The Iraq War will end up just like the Vietnam War. Although many people refuse to accept that it will be another Vietnam (by stating that American casualties is not as heavy as in the Vietnam War), but all the other ingredients that will make it another Vietnam are there. Primarily, the majority of the American people does not support the war. President Bush's approval rating is at its lowest, 28% (mainly because the majority disagree of the way he managed the war). Many Republicans distanced themselves away from Bush's policies. Militarily, there are no set goals or objectives to achieve. Simply put, the words "surge" or "stay the course" would not achieve anything because there isn't any clearly defined set of objectives to pursue. Even the claims of "winning" or "losing" the war became already so obscured, because there are no metrics or yardstick to correlate them to. It appears that the American troops are only baby-sitting an Iraqi civil war, something that they really cannot do anything about (for they cannot take sides to favor either the Sunnis or the Shias). Since the war's beginning, all the top military commanders already made it clear that military action alone wouldn't win the war. The overall strategy should also include political solutions, economic solutions, socio-religious solutions, and diplomatic dialogues with Iraq's neighbors. Now, it's already the 4th year of the war and only the military solution has been pursued all along (and the U.S. is not even winning convincingly in this aspect alone). All the other solutions were completely ignored.
So yes, the Iraq War have a lot of parallels with the Vietnam War. It's only a matter of time before the policy-makers in Washington realizes this.
2007-05-08 05:10:59 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Source: From a person with the screen name Botsakis. Thanks Botsakis!!
2007-05-08 05:12:08 · update #1
Rant, rant, rant away, erudite.
Funny, I haven't seen any photos of the tropical jungle terrain in Iraq. Nor have I seen any "black pajama-clad" "slant-eyed gooks" (as I'm sure you called them when you were there) in any of the pictures.
Ho Chi Minh is missing in action, as in the Viet Cong, the NVA, the Soviet pilots, the Russian SAMs, enemy tanks/artillery/APCs, . . .
No, in fact I see very few similarities there.
2007-05-08 07:30:26 · answer #1 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The similarities are in the tactics used by the enemy. In both wars, in addition to using guerrilla tactics, they manipulated the US media to sour support for the war. You are correct in saying our casualties are lower. This is because of the difference in terrain and improved training and equipment on the military's part. The metrics you say don't exist have been in place since right after Saddam's Regime fell. Our objective is, and has always has been, to set up a stable democratic government in Iraq. Stability requires a well trained, well equipped, self-sufficient military and police force. The complexities of achieving this coupled with having to rebuild everything four and five times, not to mention a laundry list of blunders by the leadership, have created delays. A major difference is that the "insurgency" in Vietnam was a huge popular movement. It was incited by a corrupt and brutal South Vietnam regime. The VC were backed by a well equipped conventional army in the North, the NVA. In Iraq, there might be a couple thousand insurgent in the whole country, not counting suicide bombers since they only get utilized once. The population, as a whole, doesn't necessarily like American soldiers, but see the need for their mission (something you won't see on tv). In my opinion, popular support for the mission among Iraqis is the reason the war in Iraq has a good chance of success. In Vietnam, this wasn't present. The average Vietnamese was ready for the NVA to roll into Saigon (except for the ones who had aided the US that we all saw in the famous video at the embassy at the end of the war). They might not have been excited at the prospect of being communist, but they were sick of the corruption in their own government.
2007-05-08 12:57:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are very different.
In the Vietnam War, the enemy's headquarters was in Hanoi. There was a clear leader, a clear objective and a clear solution. The only problem was that you couldn't catch the enemy; the jungles were too hot for ya!
In Iraq, there is no enemy headquarters. There is no clear leader, no clear objective and no clear solution.
The Iraq war is MUCH HARDER.
2007-05-08 13:09:07 · answer #3 · answered by CanadianFundamentalist 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are definately similarties between the two, this will go down in history as one extremely big screw up on our part.
2007-05-08 16:58:02 · answer #4 · answered by Meggerz 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO, DO NOT AGREE!!
Vietnam 1967-1968-1971!!!
2007-05-08 13:08:47 · answer #5 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only commonality is that the Democrats don't want to actually win. They turned tail and ran from Viet Nam just like they want to do now.
2007-05-08 12:22:32 · answer #6 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
From what people who witness and talk about it and say, I agree.
I am blessed because I didn't have to suffer in either of them but I do feel for the people who have no choice and do have to suffer. I wish there could be peace for everybody forever.
2007-05-08 12:28:48 · answer #7 · answered by mar 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
One thing is clear about BOTH wars...the USA wants war as long as they fight it in someone elses territory.
The USA is the most cowardly and dangerous nation on the planet
No nation is safe from the evil claws of the uSA
2007-05-08 12:21:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 7⤋
Perhaps.
2007-05-08 12:22:17 · answer #9 · answered by billy brite 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
no, thanks for the two points
2007-05-08 12:16:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋