Comparing Vietnam to Iraq - A Different Perspective- True or False - Please Explain?

Question

There are actually people in the world who know about the Vietnam war. That includes almost no Americans. We prefer not to think about Vietnam, so we haven't learned from it. There was a completely winnable war in which we lost no major battles, in which the guerilla fighters (the Viet Cong) were utterly destroyed as a fighting force early in 1968, never to be rebuilt, and yet we lost. How? Diem had announced that he would fight until we got tired of it and went home, and he proceeded to do so. It really didn't matter who won on the battlefield as long as the NVA won on the US TV screen. After the Tet battles of 1968, the Viet Cong were destroyed as a fighting force and the NVA were significantly weakened. Walter Cronkite announced that we were lost, and Johnson said that if Cronkite said so, then the American people were lost. That is, Cronkite's analysis was completely wrong but his conclusion was right, because it was a self-fulfilling prophesy.

To be continued....

Our adversaries have learned this lesson, and we haven't. There is no way we could possibly be beaten militarily. The military can handle Iraq. What they can't do is handle public opinion at home, which is where the war will be won or lost.

It may be "getting old" to you Morpheus and if it is ignore it.

I want to know if the above statement has merit and if we as a country are doing to ourselves NOW what we did to ourselves back then.

It is a serious question worthy of serious answers. Not responses meant to avoid or disguise the truth.

Answer 1

Well, everything has already been said here. A very fine question. I believe after Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq the people of the United States has had enough of our fine military dying for a worthless cause. ( Worthless because there is no threat to the USA ) However, I can see your point of view. I used to believe in everything the USA did and wanted to do. After spending 30 years working for the military I knew not to trust the military or the USA Government at all levels. You never learned that but that is OK. People like me will keep you in check. ( In a good way of course )

Answer 2

We lost that war the moment we intervened in the national election that would have made Ho Chi Minh president in 57. We lost that war when we attempted to replace the French as a military colonial power and we betrayed ourselves as a nation in Vietnam.
It was not in the national interest to assist a puppet government created to be a US friend Ally in the first place.
If the US had succeeded in a military victory in Vietnam, what form would it take and at what cost ?
This myth that the US had militarily defeated the Vietnamese is akin to the myth that the German Army was stabbed in the back by the November Criminals in 1918. Plus the Vietnamese had decades of experience fighting the Japanese, the French and the Americans, none of whom belonged there or offered much of benefit to the average Vietnamese. Cronkite was correct.
The cost of "victory" would be Pyrrhic at best. The resistance would never go away, never end and we'd keep throwing money and lives into a quagmire. Kind of reminds me of Iraq today.

ONE OBVIOUS POINT IN COMMON BETWEEN THE TWO:
Both wars were justified by lies coming from the nation's top leaders. In each case the United States got into an open ended sump that drained thousands of lives and cost millions of dollars to no good end.

Answer 3

No way can one honestly compare Iraq to Vite Nam. One has to remember first of all, Viet Nam wasn't a war, but a 10,000 day conflict. War was never declared on them by us. As where it has been on Iraq.
the only comparison I can see between the two of them is this. Unless the leadership of this great nation of ours gives the Leadership of the Military the support and resources needed to win this war. Then we'll end up calling it Mr. Bush's 21st century version of Viet Nam. However; my stronger feeling's are this, where now in the middle o f a holy war between two different factions in the same country, kind of like the south vs the north in are own history. So do we stay and keep losing are young people for something only they can resolve or do we pull back and let them have there civil war. Then go in and mop up whats left. The other thing are leaders should do is go back and study there history. Because they will also see, that if you stretch your forces to thin and try to fight more then one war at a time your sure to lose, as did Hitler and Napoleon.

Answer 4

Okay, this is getting old now, there's two ways of comparing Iraq to Vietnam. One is in the military concept, eg 'brutal invaders versus little underdogs' rubbish, even though liberals fail to understand that they are both completely different concepts

The other war is on the screen, the media. When Vietnam was going on, people were speaking out in huge numbers for the first time, reporters (who were reporting the facts, not government BS) were sacked and harassed, there was the exposure of how the media lies and distorts. But this is NOT the same, it is a huge development plus we have the internet, we are here and not back then.

edit: nope, still totally disagree. america has all the power and money but it can't seem to win its wars. The war back home to brainwash people, now that's working!

Answer 5

how can you win a war when nobody in the country wants you there? what does america offer as an alternative to the lives those people know? i don't know about iraq but the vietnamese had a choice between vietnamese rule or foreign economic domination. my father in law was a former vc fighter and his take on it is that it would be better to die for his country than be enslaved by another. as a former marine, i can respect that.
when our leaders learn that the rest of the world is not an american colony, they may gain insights into what other, sovreign people want and hope for out of life. america should be the beacon of hope, freedom and equality. not the world's policeman trying to hitch the population to a yoke for some multi-national corporation and a thirty year mortgage

Answer 6

yes you hit the nail on the head. but you need to look back to WW1 and WW2 and see how the whole media treated those wars. look at songs that were rally cries for the troops, pro American movies made, and a news media that was about reporting the news and not scooping the others. can you imagine today's media put in pre Normandy invasion? sure it would have been front page news, and after the defeat would have blamed the President. we have the most technology wise enemy that will us ever peace to destroy us.

Answer 7

it is very compared to Vietnam.....the most important comparison is war profiteering.....the private contractors (about 40,000 in Iraq) costing taxpayers BB-Billions...no bid contracts its the money thing.....ask yourself about the Saudis that flew the planes in NY and bush got the rest of them out f the US... no questions ask...as long as we fight with one arm tied and no shoes, its losing time....bush now says they MAY shoot Iran's insurgents ..should have been 6 years ago.....just protect the oil fields with the 100,000 troops and let the sunneys and shits fight it out and kill the last man standing

Answer 8

It's the same in each battel America failed and will failed in Iraq too.they are planless minds.do't woory about history becaues sure it will been changed as America want.