Similarities between "Operation Enduring Freedom" and Vietnam?

Question

I noticed through some light studies that Vietnam was a war that began for very similar reasons to the Iraq war -- and although three different presidents thought there was no way to "win" in Vietnam, none of those three could find a plausible exit strategy... and the "plan" that Nixon came up with in 1971 and was *supposed to be enacted involved a "coalition government" (in his words) and a staged withdrawal of troops...
Also, all of the campaign speeches from 1962-72 could very well be the exact same speeches we hear today, with the word "communism" replaced with "terrorism" and the word "Kruschev" with "Bin Laden" or "Achmibenijad"...

In Iraq, we have similar circumstances, but I am wondering how similar?
I am not asking this to incite some kind of political debate! I am offering no opinion on the war, and I'm only interested in historical similarities like the ones I've identified above.

Just trying to spark a discussion on the matter.

regarding what "the media" wants me to think and how i've drawn my conclusions: I've only written about the similarities i have because of speeches and oval office conversations i've listened to from that age -- unedited and uncommentated.
Also, it seems you take me to hold many views that I have given no reason for one to infer that I hold. I am certainly no "liberal" - but I am not the opposite, either, whatever that may be. I am commenting on the basis of history, so i appreciate the specific historical references, however much extraeneous information is intermingled with the history.

regarding McNamara - he was in office from 61-68, and I was speaking of presidential tapes all the way through the nixon administration echoing the same effect --- every one of the presidents wanted out but saw no good way out. All of them agreed that they should have been there in the first place.
again, I am not debating, just wondering about similarities, so plz dont try to convince me of anything.

Answer 1

Tough luck, there's always political debate (you're lucky if it's of the 'informed' variety).
Similarities:
1) Attempt to manufacture a legitimate indigenous government by US.
2) Genuine good intentions of the US people.
3) Recognition that resources were not sufficient to lead to victory.
4) Rampant corruption by the manufactured regime
5) Local troops doing the vast majority of the fighting and dying
6) Massive expenditure compared to the prize
7) Agony of trying to 'save face' while accepting defeat...
8) ...leading to the plan of hiving off the fighting duties to locals with little commitment to the cause, and limited legitimacy in the eyes of the people
9) Failure to understand the true nature of the enemy- in Vietnam the North were seen as Russian/Chinese puppets, in Iraq the insurgency are depicted as al Qaeda terrorists
10) Massive use of technology which both wasted money, and allowed the enemy the propaganda advantage of depicting themselves as 'David' against 'Goliath'.
11) US trained the local forces in their own image, while their enemies fought according to more appropriate and effective local methods.

Main differences:
1) Iraq had a large section of the population willing to embrace Western-style government, who could make a capitalist class
2) The enemy in Vietnam had a strategy for victory, and it's military operations were directed toward achieving victory.
3) All significant players in the Iraq war are religiously-motivated, and hate America in religious grounds alone.
4) While both Vietnam and Iraq have 'porous borders' allowing support from outside, this is much less of an issue in Iraq.
5) The Iraq insurgency does not have nearly the resource support the Vietnamese had.
6) The US government was dragged into Vietnam against its better judgment, and never wanted the war. The neocons rushed into Iraq, and were desperate to fight a war that could easily be avoided.
7) There were only two US theatre commanders in Vietnam, Westmoreland and Abrams, in approx 10 years. There have been many in Iraq.
8) In Vietnam the US was not willing to deploy enough troops to win. In Iraq, it doesn't have enough troops to deploy.
9) The level of political interference in military operations in Vietnam, while considerable, was far less.
10) Lyndon Johnson agonised over the social programs he sacrificed to fight the VN war, and died a broken man. The neocons were glad to use money that might have been used by Democrats for social programs, on the war.
11) The US military fought in Vietnam; private mercenary companies and contractors absorb the money being poured into Iraq by doing the jobs the military should be.
12) The Vietnamese have forgiven America, and bear no animosity toward their former enemies. They now want only a prosperous country. The enemy in Iraq will always hate America and don't want prosperity because it threatens religious power bases.
13) There was a free and critical media in the 1960s, which covered the war in detail. There is a lazy, dumb and controlled media today, which only discusses dogma.

Answer 2

Actually, there are very few similarities. The Media is trying very hard to make it APPEAR that there are a lot of similarities, however, which is what you're seeing.

Viet Nam was a proxy war fought between the United States and the Soviet Union. We picked up where the French left off, backing a very corrupt series of governments in South Viet Nam against the Northern communists, who were heavily supported by the Soviet Union. The CIA was involved in a lot of the decisions and conduct of the war and the Rules of Engagement were hugely controlled by McNamara. This allowed the enemy combatants to rest and refit and gave them sanctuaries in several neighboring countries.

Iraq was invaded for several reasons, none of which involved proxy wars with any other nation. Several of these reasons were to end the regional threat of Saddam Hussein, his threat to the United States, the abuses and horrors he visited upon his own people, and to destabilize the status quo in the region and give the United States a base for power projecting into the heart of the region. The Iraqi people have created a democratic government and are doing well at taking over their own affairs.

Current discord in Iraq is mostly internecine squabbles between Sunni and Shiite (that has been going on longer than the Arab-Israeli conflicts!) and violence pushed by the Iranians who will do about anything to keep from having a stable, American-allied Iraq on their border.

There is ONE big similarity - The Western liberals are doing everything in their power to cause us to lose. They are lying, misrepresenting what is happening, distorting news, and spitting on troops, just as they did in Viet Nam. But that's about it.

Please note that we had 'won' several times in Viet Nam - until the Rules of Engagement changed and we 'paused' - allowing them to rebuild and refit. We had actually been OUT of Viet Nam completely for three YEARS when the South Vietnamese government fell - due to the Democratic Congress cutting off all funding and support. Without money and without arms, naturally the Soviet-funded and armed North walked right through them.

I've attached a couple of links for you to check out what the troops think about things. That will allow you a little bit more balanced research than what you're finding in the MSM.

Orion

EDIT: One other thing - Kruschev was a rational state leader, as was Ho Chi Minh and Gen. Giap. Osama bin Ladin is an insane terrorist and Iran's Ahmadinejad - He truly believes that he is the 'Last Imam' and has several times talked about how he has been surrounded by a holy light that mesmerized his audience. He also believes that it is his destiny to use Iran's nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Hardly comparable to Kruschev or Ho.

Answer 3

Operation Enduring Freedom is Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Answer 4

Any war has the same speeches.