Is the war in IRAQ the new VIETNAM?

Question

Will the US be defeated by islamic rogues jut like by the Viet Cong?

Answer 1

yep

count on it

Answer 2

The US was not defeated by the Viet Cong in vietnam, actually the Viet Cong was rendered useless in the Tet Offensive. The remainder of the police action was fought by north vietnamese regulars. The US was not defeated in Vietnam. There was simply really nothing to win and the resource required would still not render a clear conclusion. More importantly, it was no longer a popular war. If anything the antiwar movement defeated the US in vietnam.
The antiwar movement will likely defeat the US in Iraq if the rather pointless struggle continues for a few more years.

Answer 3

The U.S. killed about 2 million Vietcong while only being able to stay in South Vietnam. The North also had a major backing from both the Soviets and China and the U.S. wasn't allowed to cross into North Vietnam. Also in the begining, Americans loved going to Vietnam because some guys got triple pay and the death rate wasn't that bad (it was less than the national average). Things changed with the Tet Offensive which Walter Cronkiet (the big cheese in newscasting when there was such a thing) reported the U.S. was losing even though it actually caused 56,000 North Koreans to die with the remaining to flee back into North Vietnam. The KGB was also able to fund anti nuke ralleys and peace marches in Europe and the U.S. (using money and drugs). Notice there is no more anti-nuke rallys after the Soviets went away.

Also many of this fighting is drug related. They get dopped up on heroin and booze and become a larger version of the Manson Family. It has nothing to do with religion after that. They have been shooting everybody, including their neighbors. Have ten thousand guys armed, paranoid (from the drugs) and doped up and you'll get something like Iraq and Afganistan. You also get to see that stuff on the streets of Latin America and the U.S.

Answer 4

The Vietnam-Iraq parallel has been drawn by people as varied as Melvin Laird (who did an excellent piece in "Foreign Affairs") and every nutjob riding on a Greyhound bus. It just isn't functional.

(1) The VC were a spent force that was pretty much ruined by the Tet Offensive. Even the NVA believed that the VC couldn't pull off what it did during Tet, believing their comrades in RVN to be spent in both terms of manpower if not morale. NVA regulars would pick up the slack after Tet, and it was NVA main force units that took the brunt of the fighting against the Americans in battles such as Ia Drang, not the VC.

(2) The casualty rates for Iraq and Afghanistan are nowhere near those of Vietnam or Korea. Even when the better organized paramilitaries like the Mahdi Army engage Coalition forces, they are wrecked by a lopsided firepower and casualty ratio that really doesn't have any other parallel anywhere. The only thing burdening the American military in Iraq is not having to replenish losses, but to find sufficent funds to replace equipment.

(3) There is no unified national resistance movement in Iraq on par with what happened in Vietnam. There is a stream of volunteers who come into Iraq to fight Americans, but the vast majority of these are individuals engaging in "Jihad tourism" and not trained to the standards of the NVA. There is no equivalent to a well-maintained and run Ho Chi Minh Trail in Iraq feeding ENTIRE regiments, not even in Anbar. What exists piggybacks on existing civilian roads and is nowhere near as funded and organized.

(4) In Vietnam, the United States supported a non-functional dictator in Ngo Dinh Diem and then let itself back military rule through coup d'etat in Vietnam, destroying American credibility when it came to backing democracy. In Iraq, there is a moderately functional ELECTED government formed by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people.

In other words, no insurgency or terror movement can make us actually QUIT Iraq unless the Americans just decide out of the blue to pack up and leave. American military losses are nowhere near Vietnam levels, and the various fractured terror movements and paramilitaries in Iraq have an exceedingly difficult time even thinking of coming together.

America will defeat itself, if anything. None of you who haven't done the reading or the footwork who have responded thus far have given more than pithy one-liners based on ignorance. Look at the question again.

Answer 5

There is some similtarity between vietnam and iraq but not enough, In Vietnam we were fighting a guerilla force and a conventional force too but the insurgency in vietnam was much worse than the one in Iraq, until this sectarian thing flared up. Stop posting this question.

Answer 6

No. I believe we still have many more years with the war in Iraq and sometime will end not soon. I thing the next country we might go to war with will probably be Korea if any.

Answer 7

yes, in regards to the fact that the "high command" will not listen to its field staff, and the fact that one of the miriad wrong reasons we are there, is for weapons profiteering...JUST like why we stayed in Vietnam so long.
I do not see a rag tag bunch of suicide artists getting the best of us, Its still too hard for them to get a suicide jockey on an aircraft carrier...

Answer 8

The US will not be defeated although we may pull out of Iraq.

Answer 9

As sad as it may sound yes.

Answer 10

I agree with you 100%.

Answer 11

bush admitted it as such..............america HAS been defeated..........they just have to put their tail between the legs and RUN