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.

 

Understanding why Iraq is compared to Vietnam.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   


Nothing symbolised America's lost crusade in Indochina more than the enormous concrete embassy erected in Saigon in 1967, seemingly to last for ever, up the road from South Vietnam's presidential palace.
And as I ran about the streets then, with a BBC cameraman filming South Vietnam's death throes, the looting, the mayhem, the futile casualties for a cause long lost to corruption, cowardice and wishful thinking, the very last American marine guards were hiding on the roof of the embassy above us praying for a helicopter from their evacuation fleet in the South China Sea.

It did come and flew them out, as the conquering North Vietnamese tanks rolled past us and smashed through the presidential palace gates. So much history compressed into a few short hours.

Link

This article sums up the reasons rightfully or wrongfully why Iraq gets compared to Vietnam. I suspect that we will see a similar ending in Iraq but only worse the insurgents may make helicopter evacuations to risky.




posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
In one very big main thing Iraq differs from Vietnam: OIL!!

They might have to give it up due to domestic unrest, like they did Vietnam.
But they won't leave, Iraq is SO MUCH more than cheap labor.

Eventually they will have to give the war over to proxys, but they'll be there to controll it from their bunkers.
Why else are they building the biggest embassy complex on this earth, completely selfsuficient with water, power, defense systems and all.

Here's two great articles on the preparation for permanent American presence.


www.tomdispatch.com...
First, we had those huge military bases that officials were careful never to label "permanent." (For a while, they were given the charming name of "enduring camps" by the Pentagon.) Just about no one in the mainstream bothered to write about them for a couple of years as quite literally billions of dollars were poured into them and they morphed into the size of American towns with their own bus routes, sports facilities, Pizza Huts, Subways, Burger Kings, and mini-golf courses. Huge as they now are, elaborate as they now are, they are still continually being upgraded. Now, it seems that on one of them we have $60 million worth of the first "permanent U.S. prison" in Iraq. Meanwhile, in the heart of Baghdad, the Bush administration is building what's probably the largest, best fortified "embassy" in the solar system with its own elaborate apartment complexes and entertainment facilities, meant for a staff of 3,500.

***

www.truthout.org...
The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future.

The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.

"We can't talk about it. Security reasons," Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.

A British tabloid even told readers the location was being kept secret - news that would surprise Baghdadis who for months have watched the forest of construction cranes at work across the winding Tigris, at the very center of their city and within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I've been concerned for some time about the possibility of our forces being overrun in Iraq. It could happen.

I don't think it will, though. At least it wouldn't happen if somebody in the Bush administration would listen to voices like Jack Murtha's. If we redeploy smartly, it won't happen, and we will keep a military element inside Iraq.

As posted somewhere above, Iraq is much different than Vietnam. OIL.

Our military will be in Iraq until our nation ends its dependence on oil.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I've been concerned for some time about the possibility of our forces being overrun in Iraq. It could happen.



Overruned? You mean the insurgents actually wiping out our military forces there?

The insurgents and terrorists there do not have the capability to even overrun one of our bases and have yet to even do it.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
The insurgents and terrorists there do not have the capability to even overrun one of our bases and have yet to even do it.


No they do not have the capabilities of overrunning the bases, but they can make the building of the bases or compound a very deadly and expensive one, to the point that many private companies working will give up just trying.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
As a civilian, I can see how many people are quick to think of Iraq in terms of vietnam. First and foremost, there is the inept warfighting policy. Secondly, the apparent failure to make substantial military or political gains gives the appearance of casualties for no good reason. Thirdly, it sticks in everyone's mind that the reasons given for this war turned out to be insufficient to justify the expense.

It's not going to surprise me if we do get to see images on our t.v.'s which depict the last helicopter out of Iraq. It may turn out to be the last multi-vehicle convoy out of Baghdad, or something like that. Eitehr way, there will be a strong temptaiton to hold that image up for comparison to that last pathetic helo flight off the embassy roof in Saigon.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Here's a question for somebody to think about. The Bush administration is highly beholden to defense contractors. LBJ and Nixon had the same problem, each in their own way. Getting out of Vietnam was complicated by those relationships. How do you expect that today's defense contractos will make it hard for the next U.S. President to disengage from Iraq?


ape

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
im failing to see the similarities aside from the costs and the political bickering at home.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Theres lots of reasons why Vietnam and IRAQ are nothing alike.

People say Iraq and vietnam are the same only because America WASNT ABLE To achieve the victory they set out for.

Thats it.

Reasons for going to war, techniques during conflict, defeats, victories, methods everything is different.

Todays war is like NO OTHER War in history, comparing it to vietnam is wrong,
comparing the Ability/demise of the coalitions ROLES in both is the only place it is similar.

Vietnam was trying to force a foreign invader OUT of a zone that the US administration was sided with.
We lost simply because fighting in that dense forest isnt what the highly technological US military is about.
they had the home court advantage, they knew the terrain, and ive found ASIAN people are more willing to lay down there lives for something they mightnt believe in, or dont have a choice.
The US lost because it was FORCING its young to go into this jungle and fight an enemy, you couldnt see until he was shooting at you, from his hidden position.

IRAQ is a different story.
Iraq isnt, and never was a WAR!
There never was an ENEMY.
We went in to achieve a goal that never existed.
We brasonly went in because we got sucker punched, we didnt think about it.

We are unable to WIN, because theres no one to beat.
In Iraq your not fighting a army, that has sympathisers in the local populace.. you are fighting the local populace.

Its really quite sad,
The vietnam era presidents didnt lie and hype the war up to such an extent, that leaving wasnt going to cost the US any remaining credability it had.
There was still communism to fight, industry to spread, and good american will to throw about the world.

THE USA pulled out because they knew in that day and age they could still save face, propser and assist in OTHER WAYS.

Bush and CO lied to such an extent, that pulling out will ADMIT to the worldd that the USA has committed War crimes.
You cant pull out now, because the entire region will immediately become a hotbed of ANTI us sentament, and if they hit you again.. you'll have no moral grounds to stand on when you look to the world for support.

Your leader WONT pull out now, becase he has so much pride he cant DARE look defeated, especially in his families/friends eyes.




In the 70's, america sacrificed its sons and daughters until it realised it was pointless.

Today, your president feels A-O-K to continue sacrificing your sons and daughters.. as long as he doesnt look like a criminal.



[edit on 17-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Theres lots of reasons why Vietnam and IRAQ are nothing alike.

People say Iraq and vietnam are the same only because America WASNT ABLE To achieve the victory they set out for.

Thats it.
[edit on 17-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]


No, people compare Iraq to vietnam because there is a constant insurgency, like there was with the viet cong.

The other reason vietnam is compared to iraq is because we cannot get the Iraqis government to step up and take an active role in defeating the insurgency. Just as we couldnt get the south vietnamese to step up in force against the viet cong and fight for and fight for their own country. Too many iraqis sympathize with the insurgents, just as too many south vietnamise sympathized with the NVA and viet cong.

Iraq is also a guerilla war. Iraq, like Vietnam, will also be lost due to the loss of support from home. There are WAY too many similiarities between Iraq and Vietnam.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

We lost simply because fighting in that dense forest isnt what the highly technological US military is about.
[ed
it on 17-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]


Whats this WE crap? was australia in vietnam?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Yes they were
As were NZ



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Theres lots of reasons why Vietnam and IRAQ are nothing alike.

People say Iraq and vietnam are the same only because America WASNT ABLE To achieve the victory they set out for.

Thats it.
[edit on 17-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]


No, people compare Iraq to vietnam because there is a constant insurgency, like there was with the viet cong.

The other reason vietnam is compared to iraq is because we cannot get the Iraqis government to step up and take an active role in defeating the insurgency. Just as we couldnt get the south vietnamese to step up in force against the viet cong and fight for and fight for their own country. Too many iraqis sympathize with the insurgents, just as too many south vietnamise sympathized with the NVA and viet cong.

Iraq is also a guerilla war. Iraq, like Vietnam, will also be lost due to the loss of support from home. There are WAY too many similiarities between Iraq and Vietnam.



We were pushing the NORTH OUT.
We are NOT PUSHING THE IRAQI'S OUT, they are on their legitimate SOIL!

The loss of support back home is not the reason you are losing.

You obvioulsy side with bushs ' Unamerican ' stance if you dont support this illegial war.. good for you.

People arent going to support an ILLEGIAL WAR.
More and more SOILDERS are understanding that this is an ILLEGIAL War
Your losing because the insurgency isnt a rag tag militia, its the SOUL Of IRAQ.
Its IRAQI's defending their homeland... its not some insurgent force.
The insurgency CANT be defeated, because the police, government, neighbours there all on the same side.
The only people who REALLY want a successful american induced Iraq are the minority greedy powerbrokers in the government, and america its self.
Sure you've got a few families here and there that are lucky enough not to have to endure this HELL that america has placed on Iraq....

but majority of Iraqi's think the situation is FAR WORSE THAN SADDAMS days.

Your going to lose this, because you didnt have the right morals/reasons to start it...

good always prevails... and when a foreign army invades and occupies based on lies and greed, they will not be able to hold out in the face of people defending their homes.

All america has done is created a much larger, and publically AWARE Israeli type scenario.

FOR EVER it will always be known as the government that the Zionest WEST setup during occupation, on ARAB SOIL
No matter how media biased it is, no matter how much you sugar coat it...
the REALITY is this is ARAB land, being controlled by a leader the ARABS wouldnt of picked, had you never been there.

International LAW says its Illegial,

Atleast Israel has the backing of the UN.

Imagine what iraq will be in a decade, after it has defeated the USA, after it has merged with Iran, and after it has WREAKED havoc on American interests....



Vietnam is a safe, nice place.
The government is on the people like and want.
It will be NOTHING like Vietnam.

DEAL WITH IT!

[edit on 17-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 17-12-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   


posted by xpert11



In both conflicts, America's justifications for war were eventually discredited. Just as disturbing, was Washington's failure - initially at least - to learn from well-documented colonial blunders by the French in Vietnam and British in the 1920s in Iraq. The high tech military superiority was overwhelming - just like US forces in Vietnam. These days the parallels seem to be multiplying. In Iraq, there has been a similar, disastrous lack of intelligence about the country and people - reminiscent of American mistakes in Indochina. As for pressure to hand over to Iraqi forces, that resembles Vietnamization, training South Vietnamese forces to replace departing Americans. But by the end, 58,000 Americans were dead and more than one million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians.

One big difference is that Vietnam poisoned the political mood of America, with tragic consequences. Whereas the USA today is not shaken by anti-war protests - instead a majority just voted with calm common sense for bringing an end to what now seems an even bigger foreign policy blunder than Vietnam - in a region of far greater strategic importance. In the wake of the recent elections here, the supposedly open-ended military commitment to Iraq suddenly looks, well, almost rubbery. Now, on the banks of the Tigris in Baghdad, a huge new American embassy is rising. I cannot help remembering its now-demolished monumental forerunner in Saigon, packed with the best and brightest CIA and military types, under Washington's proconsul.

They proved powerless as the country around them disintegrated. To be fair about that final meltdown, the American expeditionary force had completed its withdrawal three years earlier. From half-a-million troops to zero. But it is the images of South Vietnam's death throes that endure - overladen helicopters abandoning a panic-stricken American ally.

It was an exit strategy that failed ingloriously. For Mr Bush, the self-styled war president seeking a way out of the Iraq quagmire, his visit to what was Saigon, offers no comfort at all. the futile casualties for a cause long lost to corruption, cowardice and wishful thinking, the very last American marine guards were hiding on the roof of the embassy Saturday 18 November, 2006 on BBC


This article sums up the reasons rightfully or wrongfully why Iraq gets compared to Vietnam. I suspect that we will see a similar ending in Iraq but only worse the insurgents may make helicopter evacuations too risky.



Good selection, Mr X11. The main similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that both are failing. As was pointed out in the article, in both instances the United States leaders missed its opportunity to learn from France (in Vietnam) and England (in Iraq). I suppose that is a symptom of hubris. It may be a ‘genetic defect’ in a super power?

I see an important difference however. Vietnam is located on a peninsula jutting out into the South China Sea, which is barely more connected to the Pacific Ocean than to the Indian Ocean which may well be closer. There are also the Paracel Islands, claimed by China, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia. Most of these islands have the bad habit of disappearing under water at high tide, the highest elevation being about 3 feet above sea level. The Chinese keep about a dozen solders stationed there to uphold their claim. There is an oil field under the China Sea which fuels this territorial dispute. Yes, a pun was intended.

Vietnam had about 95% Buddha and 5% Catholic. Iraq is about 60% Arab Shia, 20% Arab Sunni and 20% Kurd Muslims. I’m sure there are some minority religions practiced in Iraq but I am unfamiliar with the per cents. I don’t think they count for much, whereas in Vietnam, we supported the small minority Catholics who were not very friendly towards the large majority Buddhists. Religion mattered in both places. The Saudi are Sunni and Sunni are the more secular - as if secular meant the same thing to them as if means to us - whereas the Shia believe in saints, a second coming and in a ruling hierarchical system of governance. The Sunni do not take the Holy Koran so literally.

Disregarding the fossil fuels resources in the old Soviet Union, I believe the region at the head of the Persian Gulf holds the most oil known to exist on the planet. The largest fields in Saudi Arabia are there, all of Kuwait of curse, and the largest fields in Iraq are there. I suppose Iranian oil fields are close by, too. The socio-political problem in the region is this: most of the regimes are despotic, or autocratic, and are controlled by a very, very small fraction of the inhabitants. For example, I’m under the impression the Saudi royal family numbers about 30,000 and its hangers-on another quarter million. This small group of hereditary rulers lord it over 18 million other inhabitants of Arabia. The Saudi family was established in power by the British. That is why Arabia is called Saudi Arabia, that is, the Arabia of the Saud family. In other words, they own the place.

That system which worked well enough in the 20th century will not get us through the 21th which is why the Saudis invited us there in 1991 and we’ve been there ever since. We are the “reliable” army the Saudi family needs to keep the 18 million “others” under control. And in that regard, we are more like our failed effort in Vietnam where the small Catholic minority fought hard to take the place of the French as the owners and masters of the country.

FYI, this religious split is also the root cause of the endless turmoil in Lebanon. Lebanon is called a “confessional” democracy, that is, people are allotted seats in parliament and posts in government based on their religion. Thank the French for setting up that system in the 1920s. Until we get rid of that - replaced by one man one vote - there will always be trouble in Lebanon. The importance or role of religion around the world is never mentioned in the United States, which is why we often can’t understand what is happening in so many places. This (religion) is the root cause of the rebellion in the Philippines where the US has a small detachment. And etc.

Back to topic. I can see the task how to arrange and prepare for a regional conference is too much for this administration to cope with. I have not seen any evidence that Sec Rice has a grasp of the problems either, and have no idea if she could plot a course through this Middle East mine field. So far, no one is acclaiming her for insights or perceptions of note. No one is hailing a “Rice doctrine” as a solution for the problems she and VP Cheney and Rumsfeld got Bush43 into. The Brits cannot help us became the sentiment in the House of Commons is that Tony Blair was wrong to follow Bush43, if not blindly, then certainly unquestioningly. They want out of Iraq. I doubt they pray, but the Labor Party wishes every day not to hear of a large number of British casualties. Labor says let Bush43 solve the problem he crated.

You can be sure that the US will be out of Iraq in 2009, if not before. It may get so bad in Iraq, that the US will have to sue for peace.


[edit on 12/17/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

I see many people are quick to think of Iraq in terms of Vietnam. First and foremost, there is the inept war fighting policy. Secondly, the apparent failure to make substantial military or political gains gives the appearance of casualties for no good reason. Thirdly, it sticks in everyone's mind that the reasons given for this war turned out to be insufficient to justify the expense.

It's no surprise me if we see images on our tv's which depict the last helicopter out of Iraq. It may turn out to be the last multi-vehicle convoy out of Baghdad, or something like that. Either way, there will be a strong temptation to hold that image up for comparison to that last pathetic hello flight off the embassy roof in Saigon. [Edited by Don W]



The most compelling question is about our soldiers dying in vain. The next is the unnecessary killing of the indigenous personnel. A study by Johns Hopkins published in Lancet says 600,000 Iraqis have died since March 18, 2003, from the effects of this war. Our own losses will most likely cross the 3,000 mark before New Year’s Day. I believe the coalition forces have sustained about 200 KIA.

By the bye, I recently heard the US has more private contractors - Blackwater and Etc. - than the Brits who number 7,200. The #2 contingency. At $10,000 a month! What piques me is this: if the guy on the ground is getting $10K, how much are the taxpayers being charged by these former Pentagon and ex-military operatives who are overseeing this privatization of our national defense?

The bottom line is this: why don’t we admit it, Vietnam and Iraq are equal. Both are failures. Why argue which failed for reason X and the other for reason Y as if that would somehow make Iraq go away? To fail is to fail. For dumb reasons to fail is all the more inglorious. Q. When does incompetence become criminal? Or is this to be one more example of non accountability? Little guys go to prison, big guys retire to Crawford?

I’m telling you one more time, anyone who can have 154 men executed in 6 years, one man every 2 weeks on avenge, has got something misfitted in his brain. It is not normal. I said that in early 2000, and I’m saying it again. It ain’t right.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I don't think we'll have even as much choice when it comes to pulling out of Iraq as we did in Vietnam. The Democrats can't do anything - they know that cutting funding would be far too politically dangerous, so they'll just whine and complain as more and more soldiers die. In the end, we'll be forced to leave Iraq - not from lack of will, but out of necessity when the Iraqi government finally implodes. This could happen a lot sooner than most people think.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   


posted by Flatwoods

I don't think we have even as much choice when it comes to pulling out of Iraq as we did in Vietnam. The Democrats can't do anything - [Edited by Don W]



Assuming your Iraq worries are prompted by the idea of an unstoppable Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, I say this: No Way!

Go to your CIA World Factbook and look at the numbers. I heard just last week that the US manufacturing component of our $12 t. economy was $1.9 t. Number One in the world. Still. I brought that up to counterpoise the vast extensive capabilities of the United States vis a vis Iran. Iran has managed to be the fly in our milk in Lebanon and maybe Gaza and more dubiously, maybe in Syria. The US still allows Israel to set US policy in the Middle East. It's killing us. Iran, by supporting Hezbollah and Hamas which couch their appeal to their own public on the anti-Zionist movement. Iran has managed to cause endless problems for us by spending a few millions of dollars but we have to respond by spending many billions of dollars. They are leveraging us. And this ain’t Wall Street. Quit fighting dumb, let's fight smart!

Which brings me to my conclusion on your concern about leaving Iraq in a Civil War. What can we accomplish by staying on? Keep in mind that the American public shows 85% want a new policy in Iraq keep in mind that a Democratic Party poll showed 45% of its constituents want out of Iraq. Another poll showed 29% of GOP also want out of Iraq. Back to the Democrats poll, the next most wanted item was a rise in the minimum wage to $7.25, supported by 9%. Only one issue had double digits. And it was 5X ahead of the second issue. Say again, what can we accomplish by staying longer?



In the end, we'll be forced to leave Iraq - not from lack of will, but out of necessity when the Iraqi government finally implodes. This could happen a lot sooner than most people think. [Edited by Don W]



Keep in mind that the failing Iraqi government you refer to was Made In USA. We were too arrogant to let the Iraqis make their own government. The British did the same thing in the 1920s. It never was accepted by the Iraqi on the street. The British plan was the fertile soil into which was planted the Ba'athist Party and spawned Saddam Hussein. Why can’t we let those people (Iraqi) try something on their own? After all, Babylon was already a great city when Moses was still wandering around the Sinai


[edit on 1/7/2007 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join