Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse

**lemontree** · 09 Dec 04,, 06:53

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Its not silly at all, where are they now? They are doing didly squat in Iraq just like the Sudan, while the U.S. prepares to send millions to the Sudan.

It was Bush's decision to go into Iraq with or without the UN. So why grumble now, just because things are grim. Other nations will help only if their national and ecomonic intrests are addressed by the US. That is the only way to bring in armies which can make a difference. There is a question as to which armies are willing to be under US command, or if the US is willing to allow their units to be under command of these forces.
NATO troops should be able to fill the shotfall in troops, after all the member nations have benifitted from US military aid since the past 55 years.

**Blademaster** · 09 Dec 04,, 15:38

Once the Iraq situation have been stabilized, what is the Bush administration going to do to Iran?

That's why I think Iran is pulling out all the stops to acquire nuclear weapons. They have been looking at Pakistan as an example of how a little country can stand up to US and get away with it.

They saw how Pakistan and North Korea use the nuclear weapon card very effectively to make sure that they have some breathing room.

Right now, the mullahs in Iran are hoping to God that they have a workable nuclear bomb. They are very scared as of right now, they are nearly damn surrounded by US forces. There are US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan won't have US forces stationed but will grant landing & fueling rights for US warplanes.

**Praxus** · 09 Dec 04,, 20:21

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

1) Because we're that good.

2) Because we're not that bad.

Translation.

1) The Marines did a hell of a job killing insurgents.

2) The Marines don't kill women and children to teach dead insurgents a lesson in killing.

1,000 innocent soldiers dead and counting. Now how can you equate their lives with that of a people who are openly sanctioning their deaths?

Sure children and women will die, but their death will not be on our hands. They have no damn right to demand we sacrifice our soldiers for them.

**Officer of Engineers** · 09 Dec 04,, 20:28

Originally Posted by Praxus

1,000 innocent soldiers dead and counting. Now how can you equate their lives with that of a people who are openly sanctioning their deaths?

I don't and I never will. I equate their lives with the Honour and Dignity of a Nation to which they have proudly served with distinction and honour.

Originally Posted by Praxus

Sure children and women will die, but their death will not be on our hands. They have no damn right to demand we sacrifice our soldiers for them.

They don't. We do.

**Lucien LaCroix** · 10 Dec 04,, 00:33

Women and children getting killed in the course of combat operations is not the same as singling women and children out to kill them. War isn't about treading lightly..or at least it shouldn't be. If women and children die, then so be it. I state that matter-of-factly, not with animosity.

Attempting to put a human face on a belligerant nation is a sure-fire way of getting oneself mired in a quagmire. It falls in line with the idiotic "let's kill only the bad guys" warfighting philosophy. We firebombed Tokyo; we carpet bombed Dresden; and we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How many women and children were killed in those actions? Answer: Lots. And the bigger picture result was...peace--true peace, not the half-ass peace where you try to have elections while enemy soldiers (regardless of country of origin) kill everyone that isn't one of them.

I thought the Bush Administration was finally getting the message when they announced the major action to be taken against Fallujah. But, no, it was more of the same. Telegraph your operation for weeks--allowing a significant percentage of the enemy soldiers to escape--and use street fighting instead of wholesale, unadulterated heavy bombardment from above. Had we done massive aerial bombardment, then a lot of civilians would have been killed. More importantly, we would have killed a truly significant portion of the insurgency. Most importantly, we would have sent a message to those that survived--and to their gigantic yet cowardly egos--that we would hit them regardless of the costs. The bottom line on civilian casualties during wartime is that the issue should be pretty much irrelevant so long as your efforts are taking the most effective path to victory. There is nothing sadistic about such a notion, either.

We are using flawed warfighting methods to support a flawed warfighting philosophy. Attempting to cloak these mistakes in talk about honor and so forth only makes for pathetic reading. It's tiresome, disingenuous, and tedious.

I would be willing to bet five years' of my military pension, against only $50, that the following will occur due to the mismanagement of our military campaign:

1) We will not come close to defeating the insurgency prior to our (carefully scripted) withdrawal.

2) Iraqi democracy will disintegrate within one year of our departure.

We don't have the guts to deal with the situation in a decisive military fashion, and the Iraqis don't have the guts...period. Enough of this johnny-come-lately crap excuse (invented after we failed to find WMDs) of trying to give the Iraqis freedom, justice, or...whatever.

The Iraqis aren't worth it (just as the Vietnamese weren't)--certainly not at the expense of our soldiers.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Dec 04,, 01:09

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

We are using flawed warfighting methods to support a flawed warfighting philosophy. Attempting to cloak these mistakes in talk about honor and so forth only makes for pathetic reading. It's tiresome, disingenuous, and tedious.

I will bet my 18 years service that their sacrafices were not mistakes. Whatever the orders and desires from above, these men did their jobs to the best of their abilities. Most did not have any say in their orders. Whether you agree with those orders or not do not reduce their honour and their bravery by any degree.

**Lucien LaCroix** · 10 Dec 04,, 01:21

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I will bet my 18 years service that their sacrafices were not mistakes. Whatever the orders and desires from above, these men did their jobs to the best of their abilities. Most did not have any say in their orders. Whether you agree with those orders or not do not reduce their honour and their bravery by any degree.

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary....

Of course they are doing the jobs to the best of their abilities!!! Of course they are serving with honor and bravery!!!

And those things have absolutely NOTHING to do with my previous post. It is about the conduct of our warfighting policy, NOT the conduct of our soldiers! We need to divorce ourselves from the notion that questioning the former is a betrayal of the latter. Far from it.

I served proudly and ALWAYS obeyed the orders given to me by my superiors, just as they do. But if they must die then let them die in a fair fight...not by painting bullseyes on their backs through ineffective policymaking. They patrol cities...and are shot at and bombed like characters in some sort of video game.

It would be laughable...if it didn't break my heart so much.

Take the handcuffs off and let them fight this war as wars should be fought. If not, then bring them home--and let the Iraqis decide their own fate (through courage or through cowardice).

**Leader** · 10 Dec 04,, 01:33

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

Take the handcuffs off and let them fight this war as wars should be fought. If not, then bring them home--and let the Iraqis decide their own fate (through courage or through cowardice).

How far are you taking this argument? We could simply launch a couple dozen nukes into Iraq. That would solve the problem in the cities at least. Is there any line in your view?

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Dec 04,, 01:37

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary....

Of course they are doing the jobs to the best of their abilities!!! Of course they are serving with honor and bravery!!!

And those things have absolutely NOTHING to do with my previous post. It is about the conduct of our warfighting policy, NOT the conduct of our soldiers! We need to divorce ourselves from the notion that questioning the former is a betrayal of the latter. Far from it.

My apologies. I mistook your quote here

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

Attempting to cloak these mistakes in talk about honor and so forth only makes for pathetic reading.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

I served proudly and ALWAYS obeyed the orders given to me by my superiors, just as they do. But if they must die then let them die in a fair fight...not by painting bullseyes on their backs through ineffective policymaking. They patrol cities...and are shot at and bombed like characters in some sort of video game.

It would be laughable...if it didn't break my heart so much.

There is no way to avoid this, even with the shoot first, ask questions later policies. Unless you want to do patrol by fire. You have to make your presence known and your strength felt. That can only be accomplish by boots on the ground (the cop on the beat scenario).

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

Take the handcuffs off and let them fight this war as wars should be fought. If not, then bring them home--and let the Iraqis decide their own fate (through courage or through cowardice).

There are always handcuffs no matter what kind of policy is in place. Limitations of resources and the boundaries of policy exists no matter in what kind of environment. You may issue less robust RoEs but that does not mean that you can ignore them all either. For better or for worst, the GC is the law. Ignoring the GC for the convience of today would jepoardize our friendlies in wars of tomorrow. That is just not worth it.

Even if you ignore the GC, there ain't enough fire to cover everybody.

**Confed999** · 10 Dec 04,, 02:12

Originally Posted by lemontree

So why grumble now, just because things are grim.

I've been grumbling for longer than Bush has been Prez, why stop now?

**lemontree** · 10 Dec 04,, 05:44

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

Take the handcuffs off and let them fight this war as wars should be fought. If not, then bring them home--and let the Iraqis decide their own fate (through courage or through cowardice).

With this attitude you will loose every guerilla war, that you will ever fight. By pulling out now, the US will loose face and will have shown that terrorism does work.

By failing in Iraq, you will fail every where else. Your troops don't need this defeatist attitude. Insurgencies wear out after some time, when there is development people will be more bothered about their daily bread, than jihad. When the 'cause' looses its importance, the insurgents become nothing but bandits. These bandits are then hunted and killed by their own people.

**Bill** · 10 Dec 04,, 13:37

Lemontree, very well said Sir.

Very well said indeed.

**Lucien LaCroix** · 10 Dec 04,, 16:07

With this attitude you will loose every guerilla war, that you will ever fight. By pulling out now, the US will loose face and will have shown that terrorism does work.

Utter nonsense. We will pull out eventually of whether or not the attacks continue, and everyone who posts here knows it (assuming they are honest about it). We are showing terrorism works by fighting their type of war instead of our type. And we lost face the moment we committed ourselves to a battle plan lacking the strategic or tactical direction necessary to achieve a clear military victory.

Do you really think those thugs are just going to give up? They have a virtually inexhaustable source of manpower. We kill one and they recruit five more. We are engaged in an clan-style confrontation. It's that simple.

By failing in Iraq, you will fail every where else. Your troops don't need this defeatist attitude. Insurgencies wear out after some time, when there is development people will be more bothered about their daily bread, than jihad. When the 'cause' looses its importance, the insurgents become nothing but bandits. These bandits are then hunted and killed by their own people.

Incorrect. By failing in Iraq, we will--ONCE AGAIN--demonstrate the failings of limited warfare. My attitude is defeatist, yes, based upon the methodology employed. Trying to wrap it up in a "support the troops" mantra is only going to get more and more of them killed. That is dishonorable and it makes my blood boil.

I was twice deployed to the Iraqi theater of operations, so I am not some armchair general who is basing his opinions merely upon watching too many John Wayne movies. Our strategic plan is unsound. And that makes our tactics ineffective.

This insurgency is not going to 'die out.' They will continue with their attacks until we employ the same 'face-saving' type of withdrawal that we used in Vietnam. Then the insurgents will take over--as they have in innumerable conflicts where this type of warfare has been employed. The Iraqis are too scared (or indifferent) to fight these maniacs--and you only have to ask many of our troops on the ground right now about the dependability and reliability of our so-called Iraqi allies (civilian, military, and police) to know this is true. Yet you believe the citizenry is somehow going to find their courage AFTER we leave, take up arms, and kill all of the insurgents. My, oh my, how naive that idea is.

Folks, I don't wish for defeat. I wish for a unequivocable victory. We can still achieve it. But we will NEVER attain it unless our philosophy changes. Blinding oneself to the truth of the situation will only deepen our losses while allowing true victory to elude our grasp.

For those who insist on articulating their flag-waving support for the current battle plan...well...I guess we'll just have to see which of us is right. Unfortunately, many of our troops over there won't be afforded that luxury.

Let our troops fight this fight as it needs to be fought for us to win. Yes, a lot of Iraqi civilians would die as a result. As I said before...so be it. Perhaps then the Iraqis would finally understand that freedom isn't free.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Dec 04,, 23:00

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

This insurgency is not going to 'die out.' They will continue with their attacks until we employ the same 'face-saving' type of withdrawal that we used in Vietnam. Then the insurgents will take over--as they have in innumerable conflicts where this type of warfare has been employed. The Iraqis are too scared (or indifferent) to fight these maniacs--and you only have to ask many of our troops on the ground right now about the dependability and reliability of our so-called Iraqi allies (civilian, military, and police) to know this is true. Yet you believe the citizenry is somehow going to find their courage AFTER we leave, take up arms, and kill all of the insurgents. My, oh my, how naive that idea is.

Your history is extremely flawed. The insurgency in Vietnam was destroyed. There's no ifs, ands, ors, buts with it. Tet saw the destruction of the Viet-Cong and chased the NVA from the field of battle. That could not have been a more convincing military victory.

However, the US lost the propaganda battle and that lesson is not being ignored now in Iraq.

**Lucien LaCroix** · 10 Dec 04,, 23:04

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Your history is extremely flawed. The insurgency in Vietnam was destroyed. There's no ifs, ands, ors, buts with it. Tet saw the destruction of the Viet-Cong and chased the NVA from the field of battle. That could not have been a more convincing military victory.

However, the US lost the propaganda battle and that lesson is not being ignored now in Iraq.

Insurgency isn't the issue. The issue is the United States fighting on the same level as its opponents.