Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam

[Naselus]

This Iraqi war has often been compared to Vietnam by it's critics, and I for one agree with them. Here's a few of the points that I think bear the most resemblance:

The American troops on the group cannot tell who are civilians and who are enemy troopers. Just as the VCs had no set uniform in 'Nam, so the 'rebel' element in Iraq don't.

US forces are STILL there, and more troops are needed all the time. This could easily go on for upto a decade, and at all times the US seems to think it's winning when actually they're fighting a bloody stalemate.

US forces are fighting in an environment they aren't suitably trained for, trying to communicate with civilians who don't speak English, and generally have almost no idea what they're doing anymore. Mixed messages from the commanders are resulting in extreme lows in moral.

Huge anti-war sentiment back in the US.

Vicious right-wing president trying to keep the war going. Cough Cough Nixon mark 2 Cough.

Hardline laws being passed in the states to increase Government control. Veterans suffering from new legislation.

What do you guys think? Is this the new Vietnam war? And if it is, will the US lose in the end? Is it all for nothing?

[HStorm]

There's one slight difference between Iraq and Vietnam, which is that the USA can withdraw any time they like and at least offer up some rational case that they've "succeeded". The real war never ended from 12 years ago, but they can say that they freed Kuwait (yeah, what a wondrous democracy they've established there), that they removed Saddam Hussein, that they've captured him and put him on trial, and that they've established a "democratic" (read USA-friendly) civilian government in the country. None of this is definitive success in reality of course, but they can at least point to it and spin it as worthwhile. (Who knows? They've convinced themselves with it, they might convince someone else one day.)

By contrast, in 'Nam there was never any tangible evidence of a successful outcome at all.

[Naselus]

Thought of a difference. In 'nam, the US was defending a US-friendly corrupt vote-stealing democracy, where as now they're trying to install one. Actually, that's pretty much a similarity, except in vietnam the corrupt democracy was already there.

[Naselus]

The US did claim that 'nam was a success, tho. After twenty five years of bloody fighting, they managed to get the North Vienamese government to sign an agreement not to take over South vietnam for a whole six months! Which is probably exactly what will happen in Iraq. The moment the US troops are gone, the government will topple and extremist Shia clerics will take over. It's farcical, really.

[HStorm]

The key word I used was 'rational'. There is no rational way whatsoever that the USA can claim success in 'Nam. Sure they pretended to, but they were being wholly irrational and unconvincing in doing so and nobody, even in the States, bought it.

By contrast their claims to success in Iraq, while still highly dubious, are not irrational, because at least there's something substantial behind it.

[Naselus]

Ah, but as you said, the freeing of Kuwait was actually the re-instatement of it's practically prehistoric monarchy system, the capture and trial of Saddam's hardly going to matter since there's a long list of potential despots waiting in the wings (Not least those the US replced him with), the chances of that Civilian government holding up without US support are probably somewhat lower that Southern Vietnam's were, and they don't actually have any great control over the country. If I were to comment on it rationally, I'd say they've changed Iraq from a safe place to live, ruled by an evil dictator, and turned it into a war-torn country caught up in a dreadful rebellion, crippled the economy, and then installed a shiny new evil dictator. So I don't really think the US can rationally claim to have achieved anything other than creating a large disaster.

[Thanatos]

The comparison is fairly silly; both were disasters, but Vietnam far more so. Then, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians and tens of thousands of American soldiers died; as I type this, civilian casualties number no more than 13579 (www.iraqbodycount.net/) and 'coalition' deaths are in the hundreds.

"Huge anti-war sentiment back in the US" is an exaggeration; it's around 50-50 now.

Nixon, though certainly vicious, was not viciously right-wing (which you may have been implying, I'm not sure); he was considerably to the left of, say, Clinton (not that that's saying a great deal).

South Vietnam was never a democracy, not even "a US-friendly corrupt vote-stealing" one; the division of Vietnam after French surrender was intended to be a stop-gap until elections were held for a re-unified Vietnam, but the USA cancelled the elections as soon as it became clear that the Communists were going to win and began defending the no-longer-temporary Catholic fascist dictatorship of South Vietnam.

[Naselus]

Thanatos said:

The comparison is fairly silly; both were disasters, but Vietnam far more so. Then, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians and tens of thousands of American soldiers died; as I type this, civilian casualties number no more than 13579 (www.iraqbodycount.net/) and 'coalition' deaths are in the hundreds.

Let's give it a chance, eh? It's not had quite as long to get the figures, and we don't seem to be withdrawing yet. Out of interest, does anyone have the casualty figures for Veitnam after 18 months? That'd give us a fairer comparison.

Thanatos said:

"Huge anti-war sentiment back in the US" is an exaggeration; it's around 50-50 now.

A fair point, but 50-50 is a large anti-war sentiment. Fully half the population against war? 'Bout the same as Veitnam then.

Thanatos said:

Nixon, though certainly vicious, was not viciously right-wing (which you may have been implying, I'm not sure); he was considerably to the left of, say, Clinton (not that that's saying a great deal)..

Eh? WTF? Nixon left of CLINTON? Do you know some of Nixon's blatantly facist policies? His draconian legislation? By the standards of the time, in US politics, he wasn't particularly extreme, but he was far right of Clinton. Clinton was far right for a democrat of his era, Nixon centre right for a republican of his time, but by todays standards Nixon's practically Mussolini.

Thanatos said:

South Vietnam was never a democracy, not even "a US-friendly corrupt vote-stealing" one; the division of Vietnam after French surrender was intended to be a stop-gap until elections were held for a re-unified Vietnam, but the USA cancelled the elections as soon as it became clear that the Communists were going to win and began defending the no-longer-temporary Catholic fascist dictatorship of South Vietnam.

South Vietnam WAS a democracy, with a corrupt president, but it never held an election. Iraq, we're told, is a democracy, but it hasn't actually held an election. This difference you're citing actually seems to bolster the case, old son. And given the 'troubles' in Iraq (or, to put it in real speak, the fact that there's actually still a bloody war going on, for all our talk of victory) I get the feeling Martial Law and suspension of elections is just round the corner.

[HStorm]

thanatos said:

The comparison is fairly silly; both were disasters, but Vietnam far more so. Then, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians and tens of thousands of American soldiers died; as I type this, civilian casualties number no more than 13579 (www.iraqbodycount.net/) and 'coalition' deaths are in the hundreds.

This is another case of looking back and reassessing an old thread. Would you still say, Thanatos, that the comparison is silly, seeing the estimated civilian deaths in Iraq have soared to around one and a quarter million? And in five years rather than over ten? Would it not be fair to say that Iraq has clearly proven to be the far greater disaster in the long run? (Not challenging you by asking, just think it's interesting to reassess in hindsight.)