Is Iraq Becoming like Vietnam? Only if You’re Stuck in Woodstock

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 24 April, 2004 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[gogipper]

How long will the 11th century mind set of killers be able to withstand the power of freedom?  

Students of Mustansirihya University participate in a student forum held at Baghdad University. The forum gave student the opportunity to ask questions of an assembled panel made up of commanders from the 1st Armored Division and a representative of the Coalition Provisional Authority. U.S. Army photo

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 1, 2004 — Students of Mustansirihya University freely exchanged ideas among themselves and with leaders from the Coalition Provisional Authority and Task Force 1st Armored Division during an open forum held at Baghdad University March 29.

.......While engaging the panel in discussion, students also took the opportunity to address their peers. “I, for one, would like to thank the coalition for all that they have done,” said an engineering student. “I disagree with many (the students) that (coalition forces) should leave Iraq immediately. We are not yet ready to stand on our own.”

The comment launched the student body into a heated discussion until the forum moderator reestablished control and got the meeting back on track. After an hour of discussion, the forum broke for refreshments and gave the students an opportunity for worship.

Reconvening half an hour later, a smaller audience picked up where it left off, engaging the panel for an additional 45 minutes. Davis, bringing the forum to a close, thanked the students and the panel members for their attendance and time and offered hope that forums of this nature would continue in the future. “There are many people who would intimidate you to think a certain way,” Dempsey told the students. “It is important to note, we don’t care what you think, as long as you are free to come to that conclusion on your own.”

[gogipper]

Where do you get your vision of the Iraqi population. Did you ignore the polling data that has come out? Keeping reading this site for the anecdotal evidence that most Iraqis are glad we are there.

Here is an excerpt from a comprehensive poll....l..

Perhaps the ultimate indication of how comfortable Iraqis are with America’s aims in their region came when we asked how long they would like to see American and British forces remain in their country: Six months? One year? Two years or more? Two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year or more.

Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine, which I edit, has just conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. Given the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems delayed our intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful translations, regional samplings, and survey methods to make sure our results would accurately reflect the views of Iraq’s multifarious, long-suffering people. We consulted with Eastern European pollsters about the best methods for eliciting honest answers from people long conditioned to repressing their true sentiments.

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17694/article_detail.asp

[Congressman Billybob]

I thoroughly agree with you that the purpose in ANY war is to break the will of the enemy to continue fighting. And we are not yet acting to accomplpish that goal. But that was beyond the ambit of the article I was writing this week.

The constraints of a column is that there's always more to be said on any major subject than can be said before you run out of space.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you very much for your follow-up post.

I work very hard on the titles of my articles. One reason is to attract Google hits. The other, as you note, is to encapsulate the idea of the whole column in a few words.

A propos of your closing comment, photographs of the bodies of thousands of Americans in the surf of the French coast were NEVER published or broadcast in the US until AFTER the war.

John / Billybob

[GoLightly]

The one similarity I keep seeing between Iraq and Viet Nam is that the majority of the Iraqi population, like the Vietnamese population, don't want us in their country.

I don't want the US military to be in the streets, in charge of our country either. Think back to the time of Viet Nam & what the National Guard was called on to do back then.

If it were otherwise, Iraqis would be fighting the insurgents themselves with our assistance.

When they want us out, they will take up arms against the insurgents themselves. Right now, they don't want it badly enough. They want the other guy to take care of the problems for them. They show no signs of understanding what it takes to have & hold a free nation.

It's like watching the worst parts of our cities, where gangs run rampant & where police are not seen as the good guys by enough everyday folks. Call it a welfare or victim mentality, if you will. If most psychologists weren't such lefties, I'd be ready to send an army of them to try to turn things around. I'm thinking we should flood their market with a couple of Mel Gibson movies, Braveheart & The Patriot. lol

Politicians (Bush Sr) stopped our armies from toppling Saddam in the Gulf War.

After the Gulf War, the Iraqi's came close to toppling him themselves. They had most of the country wrestled away from his control. They were close enough, they could almost taste it. Bush should have never allowed himself to be duped into leaving Saddam the helicopters. What we are dealing with now is some of the blow back from that.

[GoLightly]

I have a question about the total population figure you used for the time of the Revolutionary War. It is my understanding that only about half of the population supported the revolution & there was a bit of a purge of loyalists. How or where did you get any kind of reliable number for the total population during that period?

[backtothestreets]

I am a cynic where polls are concerned. The only polls that affect my views are those of action, not of words.

The military released figures this week that 50% of the new Iraqi defense force had either walked away, or joined the other side. I believe that is representative of the overall population. Of the 50% that remained, some are likely be more greatly allied to the financial gain they are receiving then the cause we envision.

The similarities of support, and lack thereof between the indigenous populations of South Viet Nam and Iraq are too strong to be overlooked.

[backtothestreets]

Thanks for reminding me of the National Guard actions that were required during the Viet Nam era. I doubt such actions would be required as a result of the Iraqi conflict. Even if required, it might be a daunting task considering so many National Guard units are in Iraq.

If the Mel Gibson movies would help, I'd say go for it. Make them the only thing available on televisions and in theaters for a month or so.

I think it was actually Gen. Schwarzkopf that gave Saddam forces the green light on the use of helicopters. It was President Bush (Sr) that decided Gen. Schwarzkopf's armies should halt advances on Baghdad. One thing is certain. We wouldn't be there today if the job had been finished back then.

[Congressman Billybob]

The Census of 1790, first one conducted per the Constitution, found 3 million people in the US then. Therefore a figure of "slightly less than 3 million" is reasonable for the end of the Revolutionary War, in 1781. For purposes of population comparisons, it is irrelevant that about a third of the population supported the British.

John / Billybob

[gogipper]

Don't confuse me with facts... My mind is made up!




A Winning Situation
Reality on the ground.

By W. Thomas Smith Jr.

"We're here to remove all of the thugs operating in the city." - Capt. Phil Treglia, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines

Straining at the leash, grunts and tank crews with the 1st Marine Division continue observing the ordered suspension of offensive combat operations in Fallujah, Iraq.

FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="
<<...OLE_Obj...>>

Still, the Marines have been shot at day-and-night. In all cases, they've returned fire often engaging the enemy in a series of maneuvering street battles sometimes lasting for hours.

Marines - and attached U.S. Army forces - have also conducted raids throughout the country, capturing terrorists and seizing large weapons caches. On Saturday, five Marines were killed in an ambush near Husaybah on the Iraqi-Syrian border. And on Sunday, guerilla forces opened fire on Marines from a mosque in Fallujah.

The battles are tough: In most cases, they are launched by teams of enemy snipers or rebel units lying in ambush. But morale among U.S. troops is remarkably high, disabusing the suggestion among naysayers back home that Iraq is another Vietnam.

"There's a lot of fighting going on, but my boys are still motivated," says Staff Sgt. Pedro Marrufo of 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines.

Cpl. Justin M. Rettenberger, a rifle squad leader with the same regiment, agrees.
"We will win the hearts and minds of Fallujah by ridding the city of insurgents," he says. "We're doing that by patrolling the streets and killing the enemy."

It's a simple Marine maxim: Locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. But Marines in Iraq are doing much more.
On April 6 - the same day 11 Marines and one Navy medical corpsman were killed in Ramadi - a group of artillerymen with 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines played soccer with Iraqis in the town of Nukhayb. Few if any newspapers reported the game. It didn't bleed, so it didn't lead. But it's all part of building a new Iraq.

"It's fun having the Americans here, because it's all about building friendships," said Ali Tayish, 19, a local resident. "We're all brothers. We'd play soccer with them everyday if we could."

In other regions of the country, Marines and soldiers are delivering much needed food and medical supplies to openly grateful Iraqis. That's not all: School supplies, carpentry tools, sporting goods, even Frisbees - two tons of them - from the Los Angeles-based "Spirit of America" organization are finding their way into Iraqi hands. The Frisbees are emblazoned with the word "friendship" in both English and Arabic.

"We want to make sure the Iraqis know that we are not just a uniform," says 2nd Lt. Robert L. Nofsinger of 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines. "We want them to know that we are not some strange, mythical creatures, but we are people who want to help them any way we can."

Marines and soldiers in Iraq contend that, despite what they are reading in the papers, most Iraqis welcome their presence. The country is indeed being rebuilt. Basic water and other utility infrastructures are in place. Hospitals are receiving updated equipment daily. People are working and children are going to school. That's not to say that there are not major security concerns, and fighting has indeed increased dramatically over the past two weeks. Much of the spike in Iraqi combat has been attributed to foreign fighters slipping over the borders from Syria and Iran, as well as the call-to-arms from troublemakers like Shiite firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr.

The son of a grand ayatollah who was assassinated in 1999, Sadr is currently holed-up in the city of Najaf, where he continues to enflame the passions of his followers. Those followers are "few and mostly desperate youth and the poor," says 1st Lt. Eric Knapp, a spokesman for the 1st Marine Division. "That or they revere his father. And Sadr gains from that family loyalty."

Knapp and other Marines and soldiers on the ground, say support for Sadr is not what many throughout the world are being led to believe. Though reports out of Iraq claim that the Shiites and the Sunnis are working together against Coalition forces, the truth is far different. There are in fact rebel fighters who support both Sadr and the continuation of resistance in-and-around Fallujah. But long-running feuds die hard. The relationship between Shiite and Sunni - not unlike that of the Hatfields and McCoys - is presenting major coordination problems for insurgent forces as they continue their efforts against the Coalition. It does not mean there aren't American troops and innocent Iraqis being killed and property destroyed. It does mean that Sadr and his bunch are struggling to galvanize rebel forces in an ill-fated power grab.

Fact is, there is little if any support for Sadr in the Sunni triangle. Additionally, "most Shiite clerics in the south, see Sadr as an upstart and a moron, and would rather see him go away," says Knapp. "He's 30 - if that, he lies about his age - and he is basically telling these 60, 70-year-old clerics that he is their equal. It's like a lieutenant telling a colonel he has the same experience and ability to lead."

The greatest difficulty for Sadr and others opposing U.S. forces is that they are facing "the best trained, most highly skilled, smartest group of kids ever to wear the uniform," says Col. Jeff Bearor at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. "No Marine ever deploys without every scrap of operational and tactical knowledge we can impart to them." Still, Bearor concedes, "it's a tough fight," adding the insurgents are a "tough, dedicated, even fanatical enemy who hate us just because of who we are and what we represent."

The fighting has indeed escalated in Iraq. For those on the outside looking in, it may at times appear that U.S. forces are becoming embroiled in an inextricable quagmire. But for the young Americans there on the ground, it is a fight they are winning and a noble cause they are committed to seeing through to completion.

In the words of 1st Lt. Edward M. Solis, a platoon commander with 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, "If the enemy only knew our will, they would've given up by now."

- A former U.S. Marine infantry leader and paratrooper, W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in a variety of national and international publications. His third book, Alpha Bravo Delta Guide to American Airborne Forces, has just been published.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "Thanks for reminding me of the National Guard actions that were required during the Viet Nam era."

Except for Kent State I am trying to recall when the National Guard was ever called out to quell war-related disturbances.

Even Kent State started out as rioting in the local community and the destruction of property. It was not an "anti-war" demonstration that night. After a few protested the "invasion of Cambodia" that day later that night rumors of violence forced the city to close bars early and alert the governor of Ohio after the violent reaction.

The "anti-war" demonstrators' continued violent actions and, among the general student population, more confusion and resentment, etc. swelled the crowds over the next couple of days and brought in the Guard.

There was plenty of war-related violence but I recall only "civil rights"-related riots where the Guard had to be called out to help authorities restore order.

I will defer to your memory. I am not trying to start an argument. The "anti-war" crowd wanted desperately to start a revolution (so did many in the "civil rights" movement). But the "anti-war" movement just did not have that many in the streets. Their influence was exercised through universities and the media. Of course, like today the leadership of the various movements overlapped but no "anti-war" riots ever came close to size and violence of the "civil-rights" riots.

[backtothestreets]

I think you are right. Thinking back, the riots in Berkeley may have been a "free speech", not specifically an antiwar movement. Even now, I recall Governor Reagan sending in the California Highway Patrol to supplement the Alameda County Sheriffs Department, but do not recall if the California National Guard was used to suppress the disturbance. All the other uses of the National Guard may well have been related to Civil Rights rioting. I probably mixed all occurrences because they seemed to happen during the same approximate time.

[muawiyah]

Revolutionary War statistics are misleading (at best). For the most part most deaths as a result of wounds or injuries received as a consequence of combat were simply never reported as such.

There were also "allies" such as the Oneida Indians who suffered a 75% population loss! History does not record them at all although I've been able to infer some of the deaths by taking a good look at the New York Minuteman rosters.

By the time the War of 1812 came around record keeping was much better.

[Congressman Billybob]

The statistics from the Defense Department confirm what you say about record-keeping. The original table gives no data for non-combat deaths for either the Revolution or the War of 1812. The point of the article, however, does not depend on those unavailable statistics.

John / Billybob

[the OlLine Rebel]

"War Deaths KIA/Mo. Proportionate Revolutionary War 4,435 55 5,500"


I'm confused - what the heck numbers are these? Looks for most of the wars like there are 3 #s (except part of the CW?), but I'm not sure to what they correspond. That "War Deaths KIA/Mo. Proportionate" looks like 2 numbers....what is the split? And what is the definition?

[the OlLine Rebel]

"I calculated it by applying the proportion of deaths in the US population during the war in question to the current population of the United States"


Huh? Please 'splain more precisely (I think). What have the old deaths to do w/current population?

[the OlLine Rebel]

"But that isn’t a fair comparison. In all prior wars, the population of the United States was less, sometimes very much less, than it is today."

It also isn't "fair" because the numbers involved in combat were much, much smaller than even the CW. (Partly cuz the populace was greatly divided itself on this - you cannot include the entire colonial population in such a % as many would be Loyalists or disinterested.)

Actually, if you look at who was actually involved in combat *at each battle* in both the RevWar and the "1812" war (probably better called the British war), it is nothing short of miraculous the way the casualties seemed to go. Rebels/Americans often had tiny % below the apparent norm of any casualty % of any conflict, whereas the Brits often suffered huge %.

Back the the Iraq whining, frankly, all 1 has to mention is 20,000 Americans dead in *1 day* in my own local Sharpsburg action to barely sneeze at anything going on since. Sounds cold, I know, but perspective, and even a bit of humility, is what we need.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I love that quote. And I love Mill! ;-)

[the OlLine Rebel]

Au contraire, it is very relevent, since alot of the population was supporting the British - or not supporting any1 and hoping to blissfully ride out the war. Those supporting the Brits could then only be called Loyalist British, not American Rebels (the latter word being the proper term, not the former, as they were all Americans).

To think that's irrelevent means that you should never bother splitting the Confederate and Federal/Union population/combatants in figures, either.

Another reason that % of ACTUAL COMBATANTS is better than comparing to whole population. What if in some wars only 10% of the pop goes to war, while in others 40%? That can really skew the % #s, too.

And so, if the RevWar was only about 1 million supportive (Rebel) population, that would make your KIA 300x, not just 100x.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Never mind, I finally read the other posts!