-{SpoonmaN}-

There's also no major nations that are openly supplying the Insurgents as a united front with high-quality weapons, training, and occasional special forces assistance as was the case with the Soviets and Chinese in Vietnam. In Iraq the rebels are mainly relying on the black market, 'high-tech' support from Iran and Iraqi Military surplus for supplies. They're also fundamentally different in that the VC were one group fighting for a common set of goals, whereas a lot of the insurgent groups hate eachother as much as they hate the Coalition (The fact that numerous nationalist groups had called for the death of Zarqawi is a good example of this) and are fighting for different goals for different reasons. Some of them are more interested in destroying Iraq than saving it.
Another major difference is the war of hearts and minds has a completely different dimension in Iraq, since there was a lot of resentment to the US of A in country before the invasion, due to Saddam's propaganda, the sanctions and Nothern Watch bombings, the first Gulf war and the subsequent betrayal of a large part of the population during the Shi'ite rebellion in the south. Considering history it's pretty surprising people are helping the Coalition as much as they are, but I guess having Al-Quaeda on the other side does a lot to make the Coalition look more attractive.
In Vietnam the main problem for public relations was the appeal of communism to poor peasants, and the much higher rate of civilian casualties inflicted by Anti-Communist forces in that war.
In general, yeah, they're totally different.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Expat Canuck

Thanks for the replies everyone!

Zhang Fei

That's overstated. The Communists killed far more civilians. The difference is that they were probably better-led than their non-Communist opponents. In general, Communist movements everywhere have won, not via their appeals to the population, but through better generalship. And after they won, they killed anyone who got in the way. Where anti-Communist generals were superior, they crushed their Communist insurgencies. South Vietnam lost partly because of bad generalship and partly because Uncle Sam cut off military aid (in the form of arms shipments) after the American troop withdrawal, even as the Soviets delivered billions of dollars worth of tanks, artillery and MiG's to the North Vietnamese. (They represented loans, not grants, that were finally settled decades later in exchange for the cancellation of late payments due to Vietnam for the Soviet lease of the Cam Ranh Bay naval facility).

My feeling is that as long as we're prepared to continue supplying Iraq, they can probably remain standing. But the abandonment of South Vietnam isn't unique - the American disease is its penny-wise, pound-foolish approach. Truman cut off aid to China's Nationalists even as the Soviets were heavily funding the Chinese Communists. Naturally, the Nationalists collapsed, and Uncle Sam lost tens of thousands KIA to Chinese Communist forces during the Korean War. Carter cut off military shipments to the Shah even as the Mullahs were revolting. We got the American Embassy hostage situation in Tehran, 200+ dead Marines in Lebanon and a hostile would-be nuclear power as a result.

The abandonment of South Vietnam (the cessation of arms shipments, not the troop withdrawal) arguably led to both the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon and 9/11 - Muslim terrorists were now confident that the US was a paper tiger unwilling to commit its forces anywhere because of a fear of casualties. A few billion dollars more in South Vietnam might well have saved 3,000 lives in NYC and DC and tens of billions in infrastructure damage. But that was the road not taken.

-{SpoonmaN}-

I'm not arguing, indeed the insurgents, or more specifically the sectarian-based terrorists amongst them have killed more civilians than the coalition is believed to have done in Iraq. The point is that any civilian deaths make the coalition look bad because they're supposed be saving the country, whereas Al-Quaeda appear to have no interest in anything other than starting a civil war.

Anon

I am increasingly of the opinion that Al Q either A) has no long term plan, or B) has NO IDEA WHATSOEVER where the half-assed plan they do have will take them.

Civil war with Shi'a. Muslim hating muslim. Total war with the whole of the West.

It's freaking madness...

-{SpoonmaN}-

Well Al-Quaeda in Iraq have the added problem of controlling the untrained, fanatical simpletons who make up their rank and file terrorists, which must be hard given the fact that many of them probably are indeed unstable (the psych profile for a suicide bomber and a serial killer isn't so different) and that the Al-Quaeda leaders have to keep their heads down, since the Coalition, the Iraqi Government and many of the insurgents are looking to kill them. Indeed, the going theory is that UBL and the main Al-Quaeda leaders were hoping to distance themselves from Zarqawi because his goals of starting a civil war in Iraq was counter to the garden variety Al-Quaeda goal of uniting Iraqi and foreign Muslims to drive out and humiliate the Coalition, and he was hurting their otherwise sucessful PR campaign amongst dirt-poor radicalised Muslims throughout the world.
In general, this insurgency thing is complicated, and no, it doesnt entirely make sense.

astralis

m21,

after operation enduring freedom, al-q was so smashed up that it's no longer working as a coherent group. instead, terrorists use al-q as a brand name to tag onto their group- easy advertising and free notoriety.

but prior to that period, al-q, back when bin ladin was in actual control of an organized group, looked at a strategy that went as thus:

1. chase the US out of the middle east
2. rally the primarily "sunni street" and take over the middle east governments, now denuded of US help.
3. topple israel
4. with that great victory, unify or eliminate the apostate shia
5. with the whole muslim world united, fight the apocalyptic war that would destroy the US
6. with the hyperpower destroyed, of course the whole world would turn muslim.

well now that al-q has gone to pot, everyone's doing their own thing; for example al-q in iraq wants to do number 4 prior to number 2 and 3; al-q in spain wants to skip 1,2,3,4,5 and get "al-andalus" back...etc etc.

-{SpoonmaN}-

Hmm, not sure where you're getting that last part from, OBL's version of Al-Quaeda never said anything about destroying America, they just want them out of the Muslim world. That's why they offered Europe a cease-fire in exchange for the withdrawal of all European troops from Muslim countries. Granted, rank and file terrorists might think that a world war is what will result from all this but it's not the official line. After all, the leaders would have too much to lose if they'd managed to take over even one country, let alone multiple countries. Plus they're not stupid, they know they can't fight America straight out, why do you think they carry out surprise attacks on American civilians (and even that's hard).

astralis

spoonman,

http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World.../dp/1844670457

or, if you don't wish to buy the book,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/wladen17.xml

the end-goal is for the US to turn into the fundamentalist islamic country he envisions, which in his eyes will lead to the whole world becoming the true ummah.

-{SpoonmaN}-

He may indeed claim to think that, but in reality this has the hallmarks of a group of shady people looking to snatch up total control of the Middle East and all the oil money that would bring. Like I said, they offered to stop attacking Europe if they left them alone, which the Euros wisely ignored, which illustrates that once they have the Coalition out of the Middle East, they couldn't care less what happens to America or Europe.

Expat Canuck

No one is ever satisfied and I doubt that they would be happy just owning the middle east. Sounds like a stalling tactic deal.

-{SpoonmaN}-

Well baby steps, its not like actually taking over the middle east would be easy, if it was then, well, they would have done it.
More to the point, they won't.

Anon

If anything your observations confirm my suspicion of Al Q cluelessness. Thanx for your take on the issue.

astralis

spoonman

yes, he's interested in that. but why do you think he says that once he takes over the middle east, he will look at a re-adjustment in oil prices?

his "bargain" with europe was to hold out the vision of a long-term truce. of course that's all well and good with him, because according to his vision, he still needs to do steps 1-5 prior to hitting europe (although he sometimes indicated that the order for 5,6 could be switched).

as indicated by claiming lands that were "muslim" only hundreds of years ago- for example, spain- it certainly gives you a feeling this is the same as hitler's liebensraum. after spain, what next? claims onto france, because islamic raiders got there in the dark ages...etc etc.

astralis

m21,

no problem. it's nice to hear that this dem is actually worth a spit (or maybe not? )...although if mccain is running and he wins the primary, my affiliation may change.