How come the USSR easily beat the Hungarian rebels in 1956, but the US can't defeat the Iraqi insurgency now?

Question

In both cases, it was a modern occupying army versus highly motivated but irregular indiginous forces using improvised weapons.

Answer 1

Aside from the points about methods and easier supply lines mentioned in answers above, the main reason would be that the Soviet Union had an actual plan for occupation. The Warsaw pact armies did not simply "fight" the insurgents, they occupied key military and government installations first (weapons depots, communications centers, official residences and records,) immediately installed a new "Hungarian" government, and then, of course, was utterly ruthless in suppressing opposition.
The present U.S. administration had no actual plan for an occupation (hence the looting of everything in Baghdad from arms depots to the National Museum,) they had done nothing to arrange a "new" Iraqi administration (for over a year the country was administered by a U.S. group headed by Paul Bremer,) and, finally, despite the warnings and advice of our own military, the Bush administration had never been willing to increase U.S. forces to the level that many military leaders think is needed for the task.
This should not be surprising in an administration that:
1) lied about the initial intelligence in the first place.
2) has passed on the cost of the war to future generations through reckless borrowing, rather than increase taxes on the rich (if the war is necessary then why not have everyone pay for it?)
3) whose only goal, so far, had been to make sure that companies like Halliburton got and kept "contracts" for restoring the oil infrastructure.
4) Has fired or retired every general who has disagreed with the administrations policies in Iraq.
Considering all of this, it is hardly surprising that the U.S. policy has failed. What is somewhat surprising is that the U.S. people have elected this same group of incompetents not once but twice.

Answer 2

Even though the two cases might look similar, they are not. 1956 the Hungarians had no support from anyone and about half of the population was actually committed to the cause of Communism (and supported the Russian troops).
Those who resisted had few weapons and limited ammunition, and the KGB and GRU used extremly brutal methods to bring leaders either in line or eliminate them.

In Iraq the insurgents have huge amounts of weapons and ammunition at their disposal, and most of the population is by now against the US occupation. There is also support from the neighbouring Islamic coutries for the Iraqi resistance fighters.

Answer 3

We could easily defeat the Iraqi insurgents, Nuke them all. This method however would, aside from killing them all, take away freedoms we are trying to protect while doing it. Additionally the Hungarian Rebels were a quantifiable force in a specific location. The Iraqi insurgents are for the most part not Iraqi at all but foreign fighters that Iran and other nations continually pump into Iraq to replace dead ones. We would have to also defeat all arab nations to end the insurgency instantly. Which takes me back to my original suggestion. NUKE "EM ALL!

Answer 4

The Soviets went into Hungary expecting an insurgency and prepared for it from the outset. The Americans screwed up.

When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, they left hundreds of Iraqi arsenals and armories unguarded in their rush to Baghdad. The upshot was the wholescale looting of those arsenals (as well as everything else in the country).

Before the war, Rumsfeld said things like
"There isn't going to be any insurgency"
"Five days, five weeks, or five months, but it isn't going to last any longer than that"
"I don't do quagmires"

With that kind of mindset, no wonder we continue to lose.

Answer 5

the answer is homefront, in the US almost half of the population is too pU$$y and dont like to see blood while in the Soviet Union people didnt have an option, support the government or die. Plus unlike the Hungarians, the Iraqis are not fighting with sticks and rocks but with an army of suicide bombers.

Answer 6

It is the difference between the USSR and The US. They were a totalitarian rule out to control all of Eastern Europe and possibly the whole of the continent. We are a superpower out to protect ourselves and the world from terrorism, and out to place democracy in the country we are fighting. There is a big difference in the two. It is very hard to compare the two.

Answer 7

Well, however bad the Marines can be, the Soviet Union had no qualms about mass killing. We've got to remember, Soviet brutality remains one of Humanities worst episodes..the Red Army had innumerable guns and men and would pummel cities to the ground, such as Berlin. Face It, America is bad, the Soviets were still worse

Answer 8

A better Soviet comparison to the US in Iraq is the USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Afghanistan didn't turn out so well for our Soviet friends - nor, ultimately, for the US.

But that would be a different story.

Answer 9

Could it be that the Soviets/KGB/Red Army were more ruthless, occupying without regard to human rights; whereas the US kills a few civilians and the pillars of democracy begin to shutter.....

Answer 10

what was the reason for this war??
help iraqi people live a democratic life. So it's really hard to act like the russians did, at least in public if you know what i mean :)