Why compare the Vietnam and Iraqi war?

Question

Besides both being mistakes and seeming to be profit motivated.

Answer 1

You have answered your own question. They were both mistakes and profit motivated. They are the main comparisons. Here's a few more I've dug up:

First, there are the obvious strategic and tactical similarities. American troops are fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq. The terrain is difficult, and the insurgents know it better than we do. The enemy attacks at a time and place of its own choosing, avoiding troop concentrations where U.S. firepower can be brought to bear. Urban warfare has become the norm with insurgents staying close to U.S. troops, often engaging civilians to support or shield their operations. As a result, the uncertain battleground of Iraq poses enormous challenges for American soldiers, seeking to separate combatants from civilians without alienating most Iraqis. We face in Iraq, like we did in Vietnam, an enemy who refuses to play by our rules and is clearly willing to die for his beliefs.

Before we finished in Vietnam, we had dropped more bombs on Indochina than had been dropped on the remainder of the world in all the wars to that time. The U.S. military continues to believe in the might of firepower. But it also wrestles with the difficult task of establishing the appropriate balance between winning hearts and minds with aid and reconstruction and using force to root out insurgents. In Iraq, we had briefly moved from "shock and awe" to building schools and hosting soccer games. We’re now back to block-to-block searches of cordoned cities.

In the process, the U.S. military has generally refused to account for civilian casualties in Iraq, in part because they are frequently huge. As in Vietnam, 600 dead or dying Iraqis too often appear as 600 "insurgents" in army press accounts. The refusal to acknowledge civilian casualties, while meticulously accounting for our own, has another downside. It suggests to Iraqis that American lives are more important than those of the people we supposedly came to liberate.

[The Progress Report observes -- when Iraqi civilians are unable to trust U.S. military-sponsored media, they must look elsewhere in search of accurate news and reporting. The U.S. needs to be building trust, and truthful reporting is a necessary first step. Let's take that step!]

Throughout the Vietnam War, especially in the early years, American officials deliberately misrepresented the enemy. Vietnamese nationalists were ignored with all opposition labeled Communist or with the delightfully pejorative phrase "Viet Cong." In Iraq, the Bush administration has once again written nationalists out of the script. Insurgents are variously labeled "dead-enders," "fanatics," "thugs," "militants," "terrorists," or "outsiders," despite growing evidence that a large percentage of the Iraqi people are opposed to the U.S. occupation. Recent intelligence reports suggest that support for the insurgents is widespread and growing. In some areas, Sunni and Shiite groups are joining forces, at least temporarily, in a common cause -- killing Americans.

There is also a failure in Iraq to understand and empathize with local mores and culture or the role of Islam in Arab society. The military has too few Arab language specialists and those experts in government with good knowledge of Iraq’s history and culture were marginalized from the Pentagon’s planning of the war and the peace, just as we failed to comprehend the Buddhist culture of Vietnam. The bombing of a mosque in Fallujah in April 2004 is a recent case in point. Suicide bombers in the Middle East, like Buddhist self-immolations in Vietnam, are incomprehensible to the average American, nestled in a comfortable suburb with a good paying job. Plunging into a maelstrom of political and religious rivalries, we have too often depended in Iraq on the counsel of a few self-serving Iraqi exiles and Arab intellectuals experienced in manipulating Western arrogance and ignorance.

There was no real plan for victory in Vietnam, and there appears to be none for Iraq. The June 30 date for the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people, in particular, makes no sense except in the context of President Bush’s desire to be rid of Iraq before the U.S. elections in November. When asked why it is so important to pretend to return sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30, no one in the administration seems to have an answer. What is clear is that no viable political body has been created or identified in Iraq in the last year with the domestic political support necessary to take charge and run the country after the turnover. Unless the White House adds credibility to the June 30th transfer, it is also clear that the other dates detailed by the president in his April 2004 press conference, dates leading to a permanent Iraqi government by December 2005, have no meaning whatsoever.

Answer 2

It's easier to say that Iraq is just another Vietnam than it is to take an impartial look at the two conflicts. That it isn't to say that there are not similarities. We became embroiled in Vietnam out of the mistaken belief that if it were to fall under the communists then all of SE Asia would as well. This would put the communists on the doorstep of Australia, which would in turn fall and so on and so on. As we should all remember, Iraq began because faulty intelligence led both the president and congress to believe that Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction or was attempting to produce them. Although here were comparisons being drawn between the two conflicts while the military buildup prior to the Iraq invasion was still taking place, this was because both were seen as wars lacking popular support. Although this idea is still held, the primary comparison now is that Iraq, like Vietnam, has morphed into a quagmire from which there is no easy escape. People also cite the incompetence of war planners and strategists in both instances. I don't really buy into that. For one thing, one of the oldest rules of war is that all plans go out the window as soon as conflict is initiated with the enemy. Furthermore, we have lost something along the lines of 3000 troops over a four year period. I regret the deaths of every last one of those men and women along with those Iraqis civilians that have died during the conflict. However, simply because people have died does not make Iraq a disaster. People die in war. That is what war is. Considering that the British lost over 19,000 men KILLED in the first day of action during the Battle of the Somme in WWI, that the Romans lost over 50,000 at Cannae against Hannibal, or that the Axis lost over 200,000 men at Stalingrad I can't consider Iraq a disaster. I can't even consider it a disaster along the lines of Vietnam and the 57,000 deaths we incurred there over an eleven year period. Also, we can all talk about the monetary expense, but the truth is, while Iraq has cost a great deal of money, the war itself helped to lift the economy from the post dotcom/911 recession. There are hardly any privately owned corporations anymore. Companies like Boeing, and Haliburton aren't just making money for their corporate execs, they are generating money for their share holders, a great many of which are just common people.

Answer 3

Actually, the true comparison of the Vietnam War and the Iraq War hasn't come to pass. Not yet. I once had a very wise man explain it to me. I will never forget what he said....

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.

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.

Just like Vietnam.

Answer 4

Vietnam and Iraq wars are compared because of the involvement of guerilla warfare and the possibility of getting stuck there for indefinite amounts of time and growing military expenses that are not sustainable in the long run.

Both wars cost many lives on both sides, is very messy, and involves spending very large amounts of money to support the military. Both countries are NOT direct threats to the freedom of America, yet they are politically significant.

Both countries had US supported governments prior to the war. Both had problems within the US supported governments which lead to the wars.

Answer 5

don't compare Vietnam to Iraqi. the north Vietnamese had better soldiers than Iraqis and they had a clear cut goal and nationalism on their side. I can't say much for the Iraqis, but it does say something when you can't defend your country and its gets run over within a couple of weeks.
theses wars are not mistakes, when you have a thorn in your side you pick it out, then destroy the bush the prick you.

Answer 6

Both wars were exasperated by False premonition and advise by the government. The Viet Nam war could not be won unless we killed everyone in that country, as the enemy could not be identified whether he/she were north or south. The Cong infiltrated the south with such numbers they could not be identified.
In Iraq we can not identify the enemy. To win we should kill all folks involved and we are doing a pretty good job of that. EXCEPT of course it is a CIVIL war. Our part of the war was won in a few days. The civil war has been going on for 1300 years since Mohammad was the rule. Shia and sunni will never come to terms. The religious aspect is not OUR problem.Get out now. Even if we stay for YEARS, when we leave the conflict will continue. More later

Answer 7

The only reasons liberals compare Iraq to Viet-Nam is that it lets them relive their youth and the days they spent in the streets protesting our opposition to Communism. Liberals always look to the past, they haven't had an original idea in some 50 years. Profit is a good thing, but believe me it is always easier to make a profit in peace time than it is during a war

Answer 8

You seem to forget hat the Dems pulled the funding from the Vietnam war. Then we started to not only take cauties at a increased rate, but lost ground and friendly villages. and eventually pulled out.

The dems want to pull the fighting out from Iraq..see the trend?

The problem isnt if the dems know thier is a bad team in Iraq, the problen is they think the bad team is US.

Answer 9

Both are cases of the sceptic tanks sticking their noses into anothers cause..this is for 2 reasons..Money.. Coca Cola cleaned up in Vietnam..a gateway to the east for it....if us Brits had been involved..Mars Bars would have done the same thing..
Iraq is obvious Oil...Black Gold Texas tea,,

The second reason is because the Yanks are split into 2 distinct
groups.. Homosexuals and Homophobes..its an obsession with both of them ..and the senate Knows that under the constitution
anybody has the right to bear arms..automatic rifles the lot...
just takes a drivers license...they also know that. the homosexuals..would kick the Homophobes butt if it came to a
war between the two..Have you seen the size of some of those fags!And the pink dollar pays the way.. So with the draft and at least one permanent hot war the
homophobes minds are taken off the Fags and redirected to other channels such as korea Nicaragua Guyana Vietnam 2 Gulf
wars etc...this keeps the split even, the phobes occupied and the
Fags happy Internal peace is maintained and the Pink Dollar continues to rule...yeah money and fags,,,hey wasnt that n album by Eric Clapton...
Yeah personally im neither a fag nor an american.. nor in it for the money..

Answer 10

I was not around for the Vietnam war, but as I understand we acted then as we are now. America believes it can solve all the worlds problems and we can't. Human beings have been fighting and killing each other since the dawn of time. I simply think that Bush and those in power have a need to carry on the policy of arrogance as all presidents will.

Answer 11

The Liberal and anti-war spineless have endangered the United States and aided and abeted the enimie during both conflicts. They are both similar. American justifyably protecting its interests and that of its allies, and at every turn being stymied by the gutless traitors of the country. The lesson NOT learned by these morons is that for example, during World War 2 the Germans were rounding up and persecuting Jews. They were murdering them by the millions, and shipping them to camps. The world knew this and believed the Nazi party when they said it was all for control of the people for their own protection. The world KNEW these things were happening, and did nothing. Lets move up to modern times. Islamic radicalisim. They openly threaten us, they murder their own people in cold blood and are a known danger to the region, our country and the world. Are we to sit and allow the same thing to happen that happened to the Jews???? No, we learned that sitting and doing nothing now allows for the problem to fester to a point that its unfixable and billions die. Wake up!!!