Vietnam and Iraq: Unwinnable ?

[Rashak_Mani]

Xtisme are you sure your not a Bush Supporter ?

@xtisme

With the Soviets and Chinese massively supplying the North it was a no win situation (from a POLITICAL perspective) as long as the North persisted…so taking out the North in the early 60’s was the optimal solution -XT

Well the last time the USA tried to take out the northern version of a country they had their asses handed to them by the Chinese in Korea ! If they invaded Northern Vietnam the would Chinese and Russians have stood by?

The North Koreans made the huge mistake of trying to invade South Korea head on instead of doing what the North Vietnamese did against the French and later the Americans…and it turned out to be a big mistake.

Big mistake ? They almost pulled it off ! The US almost lost that one… they didn’t win but it wasn’t a “big” mistake.

Will the Iraqi’s run out of unemployed pissed off young men? Probably…though it will be some time before that happens. Once their economy picks up unemployment will drop to acceptable (for the region) levels IMO. And it won’t take a decade either…I give it another year or so…say 3 years at the outside.

Your optimistic about their economy… most aren’t. You cited the fact that many are still joining the guards or whatever… they are doing it much more for the meager salary. When NO ONE in your family gets a salary then you have to get work no matter what. See for example the US army Well anyway the insurgents are smart enough to attack the oil industry in order to keep things bad.

However you missed my point on this…what the Iraqi insurgency will run out of eventually is funds and supplies, not necessarily pissed off young men.

The problem is that so much ammo and guns were hidden away and can be contrabanded in… that I doubt they will run out of supplies. The US hasn’t been managing a closed border too well.

BTW, if Iran DOES openly start supporting the insurgents they are suicidal fools… The US can basically air strike into Iran at will…and we WILL do that if Iran is found with its hand in the cookie jar of the Iraqi insurgency.

The US can airstrike… but they have to justify it somehow. Just bombing for punishment will only help Iran. Also if Iran helps out Shi’ites in legal ways ? By financing urban projects and charities ?

Without outside intervention and support its impossible to keep an insurgency going for any sustained period of time.

I agree in part… but is the US capable of keeping outside intervention ? Arabs all over the place are happy in seeing the US army bogged down and restricted from further military adventures.

The South Vietnamese fought too RM. The problem was that it was a different kind of war. It was a sapping war from the inside, not an external invasion.

I agree. Proof is that Iraq was an external invasion… No wonder its so easy to get support for the insurgency ! If it had been perceived as anything else the mess wouldn’t be so big.

Perhaps the Iraqi population will come on board…perhaps not. Time will tell…and its too soon to really have a handle on that.

While things going right mean an american victory I doubt things will get better. US troops are way too trigger happy and nervous... too many civilians were killed. Bad blood doesn't go away like that.

So is Iraq proof that military power is an extremely limited or perhaps non-viable option for regime change ?

[RedFury]

Hafta’ agree with Early Out here. The Iraq war has already been lost – now it’s only a matter of how many body bags it’ll take for the majority of Americans to realize the fact. The number of Iraqi killed, tragically, doesn’t enter into the equation.

In that particular sense, it’s almost exactly like 'Nam. What changes, IMO, are the reasons behind each action. One was motivated by tactical miscalculations of the Cold War chessboard, and the other, by geopolitical strategy, itself driven by a grandiose ideology.

[XT]

@Rashak Mani

Xtisme are you sure your not a Bush Supporter ?

Hey hey…lets keep the insults to the pit!!

@Rashak Mani

Well the last time the USA tried to take out the northern version of a country they had their asses handed to them by the Chinese in Korea ! If they invaded Northern Vietnam the would Chinese and Russians have stood by?

I wouldn’t call it ‘getting our asses handed to us’…it cost the Chinese something on the order of a million or so men to hand us said ass…and ended up in a draw basically. If you read my first post I went into the cost of taking out North Vietnam (briefly), and that it might not have been politically worth it. However, its possible that Russia WOULD have stood by at the time. Probably not China though.

@Rashak Mani

Big mistake ? They almost pulled it off ! The US almost lost that one… they didn’t win but it wasn’t a “big” mistake.

In retrospect a HUGE mistake. They would have been better off doing it like the North Vietnamese did. I’m sure you’ve noticed that there is STILL a South Korea after all, yes? And have you noticed how ‘well off’ North Korea is these days?

@Rashak Mani

Your optimistic about their economy… most aren’t. You cited the fact that many are still joining the guards or whatever… they are doing it much more for the meager salary. When NO ONE in your family gets a salary then you have to get work no matter what. See for example the US army Well anyway the insurgents are smart enough to attack the oil industry in order to keep things bad.

Who are ‘most’ that aren’t optimistic about the long range viability of Iraq’s economy? I’d have to see their arguements. Myself I see a few factors: I see an insurgency that I think is being mainly driven by foreign interests. I see a huge and in-demand natural resource. I see an infrastructure that is improving daily in spite of repeated attacks by insurgents. I see a huge world wide demand for oil. So yes…I’m basically optimistic about Iraq’s economy, at least as long as oil is in demand.

You have a cite that the majority of Iraqi’s are joining the guard SOLELY because they are out of work and desparate for money btw? I’m sure that its a factor for some, but my own gut feeling is that many are joining because they want their country back.

@Rashak Mani

The problem is that so much ammo and guns were hidden away and can be contrabanded in… that I doubt they will run out of supplies. The US hasn’t been managing a closed border too well.

Sure a lot was hidden…and I addressed that. Problem is, supply caches like this are found and bombed all the time. If you want to be more than a pain in the ass, if you want a SERIOUS insurgency like we’ve been seeing in the past few months it takes a LOT of men and material to bring it off…and that means a lot of resupply. THAT level of supplies WILL run out unless its replenished. And you aren’t going to replenish to that level covertly. Sure, some things will get through…thats why I said that the insurgency might not completely burn out for years. They will probably go through a period of Palistinian type attacks into Israel…a major pain in the ass, but little over all effect on the economy. However the massive and more open insurgency we have been seeing for the past few months…no, that will drop down IMHO.

@Rashak Mani

I agree. Proof is that Iraq was an external invasion… No wonder its so easy to get support for the insurgency ! If it had been perceived as anything else the mess wouldn’t be so big.

If its so easy why aren’t more Iraqi’s joining the insurgency?? Last estimate I saw was there there MAYBE aprox. 10,000 insurgents in Iraq…many of who are foreign fighters btw. Thats out of 24 MILLION btw. I don’t see it as THAT big a mess either, though I think this could have been handled a hell of a lot better by Bush et al as far as the planning for after the invasion goes…but thats another thread.

@Rashak Mani

The US can airstrike… but they have to justify it somehow. Just bombing for punishment will only help Iran. Also if Iran helps out Shi’ites in legal ways ? By financing urban projects and charities ?

Justify it to WHO exactly? Also, IF Iran is caught red handed either supporting openly the insurgents (your premise btw…I was merely answering that), OR actually going ahead with its nuke program, I don’t think the US would have much trouble ‘justifying’ itself.

Your other points dont make sense. Iran is free to help out in humanitarian ways all it wants. If it gets caught openly supporting the insurgents though through supplies, men, money, etc…THATS another kettle of fish. Just to clarify btw, I was answering your assertion from another post…I rate the chances of Iran actually DOING that as pretty well nil, so its a moot point IMO…its not gonna happen.

@Rashak Mani

While things going right mean an american victory I doubt things will get better. US troops are way too trigger happy and nervous… too many civilians were killed. Bad blood doesn’t go away like that.

Things going right at this point means an Iraqi victory btw…the US has other fish to fry and Iraq was just a distraction to what we REALLY need to be doing. I’m SURE things will get better…unless the US loses the political will and turns tail because its perceived as too tough over there.

As to your ‘bad blood’ assertion, let me ask you…how do you suppose the people of Iraq feel about what the insurgents have been doing lately? There are a LOT of bad blood vectors over in Iraq…the US is just one of them.

@Rashak Mani

So is Iraq proof that military power is an extremely limited or perhaps non-viable option for regime change ?

Jury is still out. However I think it will be more proof of the current US military power…even the fucked up way we went about Iraq, we STILL managed to pull it off. I guess time will tell though who is right on this. Open a thread in 4 years about this RM and we’ll talk somemore.

-XT

[Rashak_Mani]

@RedFury

The Iraq war has already been lost – now it’s only a matter of how many body bags it’ll take for the majority of Americans to realize the fact.

The reason I opened this thread is because I thought about the possibility that the USA might have never had had a good chance… well not the way it was done initially at least. I was thinking about how Vietnam got progressively worse… and it dawned on me that Iraq might just have been a faster breakdown.

Even if there had been post war planning and it had been carried out as efficiently as the invasion... maybe the insurgency and the chaos would have been inevitable in the long term. You just don't take down a whole government and expect order to prevail. Afghanistan somehow seems more stable than Iraq and they even managed an election (fraudelent or not... but they did).

One big reason is also the presence of troops themselves. Just by having a military presence you undermine the "mission". Without the troops you have unruly provinces. Another is that there will always be outside interference. You can't expect to play around with countries destinies and think Iran and arabs won't try to fuck around with you. The U.S. did the same to the URSS when they invaded Afghanistan.

Now if I am getting to something... then what are the reasons that Vietnam and Iraq didn't/don't work out ? Maybe the reasons or factors are independent of the US itself. Or the USA treaded badly ? To distinguish is important if the US ever even dreams of playing nation building or pre-emptive. Remember that Afghanistan was invaded by 3 super powers ! Yep 3 !  UK, USSR and USA. Somehow only this time it "worked", kind of...  People won't just bend over to invaders with an agenda and ideology... even if they are super powers.

[Rashak_Mani]

@xtisme

You have a cite that the majority of Iraqi’s are joining the guard SOLELY because they are out of work and desparate for money btw? I’m sure that its a factor for some, but my own gut feeling is that many are joining because they want their country back.-XT

Utter poverty cuts down on choice badly… I wouldn’t dismiss the salary motivation so easily. Iraqis are reluctant to fight one another in many occasions… so how they will “get back their country” isn’t so clear cut. Also do remember that joining the guard means getting a gun… with a gun you have more security for your family… you can join one of the sides of a “upcoming” civil war, maybe sell the gun. Israelis had a bad experience with Palestinian’s they armed in order to be policemen.

Sure a lot was hidden…and I addressed that. Problem is, supply caches like this are found and bombed all the time. If you want to be more than a pain in the ass, if you want a SERIOUS insurgency like we’ve been seeing in the past few months it takes a LOT of men and material to bring it off…and that means a lot of resupply. THAT level of supplies WILL run out unless its replenished. And you aren’t going to replenish to that level covertly.

The level of the insurgency now is very high for sure… I agree that it seems unlikely to stay at such high levels. Still it continues. Especially the amount of explosives is INCREDIBLE. Still in Vietnam they managed to covertly bring in all sorts of stuff… and during a de facto war. I’m not sure waiting out for supplies to dry is a smart tactic either !

If its so easy why aren’t more Iraqi’s joining the insurgency?? Last estimate I saw was there there MAYBE aprox. 10,000 insurgents in Iraq…many of who are foreign fighters btw. Thats out of 24 MILLION btw.

As to your ‘bad blood’ assertion, let me ask you…how do you suppose the people of Iraq feel about what the insurgents have been doing lately? There are a LOT of bad blood vectors over in Iraq…the US is just one of them.

I hate these stupid figures being thrown around. This sounds, no offense meant, the stuff Rummy and Cheney keep repeating to make Iraq seem less of a disaster. If its 10k insurgents only… then the US deserves to lose. The foreign fighters might not be popular… but the Sadr and the insurgency in Sadr city are basically all Iraqi driven. You don’t have a guerrila/insurgency without support from the population. If they are managing these high levels of activity they surely have backing of big number of common people.

Your other points dont make sense. Iran is free to help out in humanitarian ways all it wants.

Did you read the articles about how the US is worried about Iran helping out Iraqis ? Funny reading. You’d think it was “directly” dangerous. Iran will help out iraqis one way or another… and the US will fear their growing presence in Iraq.

I’m SURE things will get better…unless the US loses the political will and turns tail because its perceived as too tough over there.
Jury is still out. However I think it will be more proof of the current US military power…even the fucked up way we went about Iraq, we STILL managed to pull it off. I guess time will tell though who is right on this. Open a thread in 4 years about this RM and we’ll talk somemore.

Read the post I wrote above. Just maybe there is no victory to be had. It might not be a battle of wills… but one of just pure attrition with no end in sight. Just maybe the US didn’t “fail” because success never was possible at all. Its like poker… when do you admit your 2 pairs won’t bluff their way anymore ? At some point you either admit your hand is weak… or you just keep putting more chips uselessly on and on. When do you cut your losses ?

Even if they do managed a “free” Iraq in say an optimistic 3-4 years… its way too long for the Democracy Domino Bush dreams about. You can’t have so many troops tied up for so long and to gain so little… it basically discredited any further regime changes with ground troops. I think its back to bombing from afar again when the US wants to send a “message”.

[Declan]

@Ryan_Liam

I don’t get this, first people say fighting the insurgents only creates more insurgents, but when the Iraqi government says its going to bring them all to the table to negotiate, its accused of weakness. Someone help me out here?

Politically speaking , if the new Iraqi govt can remove a bunch of players via amnesty , or isolate them with promises , then well and good , just not everyone agrees with it.

Declan

[Declan]

Oops , white on white just does not work, apologies all.

Declan

[Hyperelastic]

Iraq is unwinnable because of flawed doctrine, not flawed tactics. Therefore, no amount of tactical rethinking is going to save the situation.

In the end, it is the electorate who will decide whether the war was won, not the historians; at least, this is the only judgment that matters politically. The electorate endorsed the invasion because it accepted Bush’s doctrine that Saddam had WMD and that those WMD must be eliminated. Therefore, “winning the war” originally meant “finding and destroying the existing WMD and forestalling future attempts to manufacture WMD.” Any subsequent nation-building would be seen as a mere corollary to the primary goal of eliminating the WMD. If WMD had been found and eliminated, the U.S. could have declared victory and probably turned a blind eye to the ensuing chaos unless it appeared to have the potential to create new WMD. This is sort of what happened in Afghanistan - the conventional wisdom is that we rooted out the terrorists; even though there is still instability, people aren’t busting Bush’s chops over it, because the primary goal is seen as having been met.

But that’s not what happened in Iraq. No WMD were found, and nearly everyone agrees that it’s time to stop looking. But - there we are, occupying Iraq. So now, how do we win the war? You need a pretty important objective to post-hoc justify the invasion. The thinking now seems to be that we can declare victory by turning Iraq into a stable democracy, like we tried to do in Vietnam. The only trouble is, Vietnam and other situations have provided strong evidence that you can’t do that militarily. So now we’re in an unwinnable war, and it is a direct result of the fact that the original premise has been proven wrong.

Bush, understandably, always tries to marginalize the WMD mistake, saying it doesn’t matter. But it does matter, and it is directly responsible for the unwinnability of the war. He wants to rewrite history and say that the real reason for invading was to get rid of Saddam and create a stable democracy. That may have been his private goal, but it is not how he sold the war. The electorate endorsed the war because of the WMD claims. There is no way in the world the American people would have countenanced an invasion of Iraq with the main goal of overthrowing Saddam and installing a democracy, not in the middle of the “War on Terror”.

[Rashak_Mani]

Hyper… if WMD had really been found would insurgents be less willing to shoot americans ? I doubt it.

[Merijeek]

@Rashak Mani

Hyper… if WMD had really been found would insurgents be less willing to shoot americans ? I doubt it.

Sure, but the fact of the matter is that it would seem to have a REASON.

Currently there is none.

-Joe

[Ryan_Liam]

@Rashak Mani

Hyper… if WMD had really been found would insurgents be less willing to shoot americans ? I doubt it.

The legitimacy would of gone a looooooooooooong way though. Maybe see more international cooperation and assistance, and less understanding or sympathy for the insurgents.

Instant reelection for Boosh and Blair.

[laigle]

War is the method of seeking ends through military means. In Vietnam we simply didn’t have clear, viable ends. We were fighting a war to make the Vietnamese want to be part of our Western, capitalist bloc. Achieving that goal could not be done simply by eliminating enemy targets, so going to war for it was rather inane.

In Iraq, we are fighting for much the same thing. When we were fighting to seize the WMD sites and control their contents that was viable, but that turned out to be a political ruse. When we were fighting to remove Sadaam and his government that was viable, but that came and went a long time ago. We are now fighting to have Iraq turn out as a stable, secular government that respects human rights and aligns itself with the US and our allies. Once again, you can’t bomb or shoot anything to make that happen.

[ralph124c]

I think the American people have sized this mess up, and concluded (correctly) that it (Iraq) is unwinnable. Look at re-enlistement rates in the reserves-down to nothing! All because we have:
(1) unwittingly walked into a civil war
(2) allowed the insurgency (by not keeping the Iraqi army intact)
(3) announced our vulnerability (by making nice with Al-Sadr
We have two choices:
(1) Withdraw after the January elections (i.e. declare victory) OR
(2) savagely CRUSH allinsurgencies…this means blowing up mosques, destroying major parts of cities
Great choices, eh?

[Ryan_Liam]

I think the American people have sized this mess up, and concluded (correctly) that it (Iraq) is unwinnable. Look at re-enlistement rates in the reserves-down to nothing! All because we have:
(1) unwittingly walked into a civil war
(2) allowed the insurgency (by not keeping the Iraqi army intact)
(3) announced our vulnerability (by making nice with Al-Sadr
We have two choices:
(1) Withdraw after the January elections (i.e. declare victory) OR
(2) savagely CRUSH allinsurgencies…this means blowing up mosques, destroying major parts of cities
Great choices, eh?

You see this is why I don’t understand people on these boards, they expect the US military to negotiate or hit the insurgents hard and not give in to their demands, same with the Iraqi Government, yet are pissed when there is a high amount of civilan deaths, well you know what? Thats war, and unfortunately in Iraq its a fact of life.

No wonder we’re not winning, when both sides are pulling at the US Army saying their approach is right.

[Merijeek]

@Ryan_Liam

You see this is why I don’t understand people on these boards, they expect the US military to negotiate or hit the insurgents hard and not give in to their demands, same with the Iraqi Government, yet are pissed when there is a high amount of civilan deaths, well you know what? Thats war, and unfortunately in Iraq its a fact of life.

No wonder we’re not winning, when both sides are pulling at the US Army saying their approach is right.

Umm…no. That’s not what he said, and it’s not even close.

Ralph is saying that there are two choices.

Declare victory and go home. “We’re done here. The world is a safer place. Gotta go.” That’s what was done in Vietnam.

The other choice is to go all Sadam/Stalin/EvilBastardofYourChoice on the collective Iraqi asses until they’re well and firmly ground under our boots.

Since choice #2 isn’t going to be allowed (even with our current lapdog media), that leaves the first choice.

Trying to play this in the middle shit isn’t going to work. All it will do is cause things to drag on longer and longer until some people are willing to accept defeat, declare “victory” and bring the troops home. The longer it takes them to pull out the more American, Australian, British, and Polish (can’t forget them, Mr. President!) troops will die needlessly.

-Joe

[Rashak_Mani]

@laigle

We are now fighting to have Iraq turn out as a stable, secular government that respects human rights and aligns itself with the US and our allies. Once again, you can’t bomb or shoot anything to make that happen.

Kind of sums up why I think Iraq was always “unwinnable”… it focused on the military aspect and maybe never was winnable politically… no matter how nice you went about taking Saddam out, or post war planning.

[XT]

@ralph124c

(1) Withdraw after the January elections (i.e. declare victory) OR
(2) savagely CRUSH allinsurgencies…this means blowing up mosques, destroying major parts of cities
Great choices, eh?

OR, perhaps there are a few more choices? Like perhaps remain in Iraq (which really isn’t the post-apocalyptic nightmare some of you are painting it as) until the Iraqi government stabilizes, until the re-constituted Iraqi army is spun back up to speed.

The situation is FAR from unwinnable…unless the US tucks tail and takes your choice number one of course. If Kerry is elected maybe we’ll find out (though I doubt it…I think we’ll stay regardless of who is elected).

One last try at this: Iraq is NOT Vietnam. It’s a totally different situation. Some of the factors that made Vietnam such a problem for the US aren’t present in Iraq. Some factors are unique to Iraq which WILL cause us NEW problems. The situation is DIFFERENT…and it will play out as it plays out. Trying to use Vietnam as a club over the US’s heads and a scare mongering tactic every time the US gets into a tough situation is simply stupid. Not all situations are Vietnam…and 2 years does not a quagmire make.

If this thing ever crosses the 5 year mark or the 50,000 casualties (or when the insurgents cross the million man mark like North Vietnam did) mark THEN come back and talk about the parallels to Vietnam…and about how its unwinnable. Talking about it when we haven’t even been there 2 years yet, and our casualties are less than 2k…well, its kind of silly IMO.

-XT

[Ryan_Liam]

Didn’t plenty of people try and forewarn that kinda situation when we went into Afghanistan, thats in a shitty position too, yet no ones calling that a unwinnable situation.

Someone help me out in trying to find out why?

[Rashak_Mani]

@xtisme

If this thing ever crosses the 5 year mark or the 50,000 casualties (or when the insurgents cross the million man mark like North Vietnam did) mark THEN come back and talk about the parallels to Vietnam…and about how its unwinnable. Talking about it when we haven’t even been there 2 years yet, and our casualties are less than 2k…well, its kind of silly IMO.

-XT

Your using the casualties and deaths as a mark of comparison too Vietnam… when we are talking about the political impossibility of changing these countries through force of arms.

Even if US casualties drop tremendously… it doesn’t mean Iraq is more stable… democracy more viable or the reason for the troops being there any more necessary.

[Ryan_Liam]

@Rashak Mani

Your using the casualties and deaths as a mark of comparison too Vietnam… when we are talking about the political impossibility of changing these countries through force of arms.

Even if US casualties drop tremendously… it doesn’t mean Iraq is more stable… democracy more viable or the reason for the troops being there any more necessary.

So what you whining about then? That you could be proved wrong? And that the US isn’t some dumb lumbering giant over the ant sized Iraqs? Even though the US forces have been slow to react to new tactics, they’re changing them, thats one positive step.

The US isn’t changing the country through force of arms, it merely used arms to bring about the change people had clamoured for all this time, they just acted it out shitty.

I just hope the US and its allies train the Iraqi forces as quick and as effectively as they can.