A couple things

[billydkid]

Does anyone else remember there was a large debate about whether or not we were going to go into Iraq, prior to the build up for going in? And there were a lot of people, primarily those people who have generally supported the invasion, who dismissed the idea as some sort of left wing hysteria? Not unlike what is happening now in regard to Iran.

Is anyone else old enough to remember how almost exactly all the debates over Iraq mirror the debates over Vietnam? Do you remember the controversy over torture in Vietnam. The military was vastly more open to journalism at that time and I remember Time magazine actually running spreads about the torture - complete with photos of the torture and of the victims afterward and interview with both the torturers and the tortured.

For the most part we handed the torture over to the South Vietnamese in the same way we have handed it over to places like Syria and Turkey now. And there was the debate over funding and how losing the war would be a great victory for communism and be the death nell for freedom and democracy. And there were the claims that Cambodia was sheltering and supporting the insurgency and we had to go in there to stop that. And the President did, in fact, send us in there illegally - helping to turn that place into the hell hole it became for so long. GW was alive during that time. He must not have been paying real close attention.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And there were the claims that Cambodia was sheltering and supporting the insurgency and we had to go in there to stop that. And the President did, in fact, send us in there illegally - helping to turn that place into the hell hole it became for so long. GW was alive during that time. He must not have been paying real close attention.

Your cause and effect on Cambodia don't match what actually transpired. The "Secret Bombings" were against NVA and VC (mostly the former) who were using Cambodia as a privileged sanctuary for operations in South Viet Nam. The Killing Fields and the escalation of violence in Cambodia were a direct result of the wars that were fought after the US left Viet Nam. I recall there being fighting in Cambodia while the US was in Viet Nam, but all hell broke loose after the NVA overran South Viet Nam and things spread into Cambodia.

AS to Iraq and Viet Nam analogies, some things are similar, and some things are different.

Try instead to compare US in Lebanon with Iraq. There are as many similarities there, though scale is quite different.

DR

 

[Tmy]

Didnt the Vietnamese go into Cambodia and STOP the Khmere Ruoges killing spree??

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Didnt the Vietnamese go into Cambodia and STOP the Khmere Ruoges killing spree??

Cambodia very foolishly crossed the Vietnamese border and was routed by a superior force. I don't know that it was as altuistic as stopping genocide, but I guess that is what happened.

 

[billydkid]

Your cause and effect on Cambodia don't match what actually transpired. The "Secret Bombings" were against NVA and VC (mostly the former) who were using Cambodia as a privileged sanctuary for operations in South Viet Nam. The Killing Fields and the escalation of violence in Cambodia were a direct result of the wars that were fought after the US left Viet Nam. I recall there being fighting in Cambodia while the US was in Viet Nam, but all hell broke loose after the NVA overran South Viet Nam and things spread into Cambodia.

AS to Iraq and Viet Nam analogies, some things are similar, and some things are different.

Try instead to compare US in Lebanon with Iraq. There are as many similarities there, though scale is quite different.

DR

Don't confuse me with facts.

 

[Smidge]

By 'we' I suppose you mean the USA. The debate prior to the Iraq invasion was worldwide and varied. Personally, it was clear to me that the case to invade Iraq was never proven. There was (and glaringly still is) hopelessly poor intelligence (if I can call it that!) on what was and is occuring in Iraq.

I 've only scanned the book but didn't Bob Woodward in his recent work kind of predict that Iran would be next on the USA's agenda, so to speak?

 

[Mephisto]

Does anyone else remember there was a large debate about whether or not we were going to go into Iraq, prior to the build up for going in? And there were a lot of people, primarily those people who have generally supported the invasion, who dismissed the idea as some sort of left wing hysteria? Not unlike what is happening now in regard to Iran.

Is anyone else old enough to remember how almost exactly all the debates over Iraq mirror the debates over Vietnam? Do you remember the controversy over torture in Vietnam. The military was vastly more open to journalism at that time and I remember Time magazine actually running spreads about the torture - complete with photos of the torture and of the victims afterward and interview with both the torturers and the tortured.

For the most part we handed the torture over to the South Vietnamese in the same way we have handed it over to places like Syria and Turkey now. And there was the debate over funding and how losing the war would be a great victory for communism and be the death nell for freedom and democracy. And there were the claims that Cambodia was sheltering and supporting the insurgency and we had to go in there to stop that. And the President did, in fact, send us in there illegally - helping to turn that place into the hell hole it became for so long. GW was alive during that time. He must not have been paying real close attention.

It's Deja vu all over again!

I've often said that had Dubya actually served in Vietnam he would have learned the lesson.

 

[Crossbow]

While of course there are many differences between the Vietnam War and Iraq War, however the number of parallels is quite telling.

1) In both cases, the USA went in with a great deal of optimism.
McNamara predicted that the war would last no more than one year, and in this war the Administration expected that the war would not last more than two years and that oil revenues would cover the cost of the war.

2) In both cases, torture was often used to get information even though there was not an official policy about using torture.
There are many well documented cases in both wars where the USA has used torture, condoned torture, or outsourced torture.

3) In both cases, there was a tremendous lack of pre-war planning and intelligence on just what we were getting into. In the case of Vietnam, there was no serious evaluation at the dedication and skill of the North Vietnamese people. While in the case of Iraq, there has been a real lack of data regarding just who we are fighting and what is making them so dedicated and skilled.

4) In both cases, the rationale for the war was completely erroneous. In the case of Vietnam, the public rationale about fighting Communism was very wrong. In the case of the Iraq War, the public rationale was about fighting WMDs and terrorism, which is also very wrong.

5) In both cases, at the end phase (like we are seeing now) even the pro-war people have realized that the war is lost.

 

[Ziggurat]

5) In both cases, at the end phase (like we are seeing now) even the pro-war people have realized that the war is lost.

The "Vietnam War" was really two wars: an insurgency followed by a conventional army war. We won the insurgency war (a conveniently forgotten fact). The South Veitnamese lost the conventional army war, but we were not fighting in that war (another conveniently forgotten fact).

 

[Crossbow]

The "Vietnam War" was really two wars: an insurgency followed by a conventional army war. We won the insurgency war (a conveniently forgotten fact). The South Veitnamese lost the conventional army war, but we were not fighting in that war (another conveniently forgotten fact).

Umm,

we lost the Vietnam War. Although we won every battle, we still lost the war; it is really just that simple, we lost.

 

[Ziggurat]

Umm,

we lost the Vietnam War. Although we won every battle, we still lost the war; it is really just that simple, we lost.

How did "we" lose the Vietnam war? Because the government of South Vietnam fell? Well, yes, it fell. But we had stopped fighting well before that, and they fell to a conventional army invasion that our own forces could quite easily have repelled, if they had been involved. In fact, one of the supposed lessons of Vietnam is that the American military is poorly equiped to fight insurgencies rather than conventional wars, but we defeated the insurgency and didn't take part in defending against the conventional invasion. Yes, in a sense "we" lost, but "we" lost because we quit, even though nothing other than domestic politics forced us to make that decision. Is that acknowleging that the war is lost, as you claimed? No, it's deciding to lose the war.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's Deja vu all over again!

I've often said that had Dubya actually served in Vietnam he would have learned the lesson.

Chuck Hagel served in Viet Nam and, for all his misgivings, still voted for the Iraq war.

He's also still kicking himself over it.

John Kerry, despite his own misgivings, did so as well.

The 20-20 problem of hindsight isn't news.

DR

 

[Gurdur]

The "Vietnam War" was really two wars: an insurgency followed by a conventional army war. We won the insurgency war (a conveniently forgotten fact). ....

Thank-you, Ziggurat, for giving me an actual belly-laugh. Out of interest, who the hell do you think you're kidding? Why do you think the USA pulled out of Vietnam? It was because it was losing the insurgency war, and to keep fighting, it needed a draft, something which became ever more unpopular inside the USA when people could not agree with what they were being drafted for.
Sheeeesh, dude, do you do anything except vacuous cheerleading?
The USA lost the insurgency war there. It pulled out to avoid a worse, longer drawn-out defeat there. The blame was convenmiently laid upon ARVN and the South Vietnamese govt, another mistake of the USA's --- or I bet you don't want to remember just how much the USA meddled in the South Viet govt, do you?

How did "we" lose the Vietnam war?

Too many USA armed forces became casualties, and control was lost over too much Viet territory, and it became impossible to keep on going without a draft, something which was not possible when the USA populace could see they were being fed a string of lies.
Facts, dude, facts.

Because the government of South Vietnam fell? Well, yes, it fell. But we had stopped fighting well before that,

Remember why, dude? Or too young? Many here on this board saw the TV reportage at the time it happened. I knew and know several who fought in Vietnam, from both the Australian and the USA forces.

but we defeated the insurgency

Repeating yourself does not make it any more truthful.
Or, hey, if you disagree, how about coming up with a factual, rational description of just how the war against the insurgency was "won"?

Yes, in a sense "we" lost, but "we" lost because we quit, even though nothing other than domestic politics forced us to make that decision.

Bollocks, sheer bollocks. Go look at the Vietman Memorial some time, read all those names, read that long, long list of names,, make bloody sure to read all those names --- they were real people, not mere spear carriers; those lost lives are why the war was lost, all the dead Vietnamese civilians too, who wouldn't have been dead if the USA had not entered a foolhardy war, all those dead and the USA still lost control of territory and lost the insurgency because a very significant fraction of the Vietnamese populace simply did not want the USA controlling their country.

Casualties, casualties, loss of control. That is why the USA lost. It could have fought the war longer with a draft, but too many USA citizens asked the inconvenient questions of just why they should be drafted and just what was the USA doing in Vietnam anyway.

that acknowleging that the war is lost, as you claimed? No, it's deciding to lose the war.

Bollocks. But you know, you're always welcome to do the fighting yourself, instead of whining when others refuse to do it for you.

 

[Kerberos]

The "Vietnam War" was really two wars: an insurgency followed by a conventional army war. We won the insurgency war (a conveniently forgotten fact).

Yes, you soundly defeated the insurgency and celebrated this by signing a peace aggrement that for all intents and purposes was a concession of defeat. Tell me, just what colour is the sky on your planet?

The South Veitnamese lost the conventional army war, but we were not fighting in that war (another conveniently forgotten fact).

That would be because you pulled out following what was effectively your surrender.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, you soundly defeated the insurgency and celebrated this by signing a peace aggrement that for all intents and purposes was a concession of defeat.

The Viet Cong were destroyed as an effective figthing force in the disastrous (for them) Tet Offensive, and they ceased to be a serious threat after that. South Vietnam did not fall to an insurgency, it fell to a conventional invasion from a regular army. The political cowardice of our leaders doesn't change that basic fact.

 

[Gurdur]

The Viet Cong were destroyed as an effective figthing force in the disastrous (for them) Tet Offensive, and they ceased to be a serious threat after that.

Twaddle. The VietCong suffered badly from Tet, but within a couple of years of it had recovered significantly. The USA also suffered from Tet badly; remember at the time that the generals were saying the war in Vietnam had been won - and then Tet happened?

South Vietnam did not fall to an insurgency, it fell to a conventional invasion from a regular army. The political cowardice of our leaders doesn't change that basic fact.

Yet again codswallop. The invasion by regular North Vietnamese forces would not have succeeded without the decades of VietCong subversion.

As for so-called "political cowardice"; stuff that for a joke. What a laugh. What the hell was the USA doing in Vietnam, directly fighting in support of a corrupt regime, against the wishes of a significant fraction of the Vietnamese populace who had managed to shake off French colonialism only to see the USA replace France as puppetmaster?

Do remember now to go back and read all those names on the Vietnam Memorial. And hey, you should bloody look at all the names of Vietnamese fallen as well. In the pursuit of a foolhardy war which should never have been fought.

 

[Kerberos]

The Viet Cong were destroyed as an effective figthing force in the disastrous (for them) Tet Offensive, and they ceased to be a serious threat after that.

Ehm, evidence? Around 4 years passed between the Tet offensive and the US withdrawal. It seems remarkable that no one noticed in that 4 year interval that you had won. Also it just occurred to me, does that mean you've actually won Iraq as well and we just haven't noticed that either?

 

[Ziggurat]

The USA lost the insurgency war there.

How do you define us having lost the insurgency war? Did the insurgency succeed in removing the South Vietnamese government? No, it did not. Did the insurgency even still represent an existential threat to the South Vietnamese government by the time we lefT? No, it did not: it was a crippled shell of its former self, which is why it took an invasion from the regular North Vietnamese army to overthrow the South Vietnamese government. I find it ammusing that you're so convinced we lost the insurgency, and yet you don't even bother considering the problem of what constitutes a victory for the insurgency. Since their goal was to overthrow the South Vietnamese government, and they failed at that objective and were incapable of threatening their survival in the future, they lost. Our objective was to defend the South Vietnamese government against the insurgency, and we did that. Ergo, we won. If you disagree, either demonstrate how we did not successfully defend the South Vietnamese government against the insurgency and how the insurgency overthrew the South Vietnamese government, or provide us with what YOU think victory and defeat meant for each side.

Many here on this board saw the TV reportage at the time it happened.

Ah yes, TV reportage. Perhaps you refer to the TV reportage which claimed that the Tet offensive, which was a crippling disaster for the Viet Cong, was somehow a victory for them. Yes, indeed, tell us all about how Walter Cronkite didn't screw that one up.

Bollocks, sheer bollocks. Go look at the Vietman Memorial some time, read all those names, read that long, long list of names,, make bloody sure to read all those names --- they were real people, not mere spear carriers; those lost lives are why the war was lost, all the dead Vietnamese civilians too, who wouldn't have been dead if the USA had not entered a foolhardy war, all those dead and the USA still lost control of territory and lost the insurgency because a very significant fraction of the Vietnamese populace simply did not want the USA controlling their country.

Nice appeal to emotion, but whether or not the cost was worth it is a SEPARATE question from who won what.

 

[Ziggurat]

Also it just occurred to me, does that mean you've actually won Iraq as well and we just haven't noticed that either?

Won against whom? We've essentially defeated the Ba'athists - Sunni violence is now dominated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates at this point. This is a multi-party war, and if all you do is track the occurence of how many times violence pops up in the headlines, you won't have a clue about what the actual dynamics are. Nor (as in Vietnam) is victory over only one party sufficient.

 

[billydkid]

Won against whom? We've essentially defeated the Ba'athists - Sunni violence is now dominated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates at this point. This is a multi-party war, and if all you do is track the occurence of how many times violence pops up in the headlines, you won't have a clue about what the actual dynamics are. Nor (as in Vietnam) is victory over only one party sufficient.

If we won in Vietnam, I would hate to see what losing looks like.