Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Iraq is not like Vietnam
Christian Science Monitor ^ | August 27, 2003 | John Hughes

Posted on 09/02/2003 8:45:27 AM PDT by presidio9

In the wake of last week's terrorist attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, and the continuing killing of American soldiers, the doomsayers are suggesting that the dreaded "Q" word - "Q" for quagmire - now hangs like a specter over US involvement in Iraq. Is Iraq to become another Vietnam, bogging down American troops indefinitely, and leading to abject withdrawal? Let's hope not. The success or failure of the American venture in Iraq has enormous consequences for the future of the Arab world, the foreign policy of the US, and the political fate of George Bush.

The fact is there are many dissimilarities between Vietnam and Iraq.

• The Vietnam war was fought in rice paddies and difficult jungle terrain. The continuing conflict in Iraq is confined mainly to the urban areas.

• In Vietnam, the entire country was perilous for US forces. In Iraq, the opposition is confined to a relatively small geographic area. Much of the country is free of attacks against US and British forces.

• In Vietnam, Viet Cong guerrillas in the south were aided by a conventional North Vietnamese Army with tanks and artillery. In Iraq, the US and British forces, having destroyed Saddam Hussein's conventional forces, are facing hit-and-run attacks from small guerrilla groups without such backing.

• In Vietnam, the US fielded a valiant, but conscript Army. In Iraq, the volunteer US forces are better trained and experienced, with a new generation of wonder weapons.

• In Vietnam, the death toll was horrendous - an estimated 58,000 Americans and 3 million Vietnamese. In Iraq, the American death toll is still below 300, the British about 50. Iraqi casualties, though really unknown, are clearly nothing like the toll on Vietnamese in Vietnam.

• In Vietnam, major military operations continued for years. In Iraq, the bulk of the fighting ended in weeks; it is guerrilla resistance that is dragging on.

• In Vietnam, the US was defending a people whose government was often corrupt and unloved. In Iraq, the US is seeking to defend a people who already have been liberated from a despotic regime.

• In Vietnam, the US waged a war that, over a period of time, became hugely unpopular with Americans at home. In the case of Iraq, while there is slipping support at home, President Bush still retains substantial credibility with loyal supporters.

There is, however, one striking similarity between Vietnam and Iraq, namely the goals and strategy of the guerrillas attacking US forces.

The overall makeup of these guerrillas is unclear. They may include Baathists, former elements of Hussein's Army; Al Qaeda operatives, and foreign fighters from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. They have found common cause in seeking to disrupt and end the American presence. Given the numbers and sophistication of US forces in Iraq, it seems improbable that they can ever achieve that through conventional military means. But the philosophy behind guerrilla warfare is that military action against superior forces is merely an end to the achievement of political goals.

In Iraq, as it was in Vietnam, the aim of the guerrillas is to undermine US resolve to the point where the US withdraws its forces, awarding the guerrillas the victory they could not win on the battlefield. The attack last week on the UN headquarters in Baghdad was designed to discourage foreign involvement, however altruistic, and destabilize the reconstruction effort, thus further eroding US morale and commitment.

So what must happen to keep a quagmire for the US in Iraq from becoming reality?

First, support at home for the US effort in Iraq must not weaken. Remember Margaret Thatcher's words to George Bush the elder at a difficult moment in Gulf War I: "This is no time to go wobbly."

Second, security must improve. That requires more Iraqi policemen, and more international troops for peacekeeping, which is no long-term task for US and British combat units.

Third, reconstruction must accelerate. Water must run, electricity must flow, oil must be pumped. This is a multibillion-dollar project that requires a multinational effort. If the Iraqi people are to enjoy the prosperity that should accompany freedom, the US and other potential donors must settle their differences over who is to run the show. Diplomacy is required. The role of the UN must be settled.

Finally, Iraqis must step up to their responsibilities. It is their country to build and to democratize. In eliminating Hussein's evil grasp, the US has given them a new opportunity. It is theirs to seize or lose


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: chickenlittles; iraq; quagmire

1 posted on 09/02/2003 8:45:27 AM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I'll tell you one thing they have in common: IN both instances, the American left, all the way up to the Presidential candidates of the leftist Democrat party, to the leaders of the Democrat Congress, to their activists and publications, have willingly done whatever they could do to demoralize our troops and their supporters here at home in a time of war. They have staked their political fortunes on America's defeat.
2 posted on 09/02/2003 8:49:32 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The left and Vietnam: There goto issue

I am so sick of the left bringing out their revisionist self serving fake Vietnam history and metaphors, seemingly every few days, for the past 20+ years.

Enough is enough. I am sick of it...
3 posted on 09/02/2003 8:51:09 AM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals ("Diplomats and Beaurocrats may act independently, but they achieve the same result" -Spock 1969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The left is more loyal to the Un and EU politicians than to the US troops. The left, the media, and the UN/EU is virtually an alliance.
4 posted on 09/02/2003 8:53:33 AM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals ("Diplomats and Beaurocrats may act independently, but they achieve the same result" -Spock 1969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Huck
The Rats would like nothing more than to put in a Rat president who would then do everything in their power to demoralize and undercut them with hopes that they could withdraw our troops in disgrace and hand the America haters a vidtory.
5 posted on 09/02/2003 8:54:30 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: At _War_With_Liberals
The left is more loyal to the Un and EU politicians than to the US troops. The left, the media, and the UN/EU is virtually an alliance.

Actually, its worse than that. A large segment of the left is no longer even trying to conceal the fact that they root against US Armed Forces.

6 posted on 09/02/2003 9:00:21 AM PDT by presidio9 (Run Al Run!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
You must deny the enemy...sanctuaries ..training camps...money...food ...clothing...shelter...
any kind of support...

Saudi Arabia "Palestine" Jordan Syria Lebanon Sudan as well as many Asian nations are not only safe havens for their fellow Islamic terrorists but also provide education and training for the next generation...these Islamic states are nothing more than terror factories

If you are unwilling or unable to destroy the breeding areas swatting a few individuals does nothing except keep people busy and drain valuable resources from your homeland

HAMAS Islamic Jihad Hezbollah al-Qaeda and many other organizations recruit weapons funds and cadre in the west...they have found safe haven in places we should deny...including right here in America..certainly in Mexico and Canada

The terrorists also have found many friends in America and in the west as well as Russia China and N Korea

In Vietnam the enemy had encampments training staging and medical in Loas and Cambodia..sanctuaries that were off limits to conventional troops...so we took the fight to them in an unconvential way...

The war in Iraq has sanctuaries all over the world as well as in the adjacent Islamic nations..
and we need to deny them materials and financing...but then we would have to quit using their oil -& find other sources -or simply declare war on all islamic terrorists and take the resources tht they are waging war against us with........imo
7 posted on 09/02/2003 9:02:28 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The key to this is who the Iraqi people end up blaming for the ongoing terrorism and sabotage. If they blame the Saddam loyalists and terrorist imports, it might unify them and firm their resolve to back the USA against those who are trying to impede the recovery and rebuilding effort. But if they blame the USA, it will be very difficult to stabilize the country and we could end up with the chaos that liberals have been hoping for.
8 posted on 09/02/2003 9:53:47 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle (uo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
with hopes that they could withdraw our troops in disgrace

That's sure how it looks. If they want to make that argument, the GOP should lay Somalia at their doorstep and ask America to choose. Which do they want? American soldiers killing bad guys in Iraq? Or Americans disgraced like we were in Somalia with terrorists encouraged to kill more Americans on our soil.

9 posted on 09/02/2003 10:16:22 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Tha Rats would like the people to believe that the "ostrich approach" is ideal and that the eagle should be replaced with a cringing chicken.
10 posted on 09/02/2003 11:05:23 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: At _War_With_Liberals
Not only to they have funky memories, but they forget that the two communist super powers provided unlimited military support. See if there is that type of support except from rich Saudis.

If russia could not wage a war on the US then the saudi shieks will find their money runs out soon too or else they will find travel most difficult outside of their home. Black helicopters fly to lots of places.

11 posted on 09/02/2003 11:43:47 AM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Thanks for posting this - good info!
12 posted on 09/02/2003 1:37:47 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - "The Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
A large segment of the left is no longer even trying to conceal the fact that they root against US Armed Forces"

That is how powerful they are. They are now targeting the military, which is one of the few institutions that they have not successfully infiltrated and corrupted.
13 posted on 09/02/2003 5:11:34 PM PDT by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson