Full Version: Are we having our Iraqi Tet-offensive?
Many historians credit the Tet offensive with changing the minds of many Americans about the necessity and importance of the Vietnam war. Likewise, we are experiencing similar difficulties in Iraq, such as...
Insurgent forces run on the Ukranians like a treadmill
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,...1509636,00.html
"Coalition" ally Kazahkstan throws in the towel...
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusintl/reute...&vts=4720041041
Najaf not under control
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,405...55E1702,00.html
Iraqi governing council wobbles again
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...5%5E401,00.html
Questions for debate:
1.)Is the Shia uprising the Iraqi version of the "Tet" offensive?
2.)How are the two events similar? If you don't believe they are how, please explain how they are different.
3.)Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
Insurgent forces run on the Ukranians like a treadmill
QUOTE
Ukrainian troops Wednesday withdrew from the Iraqi city of Kut, south of the capital Baghdad, after heavy fighting with supporters of radical Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr who now control the city, the defence ministry said.
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,...1509636,00.html
"Coalition" ally Kazahkstan throws in the towel...
QUOTE
Kazakhstan will pull its troops out of Iraq when the tour of its present contingent ends in May, Defence Minister Mukhtar Altynbayev said on Wednesday.
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusintl/reute...&vts=4720041041
Najaf not under control
QUOTE
THE Iraqi holy city of Najaf, where radical Shi'ite Muslim leader Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly taken refuge, is not under the control of US-led coalition forces, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today.
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,405...55E1702,00.html
Iraqi governing council wobbles again
QUOTE
Nuri al-Badran, a Shi'ite Muslim, said he wanted to quit from the Iraq Governing Council to maintain a balance of Iraq's religious groups on the Cabinet.
But the news came as a bitter blow to US administrator to Iraq Paul Bremer, who said al-Badran's removal would only cause an imbalance and he would not let him go.
But the news came as a bitter blow to US administrator to Iraq Paul Bremer, who said al-Badran's removal would only cause an imbalance and he would not let him go.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...5%5E401,00.html
Questions for debate:
1.)Is the Shia uprising the Iraqi version of the "Tet" offensive?
2.)How are the two events similar? If you don't believe they are how, please explain how they are different.
3.)Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
1.)Is the Shia uprising the Iraqi version of the "Tet" offensive?
No, I'll explain my position below.
2.)How are the two events similar? If you don't believe they are how, please explain how they are different.
During the Tet offensive, the VietCong insurgents were aided both overtly, and (mostly) covertly by a national army, the NVA. In Iraq, aside from foreign terrorists who infiltrated in from Iran and Syria, there is no outside governmental source of support.
3.)Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
Well, the uprising is taking place in the Sunni Triangle. Don't hear a lot of news about ither parts of Iraq, because aside from a few scattered attacks on police stations, the vast majority of suicidal islamists are in the Fallujah-Najaf-Ramadi area.
Don't forget, though US public opinion of the Vietnam war slid downhill after Tet, afterwards the VC were rendered impotent as an autonomous military force. The Tet offensive was considered by most historians a US victory, as the VC failed to achieve a single success.
No, I'll explain my position below.
2.)How are the two events similar? If you don't believe they are how, please explain how they are different.
During the Tet offensive, the VietCong insurgents were aided both overtly, and (mostly) covertly by a national army, the NVA. In Iraq, aside from foreign terrorists who infiltrated in from Iran and Syria, there is no outside governmental source of support.
3.)Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
Well, the uprising is taking place in the Sunni Triangle. Don't hear a lot of news about ither parts of Iraq, because aside from a few scattered attacks on police stations, the vast majority of suicidal islamists are in the Fallujah-Najaf-Ramadi area.
Don't forget, though US public opinion of the Vietnam war slid downhill after Tet, afterwards the VC were rendered impotent as an autonomous military force. The Tet offensive was considered by most historians a US victory, as the VC failed to achieve a single success.
Comparisons to Vietnam are inappropriate, at least according to John McCain:
US senators split on Iraq
But let's examine the Tet offensive:
The Tet offensive was the simultaneous attacking of 13 out of the 16 provincial capitals in the Mekong Delta. 70,000 Vietnamese troops under the command of Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap attacked during the traditional Tet holiday, surprising the South Vietnamese forces. On the battlefield, the results were disastrous for the North: they achieved none of their strategic objectives. In the US, however, the public's reaction is what turned the tide in Vietnam. The reaction at home is what lost that war, not anything that happened on the battlefield.
Here is a good analysis as to why Iraq and Vietnam are not comparable, unless we lose the US populace at large.
Analysis: A mini-Tet offensive in Iraq?
Let's not make premature comparisons.
US senators split on Iraq
QUOTE
Republican Senator John McCain who was a prisoner during the Vietnam war, says comparisons with Iraq are totally false.
He has called for a united approach in the Senate.
"Yes, we are free to criticise, yes we are free to make recommendations and suggestions," he said.
"But the awesome responsibility for this lies with all of us led by the President of the United States."
He has called for a united approach in the Senate.
"Yes, we are free to criticise, yes we are free to make recommendations and suggestions," he said.
"But the awesome responsibility for this lies with all of us led by the President of the United States."
But let's examine the Tet offensive:
The Tet offensive was the simultaneous attacking of 13 out of the 16 provincial capitals in the Mekong Delta. 70,000 Vietnamese troops under the command of Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap attacked during the traditional Tet holiday, surprising the South Vietnamese forces. On the battlefield, the results were disastrous for the North: they achieved none of their strategic objectives. In the US, however, the public's reaction is what turned the tide in Vietnam. The reaction at home is what lost that war, not anything that happened on the battlefield.
Here is a good analysis as to why Iraq and Vietnam are not comparable, unless we lose the US populace at large.
Analysis: A mini-Tet offensive in Iraq?
QUOTE
But Tet was an unmitigated military disaster for Hanoi and its Vietcong troops in South Vietnam. Yet that was not the way it was reported in U.S. and other media around the world. It was television's first war. And some 50 million Americans at home saw the carnage of dead bodies in the rubble, and dazed Americans running around.
As the late veteran war reporter Peter Braestrup documented in "Big Story" -- a massive, two-volume study of how Tet was covered by American reporters -- the Vietcong offensive was depicted as a military disaster for the United States. By the time the facts emerged a week or two later from RAND Corp. interrogations of prisoners and defectors, the damage had been done. Conventional media wisdom had been set in concrete. Public opinion perceptions in the United States changed accordingly.
As the late veteran war reporter Peter Braestrup documented in "Big Story" -- a massive, two-volume study of how Tet was covered by American reporters -- the Vietcong offensive was depicted as a military disaster for the United States. By the time the facts emerged a week or two later from RAND Corp. interrogations of prisoners and defectors, the damage had been done. Conventional media wisdom had been set in concrete. Public opinion perceptions in the United States changed accordingly.
QUOTE
As South Vietnamese troops fought Vietcong remnants in Cholon, the predominantly Chinese twin city of Saigon, reporters, sipping drinks in the rooftop bar of the Caravelle Hotel, watched the fireworks 2 miles away. America's most trusted newsman, CBS' Walter Cronkite, appeared for a standup piece with distant fires as a backdrop. Donning helmet, Cronkite declared the war lost. It was this now famous television news piece that persuaded President Johnson six weeks later, on March 31, not to run. His ratings had plummeted from 80 percent when he assumed the presidency upon Kennedy's death to 30 percent after Tet. His handling of the war dropped to 20 percent, his credibility shot to pieces.
Until Tet, a majority of Americans agreed with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that failure was not an option. It was Kennedy who changed the status of U.S. military personnel from advisers to South Vietnamese troops to full-fledged fighting men. By the time of Kennedy's assassination in Nov. 22, 1963, 16,500 U.S. troops had been committed to the war. Johnson escalated all the way to 542,000. But defeat became an option when Johnson decided the war was unwinnable and that he would lose his bid for the presidency in November 1968. Hanoi thus turned military defeat into a priceless geopolitical victory.
With the Vietcong wiped out in the Tet offensive, North Vietnamese regulars moved south down the Ho Chi Minh trails through Laos and Cambodia to continue the war. Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.
Until Tet, a majority of Americans agreed with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that failure was not an option. It was Kennedy who changed the status of U.S. military personnel from advisers to South Vietnamese troops to full-fledged fighting men. By the time of Kennedy's assassination in Nov. 22, 1963, 16,500 U.S. troops had been committed to the war. Johnson escalated all the way to 542,000. But defeat became an option when Johnson decided the war was unwinnable and that he would lose his bid for the presidency in November 1968. Hanoi thus turned military defeat into a priceless geopolitical victory.
With the Vietcong wiped out in the Tet offensive, North Vietnamese regulars moved south down the Ho Chi Minh trails through Laos and Cambodia to continue the war. Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America's resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi's grasp.
QUOTE
Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."
Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."
America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Kennedy should remember that Vietnam was the war of his brother who saw the conflict in the larger framework of the Cold War and Nikita Khrushchev's threats against West Berlin. It would behoove Kennedy to see Iraq in the larger context of the struggle to bring democracy, not only to Iraq, but the entire Middle East.
Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."
America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Kennedy should remember that Vietnam was the war of his brother who saw the conflict in the larger framework of the Cold War and Nikita Khrushchev's threats against West Berlin. It would behoove Kennedy to see Iraq in the larger context of the struggle to bring democracy, not only to Iraq, but the entire Middle East.
Let's not make premature comparisons.
As much as I despise GW and think the war on Iraq is a monumental mistake and an unethical political ploy by GW- comparing this to the tet offensive is silly when you consider the scale. And the number of dead is miniscule, in comparison with vietnam, though we should be just as sensitive to the families of the deceased.
Though I think comparisons are apt in terms of "um, what the hell are we trying to accomplish here again?" and "So why exactly are we here again?" between vietnam and Iraq- there is an important distinction in scale and scope, and people who are against this silly war don't need to stoop to the administrations subterfuge to find things wrong!
Though I think comparisons are apt in terms of "um, what the hell are we trying to accomplish here again?" and "So why exactly are we here again?" between vietnam and Iraq- there is an important distinction in scale and scope, and people who are against this silly war don't need to stoop to the administrations subterfuge to find things wrong!
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 8 2004, 05:15 PM)
Questions for debate:
1.)Is the Shia uprising the Iraqi version of the "Tet" offensive?
1.)Is the Shia uprising the Iraqi version of the "Tet" offensive?
I don't think it's the Tet Offensive but it's a turning point.
2.)How are the two events similar? If you don't believe they are how, please explain how they are different.
I think there are similarities and differences on both sides.
3.)Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
What's troubling is how out of touch this stance really is. The Shia and Sunni populations are uniting against us. Yet we are still being told there are only 'small numbers' of 'freedom hating terrorists' or 'Baathist holdouts' causing trouble. I hope the Administration is just guilty of rhetoric and not total blind stupidity.
The turning point that we are seeing is that both the Shia and Sunni's are taking a combined and public stance against the Coalition. So, in a way it's true that our presence is preventing a civil war in Iraq...the two sides are so busy fighting us they don't have the time or will to fight against each other. But that's not exactly good news for us. And if both sides want us out we have no legitimate reason to stay...just as we had no legitimate reason to invade.
Read how Shiites Rally to Sunni 'Brothers'.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 8 2004, 08:15 PM)
Many historians credit the Tet offensive with changing the minds of many Americans about the necessity and importance of the Vietnam war. Likewise, we are experiencing similar difficulties in Iraq, such as...
Insurgent forces run on the Ukranians like a treadmill
Najaf not under control
Insurgent forces run on the Ukranians like a treadmill
Najaf not under control
The reason Najaf and Kut were taken so easily is because Spain and Ukraine only have a very small number of troops in Iraq while the Brits (in Basra), the Italians (in Nasiriya) and the US have more then a thousand and higher. Sadr is taking on the weaklings. But the Ukrainians are waiting for the right time to barge into Kut and take it back. The Spanish are waiting for us (very sad). We almost have full control of Fallujah again and have re-taken Ramadi and have quelled the nutballs slightly in Sadr City (Baghdad gehttos).
QUOTE
Is the Shia uprising the Iraqi version of the "Tet" offensive?
No. The Tet Offensive was a surprise attack. Everyone could have seen this crap in Iraq coming...even if Sadr's anti-american newspaper hadn't been shut down and his aide hadn't been arrested. The radical Shiites were warming up in the bullpen while the Sunnies and the rest of Saddam's cronies were giving us trouble. When the Sunnis ran out of steam, Sadr would start his trouble.
QUOTE
Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
No it isn't. The Sunni Triangle, compared to the rest of the country right now, is calm
Some comments: This skirmish may seem depressing and may seem like the battle is going bad for us in Iraq, but it isn't. It was obvious that we were gonna have problems with the Shiites as well as the Sunnis and that something like this may happen, but it is better to have happened while we had 100,000 troops in there instead of 10,000 or 5,000. Get rid of these radical punks while our troops are at their strongest in numbers and equipment
QUOTE
The reason Najaf and Kut were taken so easily is because Spain and Ukraine only have a very small number of troops in Iraq while the Brits (in Basra), the Italians (in Nasiriya) and the US have more then a thousand and higher.
True, in the case of Kut. There are very few Ukrainian troops in relation to the ground they have to secure - a military base and the Kut CPA - both in poorly defensible locations, with little in the way of security engineered into the sites.
Najaf is very different. There are plenty of Spanish, El Salvadoran and Dominican Republic troops to put down the uprising within the city - if you're just talking numbers. Professional military capability and the will to engage in the urban fighting necessary.....well, that's another story.
As far as Nasiriyah goes, I am honestly surprised that the Italians have done as well as reported. During our visit to Nasiriyah, the overall impression of the Italians was of extremely sloppy and unprofessional soldiers - they didn't even know how to position their heavy machine guns for site security and professed ignorance as to what a range card was good for. And this was after the bombing at the Italian police HQ in town.
Is the Shia uprising the Iraqi version of the "Tet" offensive?
Despite the easy dismissals of any resemblence to Tet '68, for Sadr and his organization, it is a pretty impressive showing. As has already been noted, their is no support - in logisitics or manpower - from any neighboring army, and Sadr himself is often on bad terms with other important Shi’a leaders, including Sistani and Hakim. He also has substantially antagonized Sunni Muslims, and his heavy-handed Islamic vigilantism is deeply offensive to secular Iraqis and religious minorities such as Christians. If we handle this right, without going so far in the efforts to eradicate Sadr's organization that we force the other Shi'a clerics to side with him, it will have significant long-term positive effects upon our efforts at stabilization. This will require us to communicate openly with the Howza and SCIRI.
Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
I think it has been made perfectly clear that the defeat of the current Sunni-based insurgency will not quiet Shi’a criticism of the our presence in Iraq. I have stated before that I strongly feel that we have not paid sufficient attention to the potential threat posed by Shi'a factionalism - until now. Virulent anti-U.S. propaganda has been issuing forth from Shi’a sources for a long time now, as well as Sunni mosques and publications. It is just that, until all hell broke loose, we just did not given it the same level of attention.
QUOTE
1.)Is the Shia uprising the Iraqi version of the "Tet" offensive?
2.)How are the two events similar? If you don't believe they are how, please explain how they are different.
3.)Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
2.)How are the two events similar? If you don't believe they are how, please explain how they are different.
3.)Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
Actually, when this stuff started going down, "Tet" was the first thing I thought of. People forget that Tet was actually a military victory for the US - from a pure military standpoint. The NVA and VC were crushed during that action, but the very fact that it happened caused a huge political reaction against the war in the US. That reaction was what the North was counting on. For those unfamiliar with the Tet Offensive, here is a pretty good description of what happened. From that link we get the following....
QUOTE
Giap was prepared to take a gamble. His divisions had been battered whenever they met the American forces in conventional combat and the VC- if not exactly on the retreat -was at least being pushed backwards. Hanoi was perfectly aware of the growing US peace movement and of the deep divisions the war was causing in American society What Giap needed was a body-blow that would break Washington's will to carry on and at the same time would undermine the growing legitimacy of the Saigon Government once and for all. In one sense, time was not on Giap's side. While Hanoi was sure that the Americans would tire of the war as the French had before them, the longer it took, the stronger the Saigon Government might become. Another year or so of American involvement could seriously damage the NLF and leave the ARVN capable of dealing with its enemies on its own. Giap opted for a quick and decisive victory that would be well in time for the 1968 US Presidential campaign.
Echoes of the past? Apparently one of the bad guys in Iraq is up on their American History from the Nam years.... We didn't lose that war in the jungles of Vietnam, it was lost on the streets of the US and in the halls of Congress and the White House. This I believe to be precisely the strategy of the insurgency in Iraq at the present time, and in Afghanistan as well. But, I believe there is a fatal flaw in their strategy, acutally more than one of them. First of all, the US was never attacked directly on American soil by North Vietnam or it's agents and while I realize that the nexus between Iraq and 9/11 is debatable, there is no debate regarding terrorism and 9/11. Secondly, unlike 1968 where Richard Nixon won the Presidency by promising to get us out of Nam, John Kerry has made no similar statement to my knowledge about getting the US out of Iraq. He's talked about increased involvment of other nations there, but I don't think he has, or will advocate a US withdrawl before Iraq has stabilized.
Still though, the parallels between this insurgency and Tet are indicative of a sort of desperation on the part of the rogue elements in Iraq, just as it was for Giap prior to Tet. They know they are losing and like Giap, time is not on their side. We've read posts here by our "embedded posters" from Iraq about the strides the coalition is making in Iraq in improving the peoples' lives there. New schools, improved medical care, better living conditions. The longer this goes, the better it gets and the less of a chance the radical despot Saddam wannabes will have to gain traction.
As far as the third question is concerned, that's a difficult one not knowing the source and nature of the insurgency. The kind of guerilla warfare we are seeing is a pretty dynamic and portable thing. People can walk out into their backyards and fire rockets, mortars and AK-47's at our troops, or they can jump in a car, avoid checkpoints and drive half a day and do the same thing a few hundred miles away. Just from what I've read and heard though, the majority of the problems do seem to originate in the Sunni triangle. Thus, I think taming that region would probably go a long ways to quelling the violence.
US re-captures Kut
Sadr's goons are starting to lose steam. The US military is coming and putting them down. All we have left to go is Najaf.
QUOTE
The United States army regained control of the central Iraqi city of Kut on Friday following fierce fighting with Shiite Muslim militiamen in the early hours, the US army and Iraqi police said.
Sadr's goons are starting to lose steam. The US military is coming and putting them down. All we have left to go is Najaf.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Apr 9 2004, 08:41 AM)
Sadr's goons are starting to lose steam. The US military is coming and putting them down. All we have left to go is Najaf.
Uh huh. The rest is going to be smooth sailing.
Let's try to avoid one-liners...
Questions for debate:
1.)Is the Shia uprising the Iraqi version of the "Tet" offensive?
2.)How are the two events similar? If you don't believe they are how, please explain how they are different.
3.)Is the Bush stance that only the "Sunni Triangle" needs taming still credible?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.