Iraq is not Vietnam.It's Like Afghanistan For The Soviets

Alot of people are saying that Iraq is like Vietnam.

I know Vietnam is a voodoo word but just because things aren't going too good it doesn't mean that the comparison is right or fair.

The North Vietnamese were being supplied by the USSR and the Chinese from the North.The terrain was completly different which makes a big difference to the future form combat takes.

There are far greater similarities with the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the early 1980's.

This ,of course ,is no real comfort.

I just wondered what others thought.

It has potential to be like afghanistan. And I do agree that it's more similar to Afghanistan then to 'nam. But remember, the USSR was in Afghanistan for over 10 years, we just passed the 1 year mark.

Also, the US was supplying the Afghans equipment and training. I don't think that would really compare to Iran or whoever sending in troops and training, they don't have the same technology we do or did back then.

EDIT: Actually, I take that back, most nations of the world possess a lot of our technology. So it could be more similar then I first thought.

[Edited on 4-8-2004 by junglejake]

The Afghan Mujahadeen didn't really have high tech weaponry.Stingers that's about as high tech as they had and they can get hold of anti-aircraft missiles today.

The Soviets held all the towns and cities but they didn't control the country.

Anyway, right now it's not the people who are coming in that is the problem.It's the Iraqis themselves and money and weapons will come in through the porous borders.

Americans may be thinking about Vietnam but I'll bet you $10 that the Arabs and Al Qaeda will be thinking about Afghanistan.

I think the usage of Vietnam was to give Americans a picture of what is going on over there. I don't think they can relate to the Soviets and Afghanistan.

Relate to the soviets in afghanistan then maybe they should read a book. Problem with most of my "fellow Americans" is they are ignorant to whatever doesnt involve either America or a movie star. Quite sad, but seeing as how it really isnt Vietnam the categorization is more like the "simple things for simple minds" way of explaining it in my opinion.

Vir Fidelis

There is a big difference between Iraq and Afgahnistan. There is no super-power backing up the resistance in Iraq like there was in Afgahnistan. We sent the Mujahadeen equipment and gave them the training on how to use it effectively.

There is probably some support from Iran or Syria for the resistance in Iraq. but I have no idea how much.

Anyone have any estimates?

"We sent the Mujahadeen equipment and gave them the training on how to use it effectively."

And Al Qaeda still have the training!

And as I said equipment wasn't too great.

There are a lot of people like Osama bin Laden with plenty of money and willing to supply arms.

Look to Pakistan not Iran.The Pakistani military have sympathetic groups within it and plenty of weapons.



[Edited on 8-4-2004 by John bull 1]

Originally posted by Facefirst
There is a big difference between Iraq and Afgahnistan. There is no super-power backing up the resistance in Iraq like there was in Afgahnistan. We sent the Mujahadeen equipment and gave them the training on how to use it effectively.

Another big difference is that Afghanistan was holding Colonel Trautman in 1988, and John Rambo wasn't about to leave his commanding officer from 'Nam behind without a fight!

God would have mercy; John Rambo won't!
www.imdb.com... (Rambo III)

Originally posted by John bull 1
"We sent the Mujahadeen equipment and gave them the training on how to use it effectively."

And Al Qaeda still have the training!

And as I said equipment wasn't too great.

There are a lot of people like Osama bin Laden with plenty of money and willing to supply arms.

Look to Pakistan not Iran.The Pakistani military have sympathetic groups within it and plenty of weapons.



[Edited on 8-4-2004 by John bull 1]

The equipment factor is not as big a deal as alot of people think. An old gun can still kill like a new one and the Stingers gave the Mujahadin the ability to hit the Soviet airpower.

As far as the Rambo comment?

Actually, the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq are alot closer to home.

1. Troop Morale. Thats 50% of what lsot Vietnam: the soldiers didnt understand what they were doing there, who they were fighting or why, and watched as thousamds of thier buddies died and no one did much.
2. This war is being run from Washington. The way this whole war is being run is by people who dont understand the situation. The war in Iraq is being lost because a bunch of non military morons are creating innefective, unrealistic, and stupid policies. They simply arent allowing the military to do its proper job.

Iraq, a steady stream of bodybags... A new Vietnam...?

Originally posted by Hoaks
Iraq, a steady stream of bodybags... A new Vietnam...?

Nicely written.

I think it is too soon to call it Vietnam II as many people are. (and I don't say this lightly, my little brother is in Tikrit!)

I do agree that Iraq has the possibility of becoming another Vietnam or Soviet Afgahnistan, but it is too early to tell. It certainly is leaning towards that. Time will tell....

[Edited on 8-4-2004 by Facefirst]

i don't think you can compare it too afghanistan either. We have an international coalition and we are truly the liberartors. Plus 80 percent of Iraq is secure.

you can't compare Iraq to nam for a few reasons

1) in nam the US was protecting an ally, in Iraq the US attacked to get rid of a political dictator who was deemed to be a threat

2) in Nam, there were 50,000 KIA, in Iraq there are less then 1000 dead

3) in Nam, the US restrained from taking any attack over the boarder to prevent resuplying. In Iraq, the US is activly seeking to disarm Iraq.

The comparisons to Nam are stupid regardless of your political affiliation because nam was on a completely different scale in terms of length, size, and numbers of dead

The war in Iraq is deceptive.

The US originally planned to use Saddam as a big stick against the other OPEC gulf countries. That was why the US pulled out without attacking Baghdad or unseating Saddam during the first gulf war. You do what the US wants or we will let Saddam invade you, do as we (US) say and we will protect you against Saddam.

This all worked fine until Saddam went to the UN and requested that Iraq be paid in euros instead of US dollars for the food for oil deal. This infuriated the US because it set a precedent that other OPEC countries might follow. So Saddam had to be punished in a very visible way as a warning to other OPEC countries against doing exactly the same thing.

It is also why none of the European countries except Spain backed the US when it originally went to the UN over the Iraq "problem". There obviously never were any WMD, it was all about maintaining US dollars for oil.

For over a year now, OPEC is pricing its oil in euros but accepting payment in US dollars. The rest of the world is not seeing the same rapid increase in oil prices that the US is seeing. What is happening is the US dollar has dropped 30% against many other currencies, and oil has gone up 30% in US dollars.

So oil is still fairly cheap around the world, but getting pretty expensive within the US. Expect to see $50.00 oil before the end of the year.

The oil producing Muslim countries will be quite happy to back and sponsor a continuing war of attrition in Iraq, so there will be people and equipment flowing in from surrounding countries backed by oil rich OPEC governments. The religious jihad is only part of it.

The Muslim world are determined to break the US financially, and they can do it. Choosing the world trade centre was not by accident. The commodities exchange and stock exchange was what was in those twin trade towers.

All those dead were the cream of the stock broking and commodity trading world in that region.

Back to Iraq. The US obviously has no real objective or exit strategy planned. It cannot just withdraw without huge loss of face, so this is going to go on and on for a very long time at enormous cost.

American lives are being sacrificed to prop up the US dollar and keep gasoline prices low in the US. That is all there is to it.

As the US dollar continues to fall, and interest rates continue to drop, foreign investment will flee the US. There is going to be a stock-market crash of epic proportions, and the US is going to go down the tube, followed by the rest of the western world. The middle eastern countries will really enjoy seeing the poor arrogant white trash reduced to absolute poverty.

We will be, and there is nothing we can do.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

3) in Nam, the US restrained from taking any attack over the boarder to prevent resuplying. In Iraq, the US is activly seeking to disarm Iraq.

This is only true from an OVERT operations standpoint. We did conduct operations across borders during the Viet Nam war.

And I agree with the poster that stated it is far too early to compare this to Viet Nam. To compare Iraq to the "thousands" of U.S. troops that were dying in Viet Nam is to severely twist the situation at this point.

I do like JB's comparison to Afghanistan, although, again, it is far too soon to firmly make that call - but I do believe they are much closer. And I get this chill when I read about that because I can't help but think that the 10 year war in Afghanistan against the USSR is where Osama became the hero that he is - successfully fighting back the Russians with not much more than stingers and rifles...

I wonder what hero is being created right now?