Expat Canuck

This is a thread dedicated to the uneducated. From an outside perspective and the way the media spin it Iraq at times looks like another Vietnam. I'd like to hear from those in the know how it is similar and how most importantly it's differences and why this one is winnable.

Please post any information you can so myself and others know.

cheers!

SnowLeopard

Several different ways to look at it where the different can be the similar.

We could say, for example, that both are the poor man's war (leaving out other wars that might have the same thing said which may apply in other statements) where with Viet Nam, it was those who were drafted who found no other way out, and now, it is where those in the military are the poor (money, education, status) and the better off don't have to join a volunteer military to better themselves.

We could say it is similar in that the Beltway is deciding how wars should be fought more than the military leaders. Or that we are fighting a war for trumped up charges that either didn't actually exist or that didn't actually concern us.

That they are similar because in some parts of it, our troops are fighting with inferior weapons (body armor/M-16).

It's going on year after year and it is costing us a bloody mint during a time when we are trying to put people on the moon.

We are fighting a war for a people who appear not have sufficient will to fight the war themselves, to solve the problem.

We are involved in intense social issues at home while we fight the war. Then: race riots. Now: how we treat terrorist prisoners. Both of these drew/draw world wide attention.

It might result in a serious change to how people view the military. Then: went from a draft to volunteer. Now: it's getting kind of hard to get people to volunteer, to stay in.

And like Viet Nam, we may lose it. Why? The inability to rally public support for the war.
--------------------------------------------------
("There it is again! The feeling that I've had this mustard before."--Dijon Vu, (wtte), cartoon)

lemontree

The scenario in Iraq and Vietnam are poles apart. The characteristics needed for a guerilla war to succeed are not fulfilled in Iraq:-
- Poor communications - the comm is good in Iraq.
- Difficult terrain - relatively open and desert.
- Peoples support - relatively limited in Iraq.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Expat Canuck

Two opposite posts, any evidence at all?

Shek

But this comparison is false.

As is this with the exception of Fallujah I and Franks crumbling to Rumsfeld over troop strength.

This is completely wrong.

100% wrong on current retention statistics.

We lost Vietnam because we tried to fight an unconventional war conventionally, and so we hadn't prepared the ARVN for what it needed to do in time. In Iraq, we created a larger insurgency that has now bridged into low level civil war because we started off fighthing an unconventional war conventionally.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

SnowLeopard

Generally, I think our comments speak for themselves, they are declarations of what has been in the press and in history. But ....., this war is costing the US a heap and we are trying to go back to the moon. Now, the costs of the Viet Nam war and going to the moon was what forced Nixon, at least in part, to go off the Gold standard.

There were the race riots during the '68 Democratic election and how our social problems made international news during the 1968 Olympics. I can't cite what diplomatic situation was related to it, however.

Mine's not necessarily a viewpoint to associate with an opinion except possibly for the last piece. Further, it's not an arguement to whether we should be there in the first place or not. It's more of an examination of history to see what are some possible points of commonality. At least from my point of view of history ...... but as such, I could be misinterpreting history.

Generally, however, if one does not have support of the country in any war, it is usually very hard to fight it, at least. That was one of the issues that prompted Truman to drop the bomb because he wasn't sure how much longer the country was willing to fight the war. That's how the Dutch lost New York; the people in the city didn't want to fight even if their leader did. That's what really hurt Nicholas as he tried to fight WWI (the Russian Revolution).

But, that's just how I see it. I could be wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------
("I have not yet begun to fight!"--Captain Jones
"Well, you better start! The ship has just about had it!"--the crew, (wtte), old cartoon)

Shek

It was the combo of Vietnam and the Great Society that forced us to go off the gold standard (which wasn't a bad thing per se), but more importantly created inflation that resulted in stagflation. However, we were also spending a bundle towards the Cold War at the same time, and so the marginal dollars spent on Vietnam mattered. In the current case, we are spending far less on Iraq/Afghanistan/Defense than we were back then, we have a floating exchange rate as the monetary hegemon in the international monetary system, we have China forced in a sense to buy up US treasuries, ensuring that we will continue to have low interest rates (meaning steady growth), and we have a Fed that is committed to fighting inflation and more importantly, has credibility in doing so. You will not see the same macroeconomic effects from OIF whatsoever that you did from the post-Vietnam era.

Anon

The main reason they are very different is because in Vietnam the VC were backed by a million man strong Army in the North that at times the US military was totally barred from attacking. By 1972 the US has all but wiped out the VC insurgency(and majoritively so by the end of Tet), forcing the insurgency in the South to rely almost entirely on NVA troops to carry on the fight.

In both wars the civvies meddled something fierce(in man it was the pres and SecDef, in Iraq it's just been the SecDef and his cronies).

There are really far more differences than similarities. Ie, Terrain, quality of opposition, etc, etc.

Shek

http://www.amazon.com/Army-Vietnam-A...e=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/Better-War-Une...e=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/Fiasco-America...e=UTF8&s=books

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...y/cda05-08.cfm

gunnut

Gold standard is a bad idea. It constricts the economy because you will constantly need to look for more gold to peg your currency system to.

Fiat money looks like a sham on the surface. But with smart managing, it's the best system. The economy is allowed to expand while we don't need to look for more gold (or whatever the commodity we use). The trick is the government needs to resist the temptation to print more money to cover the debt. Our government so far has been pretty good at doing this.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Maxor

Personally I like a munitions based economy.... where the money is backed by the will of the government and has the military prowess of said government backing it.....

Execpt it or else.....

Seems to make the most sense in an armed society though thats not the way it has ever really worked directly.

GVChamp

No oil in Vietnam. Kinda makes this war more important.

__________________
"The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

Shek

Here's the link to compare defense spending in the Vietnam era with current defense spending. While DoD's budget has increased since the last data point from the link, it is still FAR below our Vietnam spending, even if you included DHS spending as part of defense spending.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/mili...ative-size.php

Lunatock

Vietnam was an effort to stop the spread of Communism. Iraq is the front in the war on terror, to stop the spread of radical Islam.

Two different diseases, same end result if left unchecked.

Anon

That's akin to choosing between the frying pan and the fire.

Cause we'll have fun, fun, fun until Persia takes a city away.