon Johnson had come to his senses in 1968, the US would have gotten out of Vietnam, and daved tens of thousands of lives. So what is wrong about admitting we made a mistake, and leave Iraq to the Iraqis?
And all this talk about Iran…yes, I don’t like the Mullahs of Tehran…but they are NOT stupid! Why on earth would they risk a war with the USA? Let’s face it, Iran has a very young population that is sick and tired of theocratic rule by Mullahs. In fact, the Iranian students have rioted several times and demanded a secular, democratic governemnet. Plus, the idea that Iran couldmake long range nuclear missiles is a bit of a stretch-they very best that the Iraqis could do was to add a second stage on to old Soviet scud missiles.
Yes, Iran (as it is presently governed) is a hostile nation…but I don’t believe that the Iranians are so foolish as to start a war (which wouldvery likely end in their overthrow).
Quick comments:
Battle for Algiers - The film was made to be even handed
Iranians - have lately become tired of the inertia of the reforms. I wouldn’t count on them reforming themselves. I do agree its unlikely Iran would go to war… but then they don’t need to go to war. Iraq is a mess and they will likely have a strong sway over anyone that takes over.
Simon-X - Iraq may be different in scale… but that isn’t an argument by itself. The conflicts could be very similar but different only in size/scale. Nice info though. I want to debate this part:
" But policymakers should be mindful of the reasons for U.S. failure to create a politically legitimate and militarily viable state in South Vietnam"
What were the reasons for that US failure to create ?
I have a hard time seeing Kerry approving the secret bombing of Syria or Iran.
Bush, on the other hand…
Short answer is no…Iraq doesn’t equal Vietnam at all, except in certain tangential or superficial ways that ANY war would be similar to Iraq (from the military side). Casualties, scale of operations, even the type of insurgency and how the insurgency is supplied and maintained are completely different. There are a few points on the POLITICAL side though that ARE similar, and I think SimonX has nailed them pretty well. I especially found this insightful from his cite:
Especially telling is the 'impact of declining domestic political support for U.S. war aims in Vietnam are issues pertinent to current U.S. policy in Iraq."…I think thats EXACTLY were we are now, or at least on the beginning of the path. Its one of several reasons in fact that I don’t think the Iraqi war was a smart move by the US…because in a long term occupation with a constant drain of men and materials, the US political climate isn’t well suited…i.e. we have the attention span of nats and perserverance in the face of this kind of adverserary of wet noodles.
Leave Iraq? Might as well cut our own throats if we do that at this point from an international political perspective (who would trust us in future if we invade a nation, destroy its government and then pull out when it gets tough for us and let it go completely into the flames??)…as well as from a WOT perspective. But but…Iraq doesn’t have anything to do with AQ, right? Wrong. It does NOW unfortunately. AQ has MADE it their fight, and a US pull out would rightfully be seen as a sign of weakness…a huge neon sign. In addition it would free up AQ, who are fighting it out in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan), to go somewhere else to kill Americans. And don’t fool yourselves…a US pull out in Iraq without a stable Iraqi government in place would spark a rash of terror attacks against the US and US allies, much greater than what we’ve already seen the past 2 years.
Rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly) Bush et al has made Iraq the decisive area for our battle with AQ and Muslim Fundamentalism…and having done so Bush has probably fucked us, but not in the ways most folks on this board understand it. For the US to pull out and allow Iraq to go up in flames, and probably become yet another fundamentalist Islamic theocracy (a la Iran) would be a disaster greater even than the disaster that the Iraq war has been to this point.
-XT
To highlight this:
[INDENT]US may run out of guard and reserve troops for war on terrorism: report
WASHINGTON (AFP) Sep 15, 2004
…(GAO) said the government has considered changing the policy to make members of the 1.2 million-strong guard and reserve subject to repeated involuntary mobilization so long as no single mobilization exceeds 24 consecutive months.
“Under DOD’s current implementation of the authority, reserve component members can be involuntarily mobilized more than once, but involuntary mobilizations are limited to a cumulative total of 24 months,”
“If DOD’s implementation of the partial mobilization authority restricts the cumulative time that reserve component forces can be mobilized, then it is possible that DOD will run out of forces,” the report said.
September 11, 2003, more than 335,000 guard and reserves have been involuntarily mobilized for active duty – 234,000 from the army alone…
…Pentagon has projected it will continuously have about 100,000 to 150,000 reserve members mobilized over the next three to five years
“Under such a revised implementation, DOD could have mobilized its reserve component forces for less than 24 consecutive months, sent them home for an unspecified period and then remobilized them, repeating this cycle indefinitely and providing an essentially unlimited flow of forces,” the report said
…army national guard, for instance, has failed to meet recruiting goals in 14 of 20 months from October 2002 through May 2004…[/INDENT]
I don’t think that this is necessarily so. But the measure of any price paid is the value of what is acquired. This principle applies to both the gnat and noodle allegation. As I already go on and on about rational ignorance (the gnat part) let me address how this pertains to the noodle allegation. If the value of what was coming to the US were seen as greater, then we’d have a greater “perseverance in the face of this kind of” adversity and adversaries.
Until there’s one good ‘Aha!’ benefit and reason for the invasion (as opposed to the two dozen or so mostly minor ones on the laundry list) there won’t be a satisfying answer to ‘why our boys are dying over there.’ Without a single, simple, satisfying answer the hundreds of billions already spent (not to mention the looming 1/2 $trillion projected by the CBO for the next five years) will stay stuck in the craw of taxpayers.
I think that we’ve got a rash of attacks coming in the next 3-5 years no matter what. (Part of why I want Bush to win and why I may vote for Bush.)
I still hold out hope that there’s way to save blood, money, and face.
Worse than a crime, a blunder.
[INDENT]“The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.”[/INDENT]