Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Dec 04,, 23:14

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

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

The issue is Tet is the military victory you're looking for and Vietnam was still lost.

**Praxus** · 10 Dec 04,, 23:57

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.

Nor has he claimed that it did...

**Lucien LaCroix** · 11 Dec 04,, 07:11

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The issue is Tet is the military victory you're looking for and Vietnam was still lost.

I can't tell if you are rationalizing, or simply fishing with that comment. And I certainly don't want this thread to evolve into a Vietnam battle strategy thread. Frankly, the subject of Vietnam bores me. It bores me because it is a history lesson that we obviously haven't learned from.

The Tet Offensive...a battle waged five and half years prior to our withdrawal. 45,000 Vietnamese regulars and Viet Cong launched an attack at a variety of points. Yes, we beat them back--killing more than half of the forces committed to the operation.

The Tet Offensive...a battle waged five and half years prior to our withdrawal. And in those five and half years we still failed to subdue the North. That's longer than it took for us to defeat both Nazi Germany and Japan. That alone should tell you something about our war planning and implementation.

Don't bomb this...don't shoot that. Don't hit that target because it's too sensitive...etc., etc., etc. We used the Linebacker operations to bring the Vietnamese to the bargaining table (and immediately stopped those operations). Then, when the opportunity was ripe, we hot-footed it out of there.

And we are employing the very same methodology in Iraq.

That is why our efforts in Iraq must inevitably fail--not because of a lack of honor or skill of our troops, but because of a lack of candor and integrity from our leadership...a lack of foresight...and, most importantly, a lack of guts and determination to do what is necessary to win the day.

You can posture all you want to on the issue of Iraq. But I am supremely confident that I am correct on the eventual outcome.

And it grieves me to no end--as it will grieve many dead soldiers' families yet to come.

They deserve better.

**Ray** · 11 Dec 04,, 07:15

Lucien,

I wouldn't say that your ideas are defeatist. It is just another way of looking at the issue.

The point is that Iraq has been invaded (rightly or wrongly is a moot point) and is now under the tutelege of the Anglo US forces.

That decision to invade Iraq was taken by duly elected govts. Therefore, individual opinions did not count.

That the US Forces will have to grin and bear it, no matter what is the cost is the decision of the elected govt. Again the individual opinion or desire doesn't count.

Therefore, one should make the best out of the decision and try to ensure that at least it looks a victory. That one can do by mentally accepting the situation and contributing one's mite to the effort. I agree it may also mean one may die, but then none asked anyone to join the Army; after all, the Army maybe a paid holiday in peacetime but when the chips are down, then I reckon it is payback time.

In so far as the strategy being incorrect, I am afraid, the Generals who are taking the decision on strategy in implementing the govt's decision have been trained for years at tremendous costs. I am sure that their training and experience is sound; at least sounder than those who are below them! If not, then there is something seriously wrong with the training system of the Army and I am sure that lacunae would also affect those below the Generals who are responsible for strategy.

If you are talking about national strategy in the hands of politicians, then that is a different matter. I too am not very comfortable with the decisions taken by politicians. Most of them are prized chumps.

It gives me great pleasure in knowing you who has gone twice to Iraq. My cousin, a Britisher with the Royal Scot Dragoon Guards was in the thick of battle in Basra and now another cousin is covering Iraq for BBC. Do let us know your personal experience there so that we understand the war on terror better.

Again, a great pleasure knowing you; at least in cyberspace.

**lemontree** · 11 Dec 04,, 07:17

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

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.

Yes you will pull out, but the time has not come ripe, when you "liberated" ppl from a tyrant, then you also have to install what you claimed was your "aim". What the US lacks in Iraq is sufficient manpower, our neighbours blame us for pouring troops in Kashmir, but we know what is needed there to fight terrorism, you need a good counter-insurgency grid thats all. We destroyed the Khalistani terrorism and have fought the jihadis in Kashmir far longer than what the Soviets could withstand in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

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.

The bosses of these thugs are in Syria and Iran. Even we face a continues flow of insurgents, does that mean we'll pull out of Kashmir. Hell no.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

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.

Limited warfare fails for the insurgents not of us. Please understand that a guerilla war succeeds only when a convetional ground offensive is launched (by the guerillas) to support it. Rather your blood should boil because your top brass seems confused.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

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.

I did'nt treat you like an arm chair general. I am aware that a lot of American youth join the Marines or Army prior to college.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

Our strategic plan is unsound. And that makes our tactics ineffective.

The former armed forces ppl out here agree with that.

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.

Then you need Indian, Pakistani or British army instructors for guerilla warfare, 'coz your own guys don't know how to fight it. Does that mean that US army is only capable to defeat a santioned and inferior enemy, but is weak against one who snatches the initiative?

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

My, oh my, how naive that idea is.

I have concentrated my studies on guerilla warfare. I have been part of an army that knows its job and is doing it better than most armies.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

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.

"Wham bam thank you ma'am"..does not work in defeating an insurgency, but it breeds it.

**Ray** · 11 Dec 04,, 07:30

Lucien,

Lemontree was a part of the Army I proudly also served.

I am not too steep in Military history (a drudge) and so I leave that to the Colonel.

We, in India, have had a long struggle (if you wish) against terrorism that is sponsored, mostly with Arab oil money pumped to another country along with the now unemployed jihadis of the Afghanistan Taliban pizzazz.

The jihadis are still pocking the countryside. We know what is terrorism. I agree with you that it will not die. But, all the same can we cut and run just because the dice is loaded?

Google Churchill's famous quotes on 'We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing ground......But we shall NOT SURRENDER.

I agree it is stupidity, but then honourable men are stupid.

Take heart. Things are not so bad. Remeber, it could be worse/\. What ho?

Pip pip. Tally ho!

**Officer of Engineers** · 11 Dec 04,, 11:23

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

I can't tell if you are rationalizing, or simply fishing with that comment. And I certainly don't want this thread to evolve into a Vietnam battle strategy thread. Frankly, the subject of Vietnam bores me. It bores me because it is a history lesson that we obviously haven't learned from.

I am not rationalizing. I'm stating outright that your strategy is short sighted.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

The Tet Offensive...a battle waged five and half years prior to our withdrawal. 45,000 Vietnamese regulars and Viet Cong launched an attack at a variety of points. Yes, we beat them back--killing more than half of the forces committed to the operation.

Your numbers are off, way off.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

The Tet Offensive...a battle waged five and half years prior to our withdrawal. And in those five and half years we still failed to subdue the North. That's longer than it took for us to defeat both Nazi Germany and Japan. That alone should tell you something about our war planning and implementation.

There was never any attempt to subdue the North, otherwise, there would have been an invasion of the North.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

Don't bomb this...don't shoot that. Don't hit that target because it's too sensitive...etc., etc., etc. We used the Linebacker operations to bring the Vietnamese to the bargaining table (and immediately stopped those operations). Then, when the opportunity was ripe, we hot-footed it out of there.

Except Linebackers I & II did work and worked damned well.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

And we are employing the very same methodology in Iraq.

That is why our efforts in Iraq must inevitably fail--not because of a lack of honor or skill of our troops, but because of a lack of candor and integrity from our leadership...a lack of foresight...and, most importantly, a lack of guts and determination to do what is necessary to win the day.

I don't know if it would fail or not. I see alot of mistakes from both the military and political leadership, except that they are not making the same mistakes I've seen in Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

You can posture all you want to on the issue of Iraq. But I am supremely confident that I am correct on the eventual outcome.

You may be right but your supporting evidence does not point that way.

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

And it grieves me to no end--as it will grieve many dead soldiers' families yet to come.

They deserve better.

On those points I fully agree. Whether we win or not, those losses will be grieved no matter what we do.

**2DREZQ** · 11 Dec 04,, 16:09

I would not presume to challenge either of the combatants here in their area of expertise. Whatever the cost, we must leave behind a stable Iraq when we go. The only proof to the world of the ultimate trustworthiness of American Power is the outcome here. It doesn't matter WHY we went in, the outcome must be peace and freedom. The people of Iraq must have a situation in which they can look to the future with hope (rising expectations). We cannot defeat terrorism worldwide by killing terrorists, any more than you can defeat ants by stomping on them on your kitchen floor. You ultimately defeat terrorism by removing the environmental conditions that breed terrorists. If that is the outcome in Iraq, then generations yet to come will thank us. Does anyone disagree that this fight is ours to lose?

**Blademaster** · 11 Dec 04,, 18:49

Originally Posted by 2DREZQ

I would not presume to challenge either of the combatants here in their area of expertise. Whatever the cost, we must leave behind a stable Iraq when we go. The only proof to the world of the ultimate trustworthiness of American Power is the outcome here. It doesn't matter WHY we went in, the outcome must be peace and freedom. The people of Iraq must have a situation in which they can look to the future with hope (rising expectations). We cannot defeat terrorism worldwide by killing terrorists, any more than you can defeat ants by stomping on them on your kitchen floor. You ultimately defeat terrorism by removing the environmental conditions that breed terrorists. If that is the outcome in Iraq, then generations yet to come will thank us. Does anyone disagree that this fight is ours to lose?

As Machieavelli said, if you want to subdue a country, you must do either one of three things 1) Go live there and rule it 2) wage some form of genocide 3) I can't recall it since I don't have the book with me.

None of them would be politically correct but necessary to subdue a country.

**Bluesman** · 12 Dec 04,, 03:05

Originally Posted by Blademaster

As Machieavelli said, if you want to subdue a country, you must do either one of three things 1) Go live there and rule it 2) wage some form of genocide 3) I can't recall it since I don't have the book with me.

None of them would be politically correct but necessary to subdue a country.

We are not attempting to subdue a country. We just liberated it from the man that had subdued it, and we are now attempting to keep others from subduing it in turn.

Most of the people that oppose the War cannot get past the notion that we are not there for some exploitative purpose. It hinders them from understanding that we are the Good Guys; we are opposed by Bad Guys. We are not conquerors. We are liberators. The forces that we contend with are the ones that Machiavelli was speaking to, not us.

**Lucien LaCroix** · 12 Dec 04,, 03:44

Originally Posted by Bluesman

We are not attempting to subdue a country. We just liberated it from the man that had subdued it, and we are now attempting to keep others from subduing it in turn.

Most of the people that oppose the War cannot get past the notion that we are not there for some exploitative purpose. It hinders them from understanding that we are the Good Guys; we are opposed by Bad Guys. We are not conquerors. We are liberators. The forces that we contend with are the ones that Machiavelli was speaking to, not us.

And that is our mistake--attempting to 'liberate' a belligerant nation. You don't liberate belligerant nations...you conquer them--then impose your will for the betterment of their country. If they object, then you hit them again until they don't object. Such is the way of war. If we can't subscribe to that very basic tenet, then we have no business of being in the business of social engineering.

I don't care how many peace-loving Iraqis there are...just like we didn't care how many peace-loving Germans and Japanese there were during WWII. And despite objections to contrary, there is absolutely no difference between the two conflicts in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the people.

I am simply befuddled by those who cannot see the light.

**Officer of Engineers** · 12 Dec 04,, 04:33

Originally Posted by Lucien LaCroix

I am simply befuddled by those who cannot see the light.

Perhaps because we come from two different military traditions. I don't share your views simply because my regimental history states otherwise. The Brigadier and the Captain (Ray and Lemontree respectively) served in an Army that was once the instrument of British imperialism. Most certainly, the British did not use what you're suggesting to acquire India.

**Lucien LaCroix** · 12 Dec 04,, 04:36

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Perhaps because we come from two different military traditions. I don't share your views simply because my regimental history states otherwise. The Brigadier and the Captain (Ray and Lemontree respectively) served in an Army that was once the instrument of British imperialism. Most certainly, the British did not use what you're suggesting to acquire India.

And that might be relevant...were we attempting to 'acquire' Iraq.

**Officer of Engineers** · 12 Dec 04,, 04:39

It might end up that way. India was not on a conquest list. That is to say, the British Parliment did not set out to conquer India in a determined campaign. I will let other more learned people to give you a better history but my understanding is that British military adventures were to secure economic assets, ie the British India Company started alot of wars on its own.

**Lucien LaCroix** · 12 Dec 04,, 05:07

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It might end up that way. India was not on a conquest list. That is to say, the British Parliment did not set out to conquer India in a determined campaign. I will let other more learned people to give you a better history but my understanding is that British military adventures were to secure economic assets, ie the British India Company started alot of wars on its own.

The British Parliment [sic], at that time, had a general policy of "anybody who can't whip us in a fight is ours to do with as we see fit."

"I claim this land in the name of the King (or Queen)!"

Sound familiar?

As such, they had a general philosophy of conquest--not specific to any conquered nation, nor with any desire to provide a forum of equality or freedom. Because of this, I think your example is not analagous.

Countries 'conquered' by the United States have, in general, fared far better. Our end goals are not the same. Britain didn't subjugate countries because of a threat--real or perceived--to the British Empire. They did it simply to expand the economic influence (as you stated).

We may end up controlling Iraq (assuming we right ourselves with regard to the methods for doing so), but it would be based upon a far-thinking motive.

But I will admit that our motivations will be confused with those of empire-building nations--because of our unwillingness to put purely military considerations above political ones. We are attempting to sell ourselves as do-gooders rather than somebody who saw an enemy of freedom and peace, kicked as many asses as necessary, and then told them "this is the way to have a just society that can live among us--whether you like our methods or not."