'RAQ AND 'NAM: DIFFERENCES,SIMILARITIES,AND INSIGHTS

[Frank Newgent]

Here is a new report from the Army War College.

"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.

"Reasoning by historical analogy is an inherently risky business because no two historical events are completely alike and because policymakers' knowledge and use of history are often distorted by ignorance and political bias. In the case of Iraq and Vietnam, extreme caution should be exercised in comparing two wars so far apart in time, locus, and historical circumstances. In fact, a careful examination of the evidence reveals that the differences between the two conflicts greatly outnumber the similarities. This is especially true in the strategic and military dimensions of the two wars. 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."

Maybe if we just hope hard enough it can somehow turn out alright, it will.

 

[a_unique_person]

Arrgghhh, the CAPS, they hurt my eysessesses.

 

[Kodiak]

Maybe if we just hope hard enough it can somehow turn out alright, it will.

You sound like the UN...

 

[hammegk]

'Raq seems to be solidifying Islamists worldwide.

Welcome to a real Jihad. If we (well, USA) fight it 99.99% on foreign soil, it ok with me and I suspect many more US citizens too. Perhaps US civilian causualties will be less. I still worry about where we go if a mushroom cloud happened in US territory; the problem might arise if the US suffers a significant bio attack.


At a very basic level both conflicts are becoming twins; the US does not have the b@lls to do what is needed to actually win a war so we can then worry about winning hearts & minds. Destroy the village to save it? Maybe, but this is about as limited as the conflict will ever be I'd say.

Iran, Syria, NK, ?? China ??, various old USSR areas, Europe .... wow!

 

[Frank Newgent]

At a very basic level both conflicts are becoming twins; the US does not have the b@lls to do what is needed to actually win a war so we can then worry about winning hearts & minds. Destroy the village to save it? Maybe, but this is about as limited as the conflict will ever be I'd say.

Iran, Syria, NK, ?? China ??, various old USSR areas, Europe .... wow!

...you translate can...poodle walk don't let the on keyboard your?

 

[hammegk]

Take what you like, ignore the rest .... or not. No difference to me. FYI, I do try to answer actual questions. Sarcasm out of box .... screw you and your horse.

It is an interesting topic.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Take what you like, ignore the rest .... or not. No difference to me. FYI, I do try to answer actual questions. Sarcasm out of box .... screw you and your horse.

It is an interesting topic.

I am grieved for my horse.

Is the following what you were referring to in your first post?

"a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States."

Oops. That's from a different US Army War College report.

 

[Dancing David]

Nothing personal Hamme:

At a very basic level both conflicts are becoming twins; the US does not have the b@lls to do what is needed to actually win a war so we can then worry about winning hearts & minds.

That is the only thing i see similar between VN and I, the mistaken belief that war is just destroying stuff and that is all that it is. that is why we did not 'win' in Vietnam, that is why our army will hopefully leave Iraq before too many years have passed.

We occupied Berlin with the aid of the Coviets, the Nazis pounded Stalingrad and never occupied it sucsessfully. Hitler made a mistake by not turning north early in the war, by taking Leningrad he could have occupied Moscow, but instead all he could think of was destroying Stalingrad.

The point to war is to destroy enough of the enemies stuff to be able to occupy the area you want and get the economic benefit you want.

As the Strategic Air Command told Albert Speer, "If we knew what you were doing we would have just killed you."

 

[Frank Newgent]

Considering the Dim Bulb's choice of Army War College for tonight's speech, thought I'd bump this thread.

Did he refer to Iraqi insurgents as "terrorists" and "jihaders"? Bet Laura hasn't rented this for him yet.

Lesson #9 "If we are to deal effectively with terrorists around the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy -- I don't mean 'sympathy,' but rather 'understanding' -- to counter their attacks on us and the Western world."

Freakish the parallels between that young Robert McNamara and Rumsfeld...

 

[crackmonkey]

Many are indeed terrorists. Your point?

 

[Troll]

Here is a new report from the Army War College.


Maybe if we just hope hard enough it can somehow turn out alright, it will.

here's a similarity.

Kerry was in favor of going into Vietnam, then came home and was against it.

Kerry voted in favor of sending US troops in then turned around and complained about it.

How's that for similarities?

 

[Frank Newgent]

[size=e]Lesson #9 "If we are to deal effectively with terrorists around the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy -- I don't mean 'sympathy,' but rather 'understanding' -- to counter their attacks on us and the Western world."[/size]

 

[Troll]

Many are indeed terrorists. Your point?

He has no point. Thus posting other random crap instead of responding to the real questions.

 

[Frank Newgent]

He has no point. Thus posting other random crap instead of responding to the real questions.

Okay, I'll bite.

Who are the Iraqi insurgents?

 

[Troll]

Okay, I'll bite.

Who are the Iraqi insurgents?

They are aabout 2-3,000 Iraqi people that are following Sadr and or are baathist loyalists and about 1-2,000 Al-Queda and Iranians and Syrians. about half aren't even members of the country.

But here is the funny thing. Most of the 26 million Iraqi people obviously do not feel the same way since we're only fighting about 4,000 and some not even from the country itself and not the whole 26 million. Ever think about that? Hell, ever think?

 

[crackmonkey]

Sadr's guys are now being picked off by anti-insurgent Iraqi vigilantes. Sadr's swaggering hordes have now taken to travelling incognito and only going out in groups in some areas.
Many of the insurgents in the Fallujah area are a loose coalition of Syrian Islamists and Ba'athist Fedayeen. Zarqawi had established a base in the Fallujah area while Saddam was in power, and he's now allied with the remnants of the Ba'ath party in the area.
Sadr's bunch are more of an armed rabble than a real fighting force. Their ranks have swelled recently from an influx of disaffected working-class Iraqis who have seen the middle and upper classes beginning to prosper but feel they're being passed by. This support is now beginning to diminish as the other, more influential Shi'ite clerics speak out against Sadr.
Sadr's not much of a threat, though he is financed by Iran (he makes no secret of his close ties to Tehran).

 

[Frank Newgent]

They are aabout 2-3,000 Iraqi people that are following Sadr and or are baathist loyalists and about 1-2,000 Al-Queda and Iranians and Syrians. about half aren't even members of the country.

But here is the funny thing. Most of the 26 million Iraqi people obviously do not feel the same way since we're only fighting about 4,000 and some not even from the country itself and not the whole 26 million. Ever think about that? Hell, ever think?

Am sure I don't drink, uh, I mean think as much as...oh never mind.

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A10


Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.

In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.

Although comparative numbers from previous polls are not available, "generally speaking, the trend is downward," said Donald Hamilton, a senior counselor to civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer. The occupation authority has been commissioning such surveys in Iraq since late last year, he said. This one was taken in Baghdad and several other Iraqi cities in late March and early April, shortly before the surge in anti-coalition violence and a few weeks before the detainee-abuse scandal became a major issue for the U.S. authorities in Iraq.


SNIP


The new data reflect the fact that "the occupation, and the occupation forces, are getting increasingly unpopular," said Jeffrey White, a former Middle Eastern affairs analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency. In recent months, he said, "A lot of people, including me, have been getting very pessimistic."

Reflecting that trend, the proportion of Baghdad residents who reported worries about safety has steadily increased: In the new poll, 70 percent named security as the "most urgent issue" they faced, up from 50 percent in January, 60 percent in February and 65 percent a month later.

Overall, 63 percent of those polled said security was the most urgent issue facing Iraq. In addition to Baghdad, the poll was conducted in the northern city of Mosul and the southern cities of Basra, Nasiriyah and Karbala. Some questions also were asked in the troubled western town of Ramadi.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22403-2004May12?language=printer

And try to remember, this was all before your cousin Larry was brought up for court martial.

BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group.

The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak.

But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him.


SNIP


Iraqis interviewed in Baghdad say ordinary people have lost patience with the U.S. effort to crush the insurgency and rebuild Iraq.

"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people."

Sabah Yeldo, a Christian who owns a liquor store across town, says American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans."

In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable. In the 2003 poll, more than twice that number saw it as the right thing to do.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

Have you thrown up yet?

 

[Troll]

Am sure I don't drink, uh, I mean think as much as...oh never mind.



And try to remember, this was all before your cousin Larry was brought up for court martial.


Have you thrown up yet?

Uh, okay, now try using some braincells. How many are actually insurgents? Not that have a negative view, but that are fighting? I mean you did ask me who the "insurgents" were, didn't you? Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you use smoke and mirrors like this?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Uh, okay, now try using some braincells. How many are actually insurgents? Not that have a negative view, but that are fighting? I mean you did ask me who the "insurgents" were, didn't you? Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you use smoke and mirrors like this?

Not sure how to respond to you. But am reminded of the saying:

Don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

This thread is about the differences, similarities, and, hopefully, insights concerning Iraq-Vietnam parallels. Didn't you know that?

As far as my question to you about the identity of Iraqi insurgents goes, hell, I just thought it was a good rhetorical question. I referenced McNamara because of his Lesson #9. That is, give your enemy a way out when you're on his lawn.

 

[subgenius]

"anti-insurgent Iraqi vigilantes"
I wish I said that.
Good beat, easy to dance to.