It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq Worse Than Vietnam

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Iraq Worse than Vietnam

I have seen Bush and American commentators scoff at the idea that Iraq is comparable to Vietnam. In at least in 3 ways the Iraq Quagmire is even worse then in Vietnam:

• S. Vietnam had a legitimate government that invited the US in to help them fight the communists, In Iraq the US Invaded and is now trying to invent a government.
• S. Vietnam had an army of a million solders and a pretty good air-force. This army had a legitimate command structure. The Iraqi police-civil defense forces are mainly there just to get a paycheck and don't really take orders from this new government, whenever there is fighting they take off or join the rebels, and the security forces are segregated, Sunni security forces for Falluja and Shiite security forces for Najaf. In the event of an American pull-out these security forces will immediately collapse and various anti-american rebels groups will immediately seize control, the Americans can't even pull out of the cities w/o the place going into chaos.
• In Vietnam the fighting was mostly in the jungle, the urban population of S. Vietnam mostly supported the government and it's US ally, but the problem was most of Vietnam's population resided in rural areas, and in the rural areas the communists were stronger. In Iraq the population is mostly urban and the fighting is in the cities-so the Americans have engaged such tactics as house-to-house searches, checkpoints, mass detentions, and sieges. These tactics alienate the population and makes them more resistant to any government that the Americans install.

As far as casualties are concerned, not as many as in Vietnam which was in the thousands each month; but 2-3 dead US soldiers a day + scores of dead American contractors, mercenaries, and foreign troops. The current coalition body count is about 2 thousand + another 300 ‘contractors’. In addition to that the cost is enormous, at least $5 billion a month an amount that guarantees huge budget shortfalls each year that the US stays there, that will slowly make the US economy less completive and drive down the economy in the long term, forcing the US to consider any possible exit strategy in the next few years, even ‘cut and running’. Another similarity with Vietnam is the unrelenting pace of the guerilla campaign, 40-50 attacks everyday and a daily bloodletting, not to mention Iraq’s borders are porous so the guerillas will always have sufficient weaponry & funding. Given these insurmountable obstacles the US is better off getting out ASAP, like within 6 months and turning security over to the best possible option, even if it means the collapse of the infant government that was installed and civil-conflict.




posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
You make some good points.


Originally posted by xphantomx
As far as casualties are concerned, not as many as in Vietnam which was in the thousands each month; but 2-3 dead US soldiers a day + scores of dead American contractors, mercenaries, and foreign troops. The current coalition body count is about 2 thousand + another 300 ‘contractors’.


But let us not be forgetting the thouands of Iraqi civillians who have died, both at the hands of the Insurgency, and at the hands of the Coalition.



Another similarity with Vietnam is the unrelenting pace of the guerilla campaign, 40-50 attacks everyday and a daily bloodletting, not to mention Iraq’s borders are porous so the guerillas will always have sufficient weaponry & funding.


The Coaltion hasn't the manpower to close the borders; Iraq is a massive country. As for the problems in the cities, the US would do well to look at the way the British run Basra. Basra, whilst not perfect, is far better than Baghdad. The British are out on the street and among the people far more than the US troops are, and dare I say it, they are far more friendly towards the locals. The British Army are also far more experienced with urban situations too, having been in Northern Ireland for decades.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Basra is more secure because the insurgency concentrates their attacks in the center of the country, thats a normal strategic decision, Saigon was secure while the VM were battling the french in the north, once the north was liberated, they moved the war to the south..

I wonder when the Americans will get a clue and abandon that country by drawing down and then escaping off the rooftops of the greenzone when the rebels close in to take the city..



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daystar
You make some good points.



The Coaltion hasn't the manpower to close the borders; Iraq is a massive country. As for the problems in the cities, the US would do well to look at the way the British run Basra. Basra, whilst not perfect, is far better than Baghdad. The British are out on the street and among the people far more than the US troops are, and dare I say it, they are far more friendly towards the locals. The British Army are also far more experienced with urban situations too, having been in Northern Ireland for decades.


Good points made - we offered the US Army assistance & training in FIBUA / Counter-Terrorism. They Declined (Just like Vietnam, WW1). I can understand the reluctance to take lessons from the Old Enemy but to ignore us and be trained by the SS/IDF shows where the true agenda, perhaps, lay.

It's no coincidence Basra is UK controlled & much more peaceful - some of it's due to a less volatile population but most of it's due to good tactics and considerate soldiering - backed up by a better ability to go in and hurt the bad guys when needed.

UK-trained Iraqi forces will be credible, reliable and more decent than those trained by the US. US-trained forces tend to have a doctrine based on tech & fire support - when that's not there they crumble; as happened in the Falklands.



[edit on 21-3-2005 by CTID56092]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
it doesn't matter who trains them, the training is a joke-how much training does it take to stand there with a gun..The politics dictate that an American installed regime will always fail, and will only exist as long as the US Military stays bogged down in Iraq in protracted guerrilla warfare at 1 billion $s a week.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Clearly the situation in Iraq doesn't even compare to what happened in Vietnam.

In Vietnam there were hundreds of people getting shot on a daily basis in Iraq somedays there's a couple car bombs that go off & if they're not in your vicinity you only hear about it on the news.

I just listened to a radio talk show tonight with a soldier who was the host that just ended his tour in Iraq. He explained how large Iraq was & how little fighting is actually happening on a daily basis. He seems to have spent more time rebuilding schools & helping the Iraq people than shooting his weapon in firefights.

It's just weird how the media portrays Iraq as a constant battlezone when there's more rebuilding going on then there are battles.

I think America is there for the control of the middle eastern oil & Iraq is now a base to attack other middle eastern countries if that control is threatened. While I don't support what those who pull the strings in our country are doing I don't buy the Iraq is Vietnam propaganda either.

If you actually believe what you say I guess I feel sorry for you that you believe such nonsense, but If your goal is to create misinformation and not tell the truth than I guess your just doing your job - cheers.



[edit on 22-3-2005 by outsider]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by xphantomx
it doesn't matter who trains them, the training is a joke-how much training does it take to stand there with a gun..The politics dictate that an American installed regime will always fail, and will only exist as long as the US Military stays bogged down in Iraq in protracted guerrilla warfare at 1 billion $s a week.


Your comments on training show a lack of information on the training of police or soldiers. Just '' stand there with a gun'' Get a clue

And as for your other comment that American installed regime will always fail
Read a book for pete's sake, Tell that to Japan and Germany.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   


Originally posted by outsider
I think America is there for the control of the middle eastern oil & Iraq is now a base to attack other middle eastern countries if that control is threatened. While I don't support what those who pull the strings in our country are doing I don't buy the Iraq is Vietnam propaganda either.


While I agree Iraq is not a new Vietnam, I can definately see the similarities considering it was a bloody and useless war, simply designed to aid america in its quest to become even more powerful...

Another similarity is the fact that their is little public support for the war, and alot of demonstrations against it...The Vietnam War went on for 7 years, the Iraq War is only 2 years old... Yet there is huge amount of protest and demonstration, in what is a relatively new war... If the US pressence in Iraq continues to grow - so will the resistance...

Viva reveloucion!



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Vietnam was a jungle terain, which is better for guerilla warfare, Iraq is not so favorible but US soldiers get killed there everyday, there are dead Iraqi Police everyday and at least 60 attacks a day, not to mention weekly sabatage of the oil piplines making the fiasco much more expensive than anticipated, the US spends 1 billion a week in Iraq, an unsustainable amount, it's an endless protracted guerilla war that can never be won.

The Neos like to beat this Japan and Germany drum, key differences:
1. The US did not start that war out of choice so they could conquer G&J.
2. By the end of WWII the world was completly trashed and G&J totally destroyed, the only other option those countries had was communism, they decided to stick with capitalism, which meant good relations with the victors.

every other war like Iraq-has been a failure, especially since the 1960's when RPGs, machine guns, and bombs proliferated to a level that any poor country can resist a richer occupier and bog her down..Afghanistan, and Lebanon were both failed attempts to install a friendly regime..



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I know American soldiers don't just stand there with a gun, thats what Iraqi soldiers do, they're fing useless and many of them are spies for the rebels, they can't even hold a single block of Baghdad and the Americans don't even give them decent weapons because they don't trust them, because they always give their weapons to insurgents or the insugents 'steal' them


Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by xphantomx
it doesn't matter who trains them, the training is a joke-how much training does it take to stand there with a gun..The politics dictate that an American installed regime will always fail, and will only exist as long as the US Military stays bogged down in Iraq in protracted guerrilla warfare at 1 billion $s a week.


Your comments on training show a lack of information on the training of police or soldiers. Just '' stand there with a gun'' Get a clue

And as for your other comment that American installed regime will always fail
Read a book for pete's sake, Tell that to Japan and Germany.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Well I could see a point that they are not up to western standards, But they are not all useless. Iraqie police for instance can handle many of the non combative jobs, such as dealing with the general population. In that regard they are better suited then US troops since they know the area and people much better.

I dont know what you are talking about not given them decent weapons, they are armed with AK-47s one of the best rifles on the planet. In a desert conditions they are ideal. Infact US troops have even been favoring the AK over the US M-4. If your talking about advanced things like stinger missile there is no need to give them that anyway even with complete trust. They are not fighting insurgents that are using Migs and Hind Ds.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I dont know if you can compare this war to Vietnam, at least religion is not involve in Vietnam and the North Vietnamese didn't intentionally kill innocent people so they can start a civil war between each other. North Vietnam had the backing of the Soviet Union and China. The insurgents and terrorists have no allies except maybe Syria. The insurgents and terrorists have to go look for volunteers in Europe which ironically is a democratic region. I would compare Iraq to Afghanistan than Vietnam. It just takes the military to realize this is a new kind of warfare that they should take very seriously. They always try to make a policy where they should avoid guerialla warfare, but in the future guerilla warfare will become a major factor in 21st century warfare. The U.S. military should take advantage of the lessons learned in Iraq for the future conflicts, I dont support the war for killing but i support the troops and have a democratic society for the Iraqis.



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   


Originally posted by deltaboy
a democratic society for the Iraqis.


While they may be able to vote for their "leader" ... The trade laws that have been passed in Iraq will make it bad for them however... Because all their resources are going straight to the US for little to nothing...



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Well I could see a point that they are not up to western standards, But they are not all useless. Iraqie police for instance can handle many of the non combative jobs, such as dealing with the general population. In that regard they are better suited then US troops since they know the area and people much better.


Their a joke, as far as the new Iraqi Army-most of them are Kurds with some Shiites from the Basra south; they can't hold a single block of even Baghdad much less Ramadi on their own w/o US backing, and the rest of them are just cops-many of them who refuse to fight the insugency in any way and quickly surrender to them anytime they are confronted by them. The Iraqi army has barly a few armoured vehicles like APC's and Tanks-even after more than 2 years, thats because they are so unreliable-as soon as the occupation ends the sham govt collapses and so does it's lame security forces..that was the reality 2 years ago, it is now, and it will be 5 years from now-which means the Americans will eventually have to evacute themselves from the rooftops.




I dont know if you can compare this war to Vietnam, at least religion is not involve in Vietnam and the North Vietnamese didn't intentionally kill innocent people so they can start a civil war between each other. North Vietnam had the backing of the Soviet Union and China. The insurgents and terrorists have no allies except maybe Syria. The insurgents and terrorists have to go look for volunteers in Europe which ironically is a democratic region. I would compare Iraq to Afghanistan than Vietnam. It just takes the military to realize this is a new kind of warfare that they should take very seriously. They always try to make a policy where they should avoid guerialla warfare, but in the future guerilla warfare will become a major factor in 21st century warfare. The U.S. military should take advantage of the lessons learned in Iraq for the future conflicts, I dont support the war for killing but i support the troops and have a democratic society for the Iraqis.


Religion was a factor in Vietnam, the aristocracy that ruled SV were Catholics and the maority of Vietnamese were Buddhist, and if you instead compare it to the Russian experience in Afghanistan or the US/Israeli experience in Lebanon, what difference does it make-both those military interventions were bloody failures.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Your comments on training show a lack of information on the training of police or soldiers. Just '' stand there with a gun'' Get a clue

And as for your other comment that American installed regime will always fail
Read a book for pete's sake, Tell that to Japan and Germany.


You ever heard of the Berlin Wall? For those of you against a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, you sure are quick to make comparisons between Iraq and WW2. Which, by the way, is infinitely more preposterous.

"Get a clue" he says...



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
xphantomx, saying every US installed regime has failed ignores the governments of Japan and Germany....as ShadowXIX has already mentioned. Your also overlooking the big elephant in the middle of the room......9/11.

That changed everything for us and even if the invasion of Iraq was based on bad intel, it has still shaken up the region and we're seeing changes in other countries that would have never happened if we had not gone in there and shaken things up.

Saying Iraq is worse than Vietnam shows me you need to open some books and read up on your history.

Maximu§



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus

That changed everything for us and even if the invasion of Iraq was based on bad intel, it has still shaken up the region and we're seeing changes in other countries that would have never happened if we had not gone in there and shaken things up.
Maximu§


So bad intel, or rather wrong intel means it's Ok to go to war then? I don't think so



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
What seperates war from "terrorism"...



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo


You ever heard of the Berlin Wall? For those of you against a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, you sure are quick to make comparisons between Iraq and WW2. Which, by the way, is infinitely more preposterous.

"Get a clue" he says...


Yes I have heard of the Berlin wall and that only proves how bad the USSR was at Regime change as the US,UK and france were not in control of all of Germany. Really no where better could you see two very different approaches to regime change for the same country at the same time.

Since we were talking about Germany and Japan in context US lead regime changes always failing, it would be moronic to not compare US work in Japan and German Regime changes. If someone is trying to show a historic line of US regime changes always failing how could you even think to leaves those accounts out.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join