In what ways does the war in Iraq differ from Vietnam?

Question

Hey butthole: You spelled dipstick wrong.

Answer 1

Media coverage.

During Vietnam, there was plenty of ground media coverage that showed the death and destruction occurring in Vietnam. Dead US soldiers and VC. That had a great deal to do with the anti-war sentiment back in the US and ultimately what brought them home.

However, the Iraq war has been completely politicized and media coverage is extremely slanted and biased. In addition, all that you ever really see of Iraq are patrols and the after-effects of "insurgent bombings." You don't see the dead US soliders. You don't see the dead Iraqis. You don't see the corruption or the many US corporations that have now set themselves up in Iraq, seizing oil reserves, etc.

Media coverage.

Answer 2

1) Iraq is an invasion from outside (the US) to oust a horrific dictator whilst Vietnam was where an outside nation (the US) installed and supported a dictator. Both in Violation of the UN charter.
2) Both Iraq and Vietnam have oil, only there is more oil in Iraq and it is easier to bring to the surface. The oil in Vietnam is offshore in the Gulf of Siam.
3) The US state they are trying to unite the warring religious Muslim sectarian groups in Iraq and install a democratic system into power. In Vietnam the US was forcing the separation of a legally single country into two separate countries. It was a violation of the 1954 Geneva agreements which stated, "... that the 17th parallel was never to be taken as a national or territorial boundary, but as a temporary military demarcation line with the Viet Mien to move north whilst the French moved south"..., and that national elections were to take place no later than July 1956, something the US refused to allow happen.
4) The war in Iraq is economic (oil) and a fight over religion (Christian Fundamentalists against Muslim Fundamentalists). Vietnam was a war over political ideology (Communism verses Capitalism) and a war of liberation and reunification.
5) The war in Iraq has less media coverage that the latter stages of the Vietnam War. A lesson the US learnt from the Vietnam war.

Answer 3

Well different part of the country
AND
Its over different reasons.
AND
during Viet Nam, we won, which may or may not b the case here..... as there are too many other smaller country's involved, and all of which are just mad at the U. S....
During Viet Nam, it was over land and money, and power, and prestige, and they were a formidable adversary .... unlike Iraq. There are other differences too, mostly political ones. And
In 2008, well things will change again as its an election year here on the home front. By this time next year, things will change again.
AND
By Jan., of 2009 when a new president is sworn into office,,,, things will take still yet another turn. My hope is that our troops just come home......safe. ... to their awaiting families.

Answer 4

Lots of differences. Size and composition of the force, troop morale, technology.

Vietnam was the result of a perceived Communist threat in Southeast Asia. Iraq was the result of demonstrated threats by a Middle Eastern despot.

At the time of Vietnam more of the public had served in military services, due to recency of World War II and Korea, and the presence of the draft. Today much of the public has little understanding of military issues.

Public perception is also different. Iraq followed a direct attack on the U.S. by Islamic terrorists, not necessarily supported by Iraqi government or interests, but definitely in the same general theater of action. In Vietnam there was never any real threat against the U.S.

The consequences of failure in Iraq, in my opinion, are far greater than they were in Vietnam. While post war Vietnam had issues with China and Thailand there was no likelihood of any serious impact on U.S. interests. A failure in Iraq would very likely lead to even greater instability in the Middle East, along with some serious threats from our enemies in that part of the world against interests.

Far more than the U.S., Europe is in the crosshairs of Islamic terrorists, and that society--a critical trade partner and friend to the U.S.--could face serious social and politican upheavals in the next few decades.

Neither war was particularly well-understood by the majority of press and public, and this led to failure in Vietnam and could well lead to failure in Iraq.

We have also faced handicaps in both wars of having a very limited understanding of the cultures and peoples involved. This has impacted our intelligence-gathering efforts and resulted in some serious failures, one of which was the failure to anticipate 9-11.

Answer 5

Many people are trying to find similarities, including a couple of my professors in graduate school.

Most wars have some things in common, but all wars are different.

My professors claim that the main similarity is that the United States leadership (political and military) failed to recognize the situation that they became involved in, whether a nationalist civil war or a secretarian insurgency.

Answer 6

Hippies. I'm not kidding. Stephen Colbert had a pretty good point. The public outcry for Vietnam was way more vocal than it was for Iraq. I don't know why Iraq hasn't gotten the same reaction as Vietnam did, but I'm sure it would have gotten a similar one 20 years ago.

Answer 7

different part of the world, fewer americans have been killed in iraq (approx. 4,000 vs. 58,000 in vietnam); we were fighting the north vietnamese primarily in vietnam, however in iraq there are more tribal factions; iraq is a declared war while vietnam was a conflict; vietnam veterans were treated as demons by the american public, iraq veterans are given a better homecoming, but are seen as victims of the 'machine'; many vietnam vets were drafted, whereas all of our troops fighting in iraq are volunteers; more women are in the military now, and have better pay and benefits than our counterparts who served during vietnam.

in fact, the only similarities i see are the defeatist attitudes of the american public and too much politics on the battlefield, which gets in the way of the american troops' ability to do a good job.

Answer 8

I disagree that the anti-war sentiment was much different. It took a long time to build to that. A lot of protesters were hurt or killed before anyone noticed. The .media was different. We got more media coverage back then. You saw real video of Dan Rather or another reporter with war all around them. Now it's grainy stuff of a reporter somewhere in the desert. Hard to believe the technology got so much worse in all these years.

Answer 9

I think American citizens were much easier to fool during the Viet Nam War. College students were spoon-fed liberal hyperbole and blamed drafted soldiers that were simply following the law of the land. We are at least wised up enough now to support the soldier whether or not we support the war.

Answer 10

I think the Iraq war is more of a self-preservation thing. People argue Bush did it purely for oil, but that's simply not true. Several agencies, including Britain's MI6 reported Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. When we got there and didn't find them, isn't it obvious that Saddam moved them; wouldn't you if you had WMDs and the US was coming to look for them? Almost everyone supported going into Iraq and then so many people have backed out because of the stickiness of warfare. War sucks, yes, but sometimes it's necessary and Iraq doesn't compare in death rates in the slightest to some of our other, "more noble" wars. Sorry to get on my soapbox, but almost all of us backed up Bush and when things didn't go exactly as planned, they turned on him. I don't know as much about Vietnam but I think Iraq has more to do with the safety of US citizens. Ha, I know everybody hates LB Johnson cuz of Vietnam; I'll hop on that band wagon