I've been reading some blogs and books from Grunt Eye perspectives about Iraq, and I've read plenty of books about the US in Vietnam. I was wondering, in terms of conditions, danger, etc, which is worse, more demoralising, and generally shitty?
2006-09-19 21:58:11 · 10 answers · asked by The Landlord 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'm talking about the experiences of a rifleman in an infanty unit, who has to spend a year or so deployed. Not a global, socio-economic point of view. I would have thought that was obvious, but I must always remember never to underestimate the utter inability of some people to read the question properly.
2006-09-20 00:41:41 · update #1
I'm an infantryman with two tours in Iraq under my belt (including the first push in 2003, where the fighting was the worst). I have two uncles who fought in Vietnam as infantrymen and involved in some small unit actions that can only be understood as hell on earth. I've compared notes since then.
In all seriousness, I believe fighting in Southeast Asia was worse. Forget the "home front" comparisons and other such nonsense. As for the "feet dry in Iraq" nonsense, I can say that I've had my boots in irrigation ditches, sewage, and soaked in torrential downpours (yes, it DOES RAIN in Iraq).
The disparity in casualties comes partly because we're so much better off technology-wise, but also because there's no concerted national resistance movement in the form of the VC. Nor is there a force equivalent to the NVA, willing to trade what must be an endless number of lives for even the most mystifying of objectives. This isn't to say the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps aren't capable fighters; most of the heavy paramilitaries in Iraq aren't working openly against us in the manner of the VC/NVA. Just imagine if the Kurdish Peshmerga (for whatever reason) alone decided to go on the offensive against Coalition forces. That casualty toll would rocket.
Vietnam did not "shut down" technology. Artillery and aviation were key players (refer to Khe Sanh, Ia Drang, and any other battle for reference if in doubt). So was mechanization at all levels, from the huge logistics train down to the manpack radios in the field. Iraq didn't offer any comparative advantages through terrain in the application of technology over Vietnam. Anyone who has been there in the field can attest to the effects of heat and grit on sensitive equipment.
As for local superiority, Americans have always fought their wars abroad outnumbered. Same goes for Vietnam and Iraq. Man to man isn't a problem when your average troop from the developed world has had the advantages of modern medicine and good diet over someone who has struggled to even dream of both. No one is going to tell me that the average VC/NVA had any physical advantages (or even parity) with your average American G.I. - and the same goes for any Iraqi.
No, Vietnam was worse, because the enemy was throughly organized, better led, better motivated, driven by history, and far more willing to fight and die in battle.
Thus, Vietnam is a sovereign nation with representation in the United Nations, whereas Iraq is an occupied state. There's the difference.
2006-09-21 08:29:53 · answer #1 · answered by Nat 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is pretty hard. Mainly because they are completely different.
In Vietnam, the cover of the jungle shut out 3/4 of the United States techinal superiority. This made the grunt have to push/defend ground with only his squad for cover. Winners of battles came down to the skill/leadership of each squad/division.
This ended up being that bad that the US had to kill civilians to get rid of the fighters. As is usually the problem when you are fighting in a country where the population supports its soldiers.
In Iraq, the desert is alot more open so the US gets the whole technical advantage, which it put to good use and took iraq in a week or whatever it was.But now with all the media, and the US lacking support from the rest of the world, it has to watch its image closely. And it is stuck in same problem where the civilian population supports its soldiers, but the US cant kill the civilians to get at the soldiers due to the media prescence.
So in the end, it depends on the country you are from. The US would probably find vietnam the worst since it removed their technical and numerical advantage which they boast worldwide.
It came down to man to man skill, which made war really a war for them. And obviously they didnt like it.
2006-09-20 09:37:18 · answer #2 · answered by Paul S 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
tyhe war that any soldier fights in is the toughest we can see an end t iraqq theree was no no fly zone in Nam. Johnson had us crippled there from the get go. Nam was about Dow chemical and Bell helicopter. Nam was a waste if 57000 dead Americans,we still would have been fighting the Chinese.Also the nam soldier was left all alone when he came home..it was a shitty way wa to treat our soliders
2006-09-20 05:08:01 · answer #3 · answered by sportlvr45 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You can't tell. Its apples and oranges. Both are war. But Two different political situations. The nation has changed to much to compare the two. The grunts have changed to much also. Draft vs all volunteer. Its impossible to tell unless you were deployed to both. So, basically the question can't be answered by anyone unless they were a vet of both wars. Even then it still would be different unless they were the same rank in both and in the same type of unit.
2006-09-20 05:06:53 · answer #4 · answered by lostokieboy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nam was worse,rice paddies, jungles , mountains , malaria , humidity, micro managed from the Johnson White House , C-rats, jungle rot , ect.
At least the troops in Iraq can get their feet dry .
2006-09-20 08:48:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw a story on the news...an American soldier whom was feeling glad that he was going to be transferred from Iraq to Afghanistan..he thought it would be better...but it was worse.
Strange that, i thought Iraq wiould be worse.
My point. I guess it all has to do with the individual.
2006-09-20 05:07:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it all depends on the individual person... 'nam was defenitely more demoralizing, cause the troops were disrespected and what not, but all in all it all depends on who you ask... I myself have nothing but respect for the 'nam vets... they really had some stuff to deal with... all in all, wars will be wars, and there isnt that much different about them.
2006-09-20 05:04:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
so true bell helicopters and dow chemicals no front lines, no rules of engagemnet, and over 58.000 great young americans died in vain
2006-09-20 05:13:14 · answer #8 · answered by aldo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both bad..
But are you serius?..Not 3,000 dead-Iraq..60,000 dead Nam...Which do YOU think was worse?
2006-09-20 06:40:50 · answer #9 · answered by I Hate Liberals 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
whatever gets them killed quicker
2006-09-20 05:00:06 · answer #10 · answered by whysochilli 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋