similarities between iraq and vietnam
 

i have noticed the similarities between the iraq and vietnam wars. from the anti-war protests, to the other countries not offering help, does anyone else share this opinion? discuss.

54 countries supported us, far from no help. We've already achieved our objective of freeing the Iraqis and kicking Saddam out of power as well. Mission accomplished.

The only similarity I'd say between the two are the fact that people are waging geurilla attacks on our soldiers, otherwise it's very much different.

Then why aren't my sister-in-law, close friends, and several distant cousins back yet? Why are they still risking their lives every day?


But I will agree with Phaenx in the fact that there ARE visible results in Iraq as opposed to Vietnam, and the length of time is nowhere near comparable. However, if the current insurgencies become more controlled and give rise to a large-scale uprising against US troops, then you may be able to make a comparison...but we aren't there, and let us pray we will never get to that point.


MB

iraq & vietnam are different.

The mission in vietnam was ambiguous, unsupported & didn't have an endgame.

This is much clearer,
although the politics, rationalizations & planning could have been done better.

You don't have to come back to accomplish your tasks. Unless it specifically says so, we still have stuff to do and things to find but we pretty much did what we wanted to do. Neutralized the danger, saved a people and established a beacon of light in the black of faschist darkness =).

If there is an historical analogy, then maybe this is around the time of the early sixties. For Iraq to have any hope, the US needs to put its full weight behind a really popular and credible new Iraq leadership - get it right the first time. If instead they start out by dickering around with some Ngo Dinh Diem like figure and a succession of unpopular tinpot generals, there'll be real trouble in Iraq.

The fact that America supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War will make the politics of this transition an uphill battle right from the start.

if there are any coups in iraq all hell will break loose. i'm curious as to what mission was accomplished, the fact that saddam got away and is probably still in power in some capacity, and second how are the iraqi people free when they still are afraid to leave ther houses. i think that american troops will continue to die on iraqi soil for years to come much like they did in vietnam, maybe not on such a dramatic scale but they better get things under control and show some results and let the iraqi people rule themselves. no puppet regimes like mr. diem

The key question for me is if the US would be willing to accept whoever it is that the Iraqis choose when they finally have an election. (It seems to me that the US and Iraqi visions of the kind of ruler an government they'd like to have are not the same.) And if not, how the US would react. This is the scenario in which nightmarish Vietnam-like scenarios come to mind for me.

Or, if Iraq's election goes ugly and large-scale violence breaks out between groups within Iraq -- would the US take a side? That could also have horrific results.

In its current state, I think that Iraq and Vietnam can be compared not in terms of how many people are dying or how ugly the situation in the country is, but instead in terms of the deceptive tactics employed by the government to support its overseas adventures.

By that logic, the Korean War, the Cold War, and WWII are still unresolved as we have troops stationed in Europe and on the border of North and South Korea.

Not saying that the mission is over, just that this line of reasoning doesn't fit.

It's your logic that's flawed. We don't have 70 troops a month being killed in Korea, and you can even bring your kids with you when you are stationed in Germany.

His logic fits.

the korean war never ended man

I'd say the issue isn't will Iraq be another Vietnam.

The issue is who wants Iraq to be another Vietnam.

Troops in Europe, Korea are still risking their lives and they aren't home. Are the kids allowed in the training exercises where troops "protecting" these areas die on a regular basis?

The logic doesn't work.

It wasn't a war either.

Please tell that to the 50,000 Americans who died protecting it.

Heh, should we produce a list of those fine and distinguished countries?

Freeing Iraqis was an objective?

In this era of realpolitik, I'm amazed people still tout democracy and freedom as being the driving force behind anything nowadays.


SLM3

I don't make the news just report it. When people want to get into technicalities, then technicalities it shall be.

we all know korea was a "police action" and vietnam was an "incident" but are these not just words used by people in power to go to war without actually saying the word "war", what was the word used for iraq "liberation" there have been so many. the americans have been the occupying force in both vietnam and iraq even though they believe they have been preaching democracy. is it preaching or force feeding?

I missed this one. Too bad it doesn't make sense...

i never noticed that either confused myself what training exercises that some bad training if you die during it and why are kids there?

Vietnam = 50,000+ dead americans and we pulled out and basicly the other side won.

Iraq= 200 (thereabouts, i'm not certain if it's more yet or less still) dead americans and we havent pulled out, and the other side is basicly gone.

am i the only one who sees a difference here?

And, btw for anybody wondering, the soldiers in Iraq are less likely to be hurt or killed while they are in Iraq then when they are home (over the same periods of time) due to the lowered risks related to booze and traffic accidents.

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

530 Coalition fatalities in 9 months of fighting. November being the deadliest month, with 109 Coalition fatalities.

240 U.S. Deaths since Pres. Bush announced "Bring 'Em On!"

2161 U.S. Wounded by Hostile Action
355 U.S. Non-Hostile Wounded

Sounds like they're less likely to be hurt or killed while in Iraq :rolleyes:

Didn't it take something like 2 years or so before there were as many US casualties in Vietnam as there have been in Iraq so far?


SLM3

SLM3,

Yes and no.

Exactly, 17.000 troops in Vietnam for those KIA's and over 100,000 troops now.

This will never get to Vietnam numbers,

Come and compare Iraq when the tally gets ovey 14 years and there are over 30,000 kia's.

While our casualties are not yet accumulating at Vietnam rates, there is a strong possiblity of this happening. Many of the lessons of military engagement from Vietnam seem to be largely forgotten by the Bush administration. Collective Siagon amnesia seems widespread, especially among those who were alive at the time. Opposition and civilian casualty rates in Vietnam and Iraq are the same: incalculable.

Ustwo said it best. This is further obvious when Sparhawk has a convienent "up to the minute US death tally" , really classy man, just rub it in Dubya's face/ everyone else who supported him. I mean its obvious isn't, us who supported it are cool because we love to see our American boys die in Iraq PLUS our Haliburton stock has gained some points :thumbsup: .

I think the idea is to *NOT* get to vietnam-style level of casualties...

Whatever, it was a response about it being safe to bring families to Europe and the fact that they aren't put in harms way during the most dangerous parts of that station.


As far as the rest of the thread. Iraq is not Vietnam. Just as Vietnam was not World War II or Korea. Each conflict may have certain similarities but each is extraordinarily unique from a political, social, and yes, even militaristic standpoint. Commonalities, hmmm, troops, deaths, guns. Looking at those similarities, Iraq reminds me of the US-Mexican war. No wait, the revolutionary war, no hold it, WWI, umm err no perhaps the Barbary Wars. Yes, that's it, Iraq is just like the Barbary wars.

Here's your original post:

Troops in Europe are risking their lives about as much as they are risking their lives serving in the states. Military training is designed to be as safe to the trainees as possible, but accidents do happen. The last line doesn't even make sense- of course they aren't allowed in the training exercises in Europe. Nor are they allowed to participate in *any* training exercises anywhere else in the world. :hmm:

Let's see, political standpoint:

Both wars were authorized by congress in joint resolutions after the administration misrepresented (intentionally or unintentionally, it doesn't matter) the facts.

military standpoint:

Both wars we are fighting a guerrilla insurgency that refuses to face us in a head-on battle the guerrillas would be sure to lose.

social standpoint:

Both wars have fading public support, along with administration backtracking (Vietnamization, Iraqization)

Doesn't sound "extraordinarily unique" anymore, now does it?

It's funny you bring up the US-Mexican war, as that war was also fought under false pretenses. The rest of your post is a troll however, not worth responding to.

There are a thousand things specific to every one of the conflicts I mentioned. Your attempt to link them by pointing to a few is absolutely ridiculous. And that was the point I made.

Dead in training is just as dead as in combat. I responded to the standard of people dying and not being home as outlined in this post:

"Then why aren't my sister-in-law, close friends, and several distant cousins back yet? Why are they still risking their lives every day?"

As far as discussing kids, it was about the assertion made about bringing family along to Europe somehow changes that the above outlined logic doesn't apply to it.

If you think I'm just a troll then stop responding to me. I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.

i dont think there is every any chance that the death tally will ever reach vietnam levels simply because there is no equivlent to the north vietnamese to fight against us, with another superpower backing them up with weapons and technical knowledge.

I know having this many soldiers comming home in body bags is terriable, but from a military point of view, this is still a cake walk. (i sense the flame comming at me on that one)

Done.

Agree, but for a different reason: the American public won't stand for those kind of numbers this time. And going by the death rate, we're seeing about 1/5 the rate of deaths that Vietnam had, obviously lower than Vietnam, but still much higher in comparison with any of the U.S.'s other modern wars...

Thank you, you've made my week! (and it's only Monday)

that's true hawk, i can't imagine the US public allowing a war to contentue w/those kind of death numbers, unless the germans start rolling over france again.

The latest poll data seems to back that up as well

<img src="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/bushApproval_120803.gif">

everyone seems to be looking at this comparisson as a death rate between the two wars. there are also similarities in the way they began like the tonkin gulf incident in 1964 that we now know never happened, in the iraq war there are the weapons of mass destruction. vietnam started out as a gureilla war and turned into a conventional war, iraq started out conventional and is turning into a guriella war. LBJ visited South Vietnam in 1966 to boost troop morale, much like Bush did over Thanksgiving, so ther are more similarities and things to compare than just simply casualty rates.

There were many LEGITMATE charges leveled against Iraq, no where near a gulf of Tonkin.

None legitimate enough for war, apparently.



SLM3