Has the Iraq war messed up the US military as bad as the Vietnam war did?

Question

Or is it possible it's even worse than what happened to the US military after Vietnam.

Answer 1

The US military complex was messed up before Vietnam, their weakness became evident during Vietnam. After Vietnam, they went through a complete re-engineering that ended giving us our current military.

Now it seems, the US military are having a hard time again, so probably after this war is over, another re-engineering will occur to make the military more capable of engaging new enemies such as insurgents, roadside bombs, suicide bombers, etc.

It is not that we are winning or losing, the rules of engagement have changed. If one could put US WW2 troops in Iraq today, they would be arrested by the MP in a week for shooting civilians, rest assured. Not because they were "bad" people but back then, an insurgency would have been treated more brutally, believe me. I am sure many German civilians were killed for supporting the Nazis as well, it's just that in the 1940s people didn't have access to the information we have now, and the few media of the day, were totally unilateral with the US government.

Answer 2

I'm a Vietnam vet and I served three tours over there. Don't go by what you read or hear. I'm totally unaware that the army or any other branch of the military was screwed up by that war. If a government is afraid of expanding a war and shows no commitment for total victory the personnel in the military pay the price. Not the people in Washington, Erudite, or anyone else. It was not only in Vietnam but Korea also and check out General Patton on his feelings toward the Russians. The American people are complaining about the war, true, but at least the majority aren't the ***-holes that we had to deal with when we returned. They always want victory, a clean war, minimum casualties, and when they don't get it and the news media tells all about what our servicemen do they get all upset that young red-blooded American boys could be capable of doing such things. Hell, most of their grandpas and great grandpas did executions, plunder, killing of civilians and POWs in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. That's what the hell war is and why its called war. You can't fight if your hands are tied by idiot rules of engagement when the song of the bullet is all around you. I didn't and I wasn't really overly concerned when the rounds I fired left the barrel and headed for my target if they were men, women, children, age, sex, religion, race, etc. If they were so innocent then why were they armed. hiding weapons, food, medical supplies, etc. for the enemy? Americans can't wake up to the fact that the Muslims are killing more Muslims than the US troops are and I praise Allah that they doing it. One less cost for the American tax-payers and less to fight in the future. What pisses me off is that the Americans don't ***** about the billions of dollars that is being spent on one of the richest nations in the world and when this all ends bet me on who will still be giving that nation and its people billions of dollars. Everybody has to pay in life be it through money, blood, pain, conscious, or whatever and people die in war. Not just the combatants. Maybe our schools should teach that about world history including the wars fought on our own soil and maybe they would finally wake up. I never judge any man in battle because I am not in his shoes at the time of whatever is happening. More Americans should give that some thought.

Answer 3

The idea that the ARVN was not a well trained and dedicated Army is a complete misconception. In fact, the ARVN almost always sustained fewer casualties than the Main Force VC or NVA when they went head to head. They decisively won two out of the three major encounters with the NVA (Tet in 1968, the Spring Offensive in 1972, and the Final Offensive in 1975). They might very well have won the Final Offensive in 1975 too if they had been given the logistic and air-support Nixon promised them if the South Vietnamese government would sign the cease-fire in 1973. The misconception has several sources. First, the American military advisers were trying to judge the ARVN against Western standards. The ARVN was NOT a Western Army (no matter how it was trained and organized). It was a very Asian Army in how it fought according to the principles of Sun Tzu rather than the principals of Von Clausewitz. But, within the framework of the principles of Sun Tzu the ARVN was a fairly competent military force, in fact more competent than the NVA which also fought according to the Art Of War by Sun Tzu. Second, the American media (which was biased and unfair) took every opportunity it could to criticize the ARVN and praise the NVA. Head to head, in a fair and even fight, the ARVN almost always won. When backed up by the Americans it DID always win. The ARVN destroyed the Main Force VC during the Tet Offensive, won every single battle within 24 hours except the Battle of Hue (which took about a month to win with heavy US backing), and mauled the NVA so badly it could not mount another major offensive for more than four years. With US logistic and air-support the ARVN went head to head with the NVA in an over-the-border invasion in 1972, fought the NVA to a standstill, counterattacked, and was in the process of wiping out the NVA units trapped in South Vietnam one by one forcing Hanoi to sign the cease-fire in 1973. Even at the very end the ARVN 18th Division (considered one of the worst units in the South Vietnamese Army) went head to head with FIVE North Vietnamese Divisions just outside of Saigon at the Battle of Xuan Loc in 1975 and fought them to a standstill for almost two weeks. They were finally forced to retreat (they were NEVER overrun) by the combination of casualties, being greatly outnumbered, and the concentrating of most of the Communists tanks that had invaded South Vietnam. The ARVN never did have a great deal of trouble with the Local VC (which were guerrillas). It was the Main Force VC and NVA regulars (which were conventional light infantry forces) that caused the Americans to deploy troops to South Vietnam, not the Viet Cong. Americans were used to pin down the MF VC and NVA in the rural areas from 1965 to about 1970 allowing the ARVN to occupy and pacify the urban areas (where most of the population lived). This strategy was actually successful and the Tet Offensive in 1968 was an unsuccessful attempt by the Communists to offset the success. The above statement is not a popular or Politically Correct view, but it is historically accurate.

Answer 4

No, what messed up the military was a Democratic Party that didn't want them to win for political purposes, and it looks like history will repeat itself. Too bad, since unlike Vietnam this enemy will follow us home and proceed to kill even more than died on 9-11.

Answer 5

US military now stronger than the when the iraq war started regarding equipment and expert

Answer 6

There is no comparison with Iraq and Vietnam. There is so far a difference of about 49,000 casualties and no prospect of even coming close.

Answer 7

no, this war is like the vietnam war as in it is a never ending war but atleast this time the americans support there troops just not the commander in chief.

Answer 8

No,people may be against the war,
but they are not against the troops.

Answer 9

history is about to repeat itself.thats why it is critical to not pull out.let the army stay and clean up the mess.

Answer 10

Nope. not even close.

Try again.