Is it fair to use Vietnam when analyzing our presence in Iraq? Why is it fair to do so or why is it incorrect, improper, unfair, or misleading?

I don't think Vietnam is a fair analogy.

The rump of Saddam's forces, with their associated rag-tag of tribal militias and imported AQ-inspired fanatics could tenuously be analogous to the Viet Cong, I suppose, but where is the large well-funded, and well-disciplined uniformed army that would be the equivalent of the NVA?

And, domestically, there are plenty of protestors against this war, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the soldiers themselves are murderers etc - all the bile seems to be reserved for the political leadership, and none for the military. So far, at least.

Plus, while casualty levels have been rising, they are still in the low hundreds for coalition forces - nothing remotely like Vietnam in that respect.

I think a more apposite analogy might be the British involvement in Northern Ireland - a long-term, low level campaign of attrition. Is America prepared to continue its involvement in Iraq for 30 or 40 year, suffering another few hundred casualties per year, until the Iraqi public and political realm is mature enough to govern itself peacefully and, let us hope, deomcratically? (He asked, expecting the answer "no")

It may take that long, you know. Northern Ireland did, if indeed it can be said that "major hostilities have ceased" there.

The left compares the two in hopes of derailing Bush. Period!

Julian did a decent job of explaining why there is no true valid comparison. The left hopes that analogies to Vietnam will bring about another American defeat and withdrawl.

But please, don't call that an un-American stance or you will offend their sensibilities.

Eeyore,

I appreciate you starting a thread on this issue.

Instead of rehashing what I have already posted on the 375 thread, I'll just give a shortcut to my post(s) on that thread in which I've shared my opinion on the comparison.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=3839&st=30#

I don't think it is unfair to examine history and make comparisons to the present.

Dangit! I backslid and opened my un-American mouth again! Sheesh, this is really hard.

"We're all Republicans now!" - Garrison Keillor

Is it fair to use Vietnam when analyzing our presence in Iraq? Why is it fair to do so or why is it incorrect, improper, unfair, or misleading?

It is fair... but I don't know if its correct. Vietnam was a war, with two clear sides, and a lot of casualties on both sides.

Iraq, is no longer a war. There are not two clear sides, and the casualties seem to be limited to one side (The Americans).

In this respect, then I think the example fails.

But if one looks upon how Vietnam started, then I think it is still valid to draw a parrallel between the two. But only as a loose connection. I serioulsy doubt American soldiers will still be dying in Iraq, ten years from now. GW Bush may believe that the 'ghost of Vietnam has been buried in the Persian Gulf', but some one ought to remind the poor man, that ghosts are so named because they have a tendency to rise from the grave... they wouldn't be ghosts otherwise.


Whilst we are about it though, I would point out that there is one aspect that combines both conflicts... the distatrous influence of Donald Rumsfeld!

editted to add...

...here is an article which draws parrallels

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9289

It is completely fair. Actually I'd call it Vietnam-Somalia style, but definately Vietnam. Just a matter of time before the coalition is pushed out. Ofcourse TV will be keep the ignorant masses thinking things are going good.

Your sarcasm is well noted.

I think that it is unfair to compare this to Vietnam because in Vietnam, we never made any progress whatsoever in taking the country. We kept getting pushed back from positions and such.

Care to explain your reasoning on the coalition being pushed out (because I don't see that happening)? As for TV--which channels are you watching? The ones I see are making very sure everyone thinks things are going poorly.

As to the topic question, I don't think the two are that similar. As Julian posted, there is a HUGE difference between the two--the NVA had a very large supported supplying them with arms, etc. In Iraq, there's no NVA, and there's no large outside force keeping the guerillas supplied. Also, there's no indication that the ranks of the guerillas are gaining the widespread support necessary for them to continue their conflict long-term (in fact, just the opposite is happening as they are now starting to attack the Iraqi people taking over the security details). So, it is only a matter of time while their numbers and supplies dwindle.



I think there are two clear sides (pro or anti coalition presence), and I not sure about the casualties being that one sided. With all the raids that are taking place, I suspect there is a body count being generated on the guerillas, but that it is not being reported (perhaps not even known by the press). Certainly there have been a significant number of arrests, which serves the same purpose (removing the ability of the guerillas to attack).

Well, I think you could see some analogies... :

1. The American Army is involved
2. A typical guerilla with its skirmishes, hit-n'dodge attacks and traps
3. A feeling that things aren't getting any easier (the quagmire some are talking about)

... and big differences :

1. The number of casualties (both civilian and military) is much lesser in Iraq
2. The American Army is not made of drafted civilian men but professional soldiers, therefore the impact on the American opinion is not the same
3. The enemy ; with Vietnam, it was communism in the midst of the Cold War whereas Iraq had Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship.

Is it a valid comparison? I can't tell if we're CREATING one or not.

IOW, are we creating the conditions for a civil war there with us in the middle trying to extract ourselves? We're in control now, but as we turn over responsibility to the locals, if the security doesn't get better, could it get worse and turn into a civil war? All it takes are a few mistakes in handling the local population by the newly constituted Iraqi army combined with a few religious demagogues and you can see it happening.

In Viet-Nam we were actually at "war" or so called "police-state"

but in Iraq we are so called out of the war, and the crimes being commited are by terrorists not the communist army as in Viet-Nam.

Ever since I posted in this thread, I've been coming across articles which draw parrellels with Vietnam... here is another...

At this rate, I shall be forced to admit the similarity regardless of what I think...

editted to add:

And here is another...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/internat...3f354f0e2aedd82

Here is a Washington Post article that gives a fairly good report on what comparisons and contrasts various politicians and military people have been drawing.

If there are any parrallels to be drawn, I would hope that they would be constructive - serving to remind us that certain types of thinking can be, well, fallible. I believe the "domino effect" is such a type of thinking.

"If we quit Vietnam, tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco." LBJ said that.

"We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities." Bush said that.

Here we can see a very similar type of thinking at work. I think that's kind of scary.

Furthermore, it seems so far that our only exit strategy is eerily similar to "Vietnamization," and we all know how well that went. Not.

Another similarity is the often marked difference between the picture the administration has been painting of what's happening in Iraq, and the stories being found by reporters who are in Iraq. During the conflict in Vietnam, it took the administration too long to understand that saying everything was going well just didn't work when the horror of war was being shown every night on the news. With Iraq, our government does seem to have learned an important propaganda point - that "freedom of the press" should not extend to showing the dead and dying. It seems that when people realize that, in spite of all lofty goals, war is about mutilation and murder, about fathers and mothers and sisters and brothers being torn into pieces, they tend to be against it. Go figger.

If there are comparisons to be drawn, they are comparisons of context and atmosphere more than of the actual physical fight itself. Perhaps more apt comparisons would be with the Soviet "excursion" into Afghanistan, I don't know.

Is there a political side to this? Of course. People will say all sorts of things to try and stay in office, or get there. Does it work? Sure. Does it sometimes backfire? Sure.

"Vietnam," it goes without saying, is an incredibly powerful psychological image for most Americans. So I can understand why the supporters of this war don't want that word to come up. On the other hand, we shouldn't excise "Vietnam" from our memories. It is fair to draw comparisons if we are attempting to learn from that ill-fated war, and not repeat any of our mistakes - whether militarily, or contextually. I remember thinking during the first Gulf War, when there was such heavy censorship of reporting from the field, "isn't it sad that this is the lesson they learned from Vietnam? Americans didn't like the ugly pictures, so now we just won't show them any more?"

I think one of the main differences, perhaps the main difference, is that the Administration fighting this war is aware of the Administrative mistakes made by the leadership during Vietnam. The point being they will avoid a similar just send more troops attitude if we start spinning our tires in Iraq.

(I think it is important to recognize a difference between resistance by a handful of Ba’ath party loyalists and a lack of progress in Iraq. We will meet resistance even if we are making progress.)

Bela and I were going at this point in another thread. Here was most of my original sidetracking comment


link

Right. One does not fight in a ar without analyzing past conflicts and their errors/successes in the way of strategy.


The difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam, it was jungle war where the Viet Cong could hide in and where we could get bogged down in. Iraq is basically desert. That means that there is openness where we won't get bogged down where reinforcments can't get to us. In a desert, an AC-130 Spectre Gunship can come in and provide assistance and not need to worry about where he is at because there is no jungle trees to interfere.

I see both similarities and differences with Viet Nam and Iraq... I think the two could be a fair analogy, but I can also see why some people would disapprove of it.

On the one hand...
-> In both Viet Nam and Iraq, the United States fought an enemy without much face (The Viet Cong, and this "Iraq liberation force")
-> In both Viet Nam and Iraq, it started out good, with operations like Dagger Thrust I and II succeeding greatly in Viet Nam, and Baghdad being captured in less than a week.... than stiff resistance rose up from both the civilian and militant populace.
-> Dangerous chemicals/compounds/elements were used in both situations.
-> Civilian casualties much higher than combined military casualties of both sides.

On the other hand...
-> In Viet Nam, the carefully layed out booby traps and ambushes as well as the devious warren systems gave the underequipped VC/VM/NVA an exceptional edge over the SVA/USA.
-> Most of the civilian body was opposed to the US in every way in Viet Nam; in Iraq the civilians seem more indifferent... They didn't want Saddam, they don't want the US puppet government.

No, it isn't that much like Vietnam. This is a volunteer force Mr. Bush has deployed.

That makes a big difference.

It has become awfully expensive, though. And it looks like the rebuilding phase is going to drag on for a long time, especially since the nations in positions to help the most wouldn't touch occupied Iraq with the proverbial ten-foot pole.

But it is guerilla warfare minus the jungle, and as such it is extremely dangerous for the troops, more dangerous than the invasion itself was.

It's certainly taken me a while to post on this issue (one very important in my book) but I had to find the right angle. Here it is:


Link to the quoted post

Here. Eeyore you have taken a stance which is almost perfectly analogous to my objection to comparison's between Iraq and Vietnam. Of course there are similarities that can be listed. Here we have a rather long list of comparisons between Bush and Hitler however you took the same attitude towards these that I take toward the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, namely a commendable "so what?"...

The use of Vietnam parallels is to obscure the reality of Iraq, a situation that cannot even approach Vietnam in the magnitude of the problems faced. The overwhelming importance of the differences between Iraq and Vietnam make any comparison grossly misleading.

Better to look at reality as it is rather than as it was.

GA, the military might not fight a war without analyzing past conflicts for mistakes or successes, but the politicians never seem to learn from their mistakes. The political mistakes between Iraq and Viet Nam are what Shinwa was referring to, I believe.



And how much use are those gunships in an urban environment, GA? In case it's escaped your attention, we aren't fighting Iraqi insurgents out in the desert. We are fighting them on the streets of cities, where the chance for civilian casualties are high.

You can't just indiscriminately start firing 20mm cannon at shops and homes because some one has fired an RPG at your Humvee. At least not unless you want another Mogadishu on your hands. Because that's exactly what will happen. You'll end up turning all of Iraq against us. Right now, that's the last thing we need.

This is the starting point of my disagreement with your post. There is an implication here that historical lessons largely are not out there to be learned. Our foreign policy gives us lessons to learn. America's foreign policy lesson from Hitler was that isolationism had become impractical given America's new prominence in the world. Another example of a lesson learned from Hitler was that people of a democracy have to guard their freedoms or they will be taken. A third lesson is that you have to stop an aspiring bully as soon as that bully is identified. In the case of Hitler, with enforcing the treaty, or the Rhineland, or at least at the Czech border.

The only one of those lessons that can connect to a valid criticism of Hitler is comparing the passage of the PAtriot Act to Hitler's successful conversion of the German democracy into a fascist dictatorship. In the thread you linked to and quoted me I felt that was an unfair historical comparison and I still do. I don't think Bush is trying to destroy our democratic system. His policies are much more likely to create a new McCarthy era than they are to lead to the slogan "Heil Bush."

That being said (or typed rather) I do think there are some very important lessons of Vietnam that are appropriate to look at with our present occupation of Iraq. While it is always easy to run up a random list of similarities (here Charles Manson and Jesus could easily but not very fruitfully compared) (hair is a much less valid comparison that code of morality)

So I deeply feel the lessons of Vietnam which used to resonate so loudly in our foreign policy need to be focused on as soon as possible. I believe this is the reason that Iraqi policy shifted so clearly this past week.

Our president's father kept these lessons in mind by bringing war to IRaq with a clearly defined and limited objective. He felt so strongly about this that he left Hussein in power rather than risk occupying Iraq and facing the political problems of constituting a new government in a hostile environment.

In Vietnam we tried to bring a new type of government to that country by putting a person in power who had been a long time exile in the United States. We also tried to create a security force that was capable of defending itself from the guerilla forces that were the enemies of that country. We failed horribly on both fronts. We got stuck because we were on the 'learning curve' in Vietnam (Westmoreland) and knew what we could not accept (#1 defeat, #2 the spread of communism) but we did not have a plan to win.

I believe we have that stepped into Iraq with too much arrogance and too little planning. We don't really understand the culture, our presence is an irritation for the Arab world and our continuing inability to create a peaceful and stable environment in Iraq will be seen as weakness and will encourage our enemies. This places our troops in a very difficult position of being targets without having a clear mission to accomplish. Our prestige has been laid on the line in IRaq, and the longer we stay and the more vaguely and broadly we define our mission, that more our prestige will be laid on the line. The longer we stay, the harder it will be to leave on our terms.

It is one thing to insist that hussein be removed from office and that Iraq has lost its right to ever pursue or possess WMDs. These were objectives we could achieve. It is entirely another issue to claim that we will make Iraq a shining example of example for the other Arab nations to follow. That is dangerous nation building and when we mean THAT when we say vague statements like "We must stay the course" or "We must win" we are forgetting the lessons of Vietnam and exposing a new generation of young men and women to relearning those lessons the hard way.

Iraq is a dangerous place. Its factions infight and fight among themselves. The likelihood of creating an enduring democracy in that country is not very high. Promoting democracy and offering the opportunity of democratic self-rule to that population is a valid effort, but after we rightfully infuse that economy with a reconstructed infrastructure and we help prop up basic security and social services, that should be their gift to use or lose.

It is always better to look at reality as it is rather than as it was. It is also best to draw on whatever experiences we can to take the most appropriate actions to protect our national reputation (remember before the Vietnam War and the present war our troops acquired a type of can't miss reputation) and more importantly the safety of our troops. Victory is ours to claim. Hussein should be the last step in securing victory in Iraq and then we should be offering services to the Iraqis and exercising our responsibilities to an occupied nation under international law before leaving.

asserting that we have to accomplish more than that is to set ourselves up for the same result as we had in Vietnam.



And here if obviously completely disagree. Since we are the strongest military force in the world, we are prone to be countered most effectively by guerilla forces and be trapped more by our poor planning and arrogance than a stronger enemy.

Both sides in Vietnam were heavily armed and funded by opposing nuclear wielding superpowers, who could never confront each other directly for danger of world annihilation. Iraqi resistance fighters have no such equivalent. I see very little similarity between Vietnam and the Iraq war. Everyone who opposes US military involvement in any conflict is bound to compare it to Vietnam, our least popular war ever. This happened with the first Gulf War and Kosovo also.

there really seems to be two conflicting stories here.

1. the media peporting of casualities everyday as they should. we have the right to know yes. Are they reporting also on the areas that are not hostile and whose citizens are not killing our troops though?

2. that there are perhaps 5,000 terrorlunatics (Saddam's men don't use suicide as a means to an end) that are doing the killing. That leaves millions of Iraqis who AREN't killing our troops. Many thousands of which have been and are being trained to police, fight and protect their own people along side our troops.

so...which do you accept as truth for you?

That doesn't seem to be a "Vietnam-like" scenario.

Mrs. P.
I do not make the comparison with Vietnam to tarnish the war that I do not like. I am not mud slinging here.

I believe their are comparisons to be made in what we are doing. We went into Vietnam on a crusade (anti-communism) and had the mentality that we had to stay the course. While there was support from outside of Vietnam we did go in and occupy the South and we did not fight against another superpower or the tools of the superpower (jets, tanks, bombers). (Until the end of the war)

We faced a guerilla force. We are re-learning our lesson of Vietnam and what the Soviets learned in Afghanistan.

My point is that, however we got here, we need to hone our mission statement instead of trying to remake the map of the middle east as a legacy to this administration. We aren't equipped and we can decide that now or have the point driven home to us through Dover, DE.

In Vietnam we decided not to lose but no one had a clear strategy on how to win. How do you win making Iraq a stable and prosperous democracy? I can see how to win an effort ousting Saddam or ridding IRaq of WMDs. But a shining example of democracy is a goal better aspired to than to be used as a parameter for defining success in Iraq.

I also firmly believe that the voices that called out against having the gulf War become another Iraq helped keep that mission very well defined and constructed to start with and leave with American public support (as well as that of world opinion) I am a big fan of the success in the Gulf War. It serves as a great model for how to use the US military.

Our country should never send in troops and design policy on the fly. We should go in with a successful plan and execute it. It is not like football, when a scheme proves to be wrong the costs are too much to bear.

We did not lose in Vietnam because of Chinese or Russian weapons. We lost because the longer we stayed the less we were wanted and that we sided with a weak and corrupt series of governments against a national hero.

The longer we stay in Iraq the less we will be liked. As to who we chose to support in the form of a government, I hope we make good choices there, but Chalabi seems to be a bit like Diem to me in that he has support here because he is pro US but he has no national appeal inside Iraq.

I think all wars or military actions should be tested against the lessons of Vietnam before we proceed. That piece of history should not paralyze us but remind us be careful about how we go into war. And occupying a country prone to erupt in guerilla war is a bad long term plan.

Where is the comparison here? Saddam is no "national hero". We are not currently backing a "weak and corrupt" government. Please tie this statement into the scenario in Iraq so we can be clear why Iraq IS like Vietnam...


The lesson to be learned is to keep the civilian government out of battlefield decisions. We have, thus far, successfully done that. The pressure being put on the military by the media and (in this instance) the Democrats is what may change that situation. THAT would be a revisiting of Iraq, where the pols in Washington called the battlefield shots.

I honestly don't see the similarity. Where would we be able to confront and topple a corrupt dictator and not encounter a guerilla resistance? Does the inevitability of a guerilla resistance make any such scenario Vietnamesque? Vietnam was a very slowly built up, micromanaged war. It went on for over a decade. We are planning to turn the Iraq government over to the Iraqis in June.

We can't foresee everything, so our 'plan' must change to fit the situation. That isn't the equivalent of designing policy on the fly. I don't recall anyone saying this would be easy. I do believe the administration was naive to expect everyone would welcome us with open arms. I would assume that got that idea from Iraqi defectors who wanted Saddam toppled. However, as Am mentioned, he was never anything close to a national hero.

I think the Vietnam/Iraq analogy comes down to two things
1. People are extremely impatient. Let's put this into perspective and acknowledge it hasn't been a year.
2. People are against this war. Imagine for a moment that Iraq was, without a doubt, directly involved in 9/11. Imagine they hid nothing, had WMD and sprayed our troops. Imagine there is no question that this war was a matter of compelling national interest and world security. Now, imagine we are at exactly this point after 9 months. I would be astounded at the progress.

I personally agree that this isn't an optimal situation, but it's more of an in-a-class-by-itself one.

Yep, this is definately different in time compression, cost inflation, and time of year. Vietnam had promises of getting the troops back by Christmas, and by gosh, a few came back all right.

The similarity is election time.

I bet some troops come back by June and that this gets played up big time, but the conditions don't change a whole lot.

I really hope I'm wrong. Been wrong before. Hope I'm wrong again. I really hope this all turns out all right. Guess I'm praying for it at this point.

I'm reduced to faith in an administration for which I never had any, out of desperation.

Get the freaking troops home, however they want to spin it. I'll even help reelect Bush if we get the troops home by June.

Gad I feel dirty

The Soviets got their butt kicked because we, the superpower, supplied the Afghanis with weapons. The Soviets figured we would stay out of Afghanistan because of the kicking we got in Vietnam.



Maybe. But the fact is, we have to re-build the country because of crippling sanctions and a nutty dictator. So, as long as there is a factory or power plant to re-build, we will be needed.


AuthorMusician:



That'll do it. The American people want to see results and not body bags and if we can get results, then it's re-election time! God knows how LBJ stayed afloat.