Is the USA losing in Iraq like Vietnam?

Question

Since a loss in Vietnam didn't have any bad reprecusions for America after cutting and running....will a loss in Iraq have consequenses for America?

AND NO, I am not wanting a loss! But, how does the USA win?

Answer 1

War isn't about who wins or loses, it's about who's left.

Answer 2

Iraq IS NOTHING like Vietnam. Both are/were different situations. The American forces there are not in Iraq to win but as an occupying force because of the three main ethnic groups who want complete control of the country and make the other two their servants like the way it was when Saddam and the Sunnis stepped all over the Kurds and Shiites.
You have Iraqi Kurds wanting to unite with Turkish Kurds to make their own state. Then you have Iraqi Shiites wanting to unite with Lebanese Shiites to also make their own state.You also have Iranian extremists trying to inluence the Sunnis. Can you see what a destabilizing effect this would have on the entire region if we pulled out? Their would be a civil war unlike the world has never seen and not to mention some Islamic jerkoff will come up with the idea to nuke an oil well. Can you imagine the effect this would have on the whole planet?

Answer 3

We are not -losing-, we -have lost-. If you're watching a football game, for instance, and your team is 'losing' it means they're behind but they still have a chance to come from behind and win. But we have no chance to win in Iraq. Our strategy has failed and our administration is unable to come up with a new strategy. Instead all they can do is to keep insisting the old strategy is working. Every new idea, like the Surge, is just a device to keep the war going a little longer.

There were MANY bad consequences for America of our war in Vietnam. For starters, it polarized our country and set people against each other. We raised a generation of people who didn't trust our govt. or believe public officials (and also a generation of untrustworthy, lying public officials!) The huge inflation we saw in the 70s was largely due to the debts we ran up during the Vietnam War. And we lost a lot of prestige in the world, just as is happening with this war.

The only way to 'win' was not to play. People who didn't think the invasion was a good idea pointed out that this kind of war is much easier to get into than to get out of. President Nixon was elected in 1968 largely on his promise to end the Vietnam War, but he found it necessary to keep it going another 4 years for his own purposes. The same thing might happen in 2008.

Answer 4

Actually, the communist victory in Vietnam did have severe repercussions for us here in the US and the free world at the time. The Soviet Navy had a warm water port in the south Pacific to use, Camran Bay.
Another severe loss was the fact that it signalled an unwillingness of Americans to fight for a cause when the cause became tough. This in itself emboldened those who desire an end to our form of government.
Had the Cold War heated up, and if very well could have, our military would have been at a strategic disadvantage.
Lets take Iraq today, if we lose there, two serious repercussions would likely occur, we would lose access to crude oil and the Al Qaeda terrorists would be able to devote their resources here and not there.
The outcry "No Blood for Oil" is supposed to be the politically correct thing to say but, without oil, we here in the US would starve and freeze. So you can say that crap all you want but don't gripe when it is cold and you can't get heat and some die and you are hungry and you can't get food and some die the slow death of starvation, here in the US.
The Al Qaeda terrorists are stuck in Iraq like we are, they have to. Terrorism is all about good Public Relations and the
eyes of the Islamic world are on Al Qaeda and they are expected to win, so they are stuck, in Iraq. They have to devote their dwindling resources to Iraq and not us here in the US. If we leave Iraq, we free up Al Qaeda to devote their resources to attacking us here at home.
The war in Vietnam was not a military loss, our military was successful in the war. We were defeated by the civilians at home who were too timid to see the war through. Had Americans behaved like this in WW2, the Nazis would be running us. Perhaps soon, if we leave Iraq, muslim terrorists could be running us.
So .... enough of that, Kwitcherbellyakin! Whiners like you only support the enemy! Go get a diaper and change yourself!

Answer 5

The war is Iraq is going to be a long and difficult battle for America. There is no easy way out. So many more American lives will be wasted if they stay longer in Iraq. Let the locals handle their fight, they might even have the right solutions for all the problems. The only sure winners are the supplier of guns.

Answer 6

you're forgetting that, while Vietnam and Iraq seem so similar, they are actally quite different. in Nam we could've won the bloody war, but political meddling and pussyfooting destroyed the effectiveness of our troops, most notably our airpower, and Nixon got elected by being a coward and pulling out! the war in Iraq, meanwhile, is won and over; the occupation, however, is being lost, since pacifying a hotbed oil desert region of three religious factions that have been at it for 13 centuries obviously isn't working and we're not doing anything to change things except increasing the number of American targets for the bad guys to blow up with IED's and those new explosive penetrator thingies.
consequences? you bet. if we leave, we're abandoning an oil-rich region that, if we controlled it, could lower gas prices a little, and giving it to terrorist-friendly Iran-backed militias. and the last thing we need is Al-Qaeda having a new safe country to operate from (like Afghanistan before we went in). so i support staying, but i also think major changes are necessary in our strategy. and no, i did not support going in.

Answer 7

to answer you main title question, yes, the USA in iraq is just like vietnam all over again, in that they go into a country and start a war for no good reason (weapons of mass destruction? where were they?), yet it is different too. for a start off, the war on terror was never going to be anything about using thousands of soldiers, it would be a covert operation, with a lot of infiltration and intelligence gathering. the main problem is that you cant fight a terrorist organisation like you could fight another army like in world war one or world war two, as terrorist orgainsations, although sometimes big, are broken down into "cells", small groups covering a specific area. the only way the USA will defeat terrorists is to play them at their own game, making use of the FBI and CIA, and using a small group of highly trained soldiers. as for winning, they have to cut and run sooner rather than later, as they are in big mess, no - one truly knows the death tolls of the iraqi people, and that is probably the greatest tragedy

Answer 8

The U.S. did not lose in Vietnam. The matter was settled with a peace treaty and U.S. forces left soon after. The U.S. also won in Iraq. All of the objectives of the initial operation were achieved. Leaving at this time would be neither cutting nor running. It would not be a defeat. It would be merely allowing the elected government of Iraq to actually govern.

Answer 9

The war in Iraq is making a lot of prominent U.S figures a whole bunch of money. We should be really asking ourselves whyu this war is continueing for so long when the u.s has much more advanced and stronger military and intelligence. It comes down to money, a continuation of the war generates revenue.

Answer 10

If we get out of Iraq the terrorist groups will force the Iraqis to join their group just like in Afghanistan and attack the U.S. leading us to go in there again unless the New Iraqi Government is strong enough to fight the terrorists themselves.

Answer 11

This is different than Vietnam. We actually removed their leader and dictator, and destroyed their power of government. THis wasn't the case in Vietnam.

The US was not thinking when they made such decisions. They were not thinking ahead about what the consequences might be.