Craven de Kere wrote:I disagree, I think the comparisons to Vietnam are misplaced.
In that the purpose of the war was dubitous there are similarities.
In that there are pockets of guerilla warfare there are small similarities.
But in the major characteristics (winning vs. losing time, scale) the comparison is flawed.
Like dlowan, I'm curious what that last assessment is based on.
For sure, I agree with McG, the initial invasion
itself, leading to the fall of Saddam and his Baathists, was relatively brief and cost relatively few lives, as wars go. Much fewer than the previous Gulf War, in any case.
But since? How
does this first, past year of troubled occupation compare with the first year of "Vietnam"?
After all, Vietnam took a few years to escalate ever further. To say that the comparison with Vietnam is flawed, you'd have to compare the number of casualties, the degree of armed resistance and rebellion, and the scope of strategic and publicity scandals with those
during the first year of the Vietnam war.
I can't do that comparison - know very little about that time & place. Can you (or anyone) elucidate?
It's based on data that I'm reasonably confident that you are already aware of nimh, that's why I think it's a perspective thing.
But I think the rules you have set for your comparison are a bit misleading. See, one of the biggest differences I see between Vietnam and Iraq is precisely that we aren't much past the first year.
As far as comparing first years, I've seen data more than once comparing the two, with the results being that Iraq's first year had more casualties.
it could mean nothing.
or it could mean we're in for it if we're not careful, and honest with ourselves.
McGentrix wrote:You guys are missing Craven's point I think.
At no time in history has an entire country been taken over and the existing government been deposed in, what was it, 8 days? The number of casualties taken by the invaders is extremely low for such a military endeavor.
Get your mind off the politics of the war and look objectively at the numbers, time, and changes that have been made in Iraq and you will see that the invasion and take over of Iraq was stupendously successful.
At least that's what I think Craven was saying.
Yes - I get that bit - and I agree. I am thinking of the long-term future in terms of a stable, reasonably democratic, government.
Perhaps we are inadvertantly comparing apples and oranges?
Suzy - if you speak of American casualties, America's first commitment in Vietnam was of "advisers" - the complement of whom grew - and then there were "real troops" sent. There would have been few American casualties at first.
And there was no invasion, as such.
My old boss was inadvertantly a specialist for one of the armed forces for the far east, because he had one of his textbooks with him on arrival, but never mind. Anyway, he told me he saw coffins or body bags (it is me that can't remember) very early at Tans a Nut, sorry, I don't know the spelling, much earlier than reported. But, yeah, there would have been few relative to the later many.
Note: I thought it would turn out this way before the war, but still thought (and still think) that it was one of the worst decisions the US has made in my lifetime.
I am curious. If you thought the Iraq war would turn out good, then why was it one of the worst decisions we ever made?
Just as something I feel like sharing since I am so frustrated.
I changed my servers the day before to AOL and now every single time I try to post something this stupid error message comes up and says Object expected. So I have hurry up and press submit no matter if I am reading or not. I tried off and on to fix it, but I am not that good at that sort of thing. So, if I quit coming here it is out of sheer aggrivation with my computer and nothing that goes on here. (not that anyone is sitting around holding their breath or anything.
dlowan wrote:Suzy - if you speak of American casualties, America's first commitment in Vietnam was of "advisers" - the complement of whom grew - and then there were "real troops" sent. There would have been few American casualties at first.
And there was no invasion, as such.
at least that's the offical version-the truth is a bit different
revel, AOL is one of the worst ISPs around. If you ever decide to quit them, make sure you close out your credit card account, because they'll continue to charge their monthly service fee long after you terminate their service - or you thought you terminated your service. They charged me for six months after I told them to stop service. After I argued with them for several months that I didn't use their service after my termination notice, I just gave up.
Wondered if you might wander in here and cause trouble, dys.
dyslexia wrote:dlowan wrote:Suzy - if you speak of American casualties, America's first commitment in Vietnam was of "advisers" - the complement of whom grew - and then there were "real troops" sent. There would have been few American casualties at first.
And there was no invasion, as such.
at least that's the offical version-the truth is a bit different
Tell us the truth.
I did put advisers in quotation marks!
CI
Thanks for responding, as might be obvious I wrote that post in the middle of a hissy fit.
Regarding AOL, right now I am just using their free trial thing. I was on DSL and it is taking me some time to get used to the slower speed, plus I really don't know what I am doing and there is no telling what I signed up for. I'll probably get a huge bill and my husband will have a fit himself.
deb
I think dys may be constrained as to what he can reveal.
It's early, so comparisons between Iraq and Viet Nam are a little premature. But it's certainly not a bad thing to suggest those similarities might well increase. There are real possibilities which will make it very difficult for the US to extricate itself.
One of the ironies of the Iraq campaign relates to the intention (you'll see mention of it here and there from Pentagon people and others) to eradicate the 'vietnam syndrome'...a supposed mass reluctance on the part of Americans to engage in warfare due to the shame of losing and the pain from body bags and from internal national conflict. The irony is that this project is moving along in the same direction but far more rapidly.
Here's what I found while surfing:
A November 13 Reuters analysis of US defence department statistics showed that in Vietnam the US military had suffered 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when US troop levels stood at just over 17,000. As of December 1, 437 US troops have died in Iraq since March 20, when the US invasion began. Of these, 79 died in November, the highest monthly casualty rate so far.
Vietnam casualties, which amounted to 25 deaths from 1956 through 1961, climbed to 53 in 1962, 123 in 1963 and 216 in 1964, Pentagon statistics show.
At the time, the U.S. presence in Vietnam consisted mainly of military advisers. President John F. Kennedy increased their number from about 960 in 1961 to show Washington's commitment to containing communism.
But not until 1965, after Congress had approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, did Washington begin its massive escalation of the war effort. With a huge influx of soldiers, casualties in Vietnam soared to 1,926 in 1965 and peaked at 16,869 in 1968, the year of the Tet Offensive, data show.
Vietnam veteran, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Tex., sees attempts by the Bush administration to fault news organizations for focusing on negative developments in Iraq as familiar.
"We're in a blame game with the media, which is essentially another issue that became a big issue in Vietnam."
Few suggest Iraq has reached the same military proportion. But its disputed origins, a surprisingly resilient local resistance, and now repugnant abuses by US troops all recall the trauma of the distant jungle conflict.
In Vietnam, we were basically fighting guerrilla warfare', said retired Air Force Colonel Pat Ham, who spent two tours of duty in Vietnam and who, as a foreign military sales officer, has had extensive dealings with countries throughout the Middle East. `And that's exactly what's going on now. They'd fire mortar rounds into the base and hit headquarters or barracks. It wasn't strategic military victories on their part. It was a constant thing you lived with, and it`s very similar to the situation in Iraq now'."
I would guess, as a person who has come up in both "conflicts", certainly not as anyone who can offer any first hand or expert testimony, that Iraq and Vietnam are similar in these general ways.
1. It wasn't really necessary to go.
2. There was no clear plan.
3. Once escalated, the cic of the time listened to a bunch of bad advice, and coupled that with a childish desire to not appear weak at all costs.
4. Any positive accomplishments of either administration was totally overshadowed by the cluster f*ck of the war.
5. We ended up leaving anyway.
And last and hopefully, it cost the president involved his second term. ( A bit of wishful thinking there)
blatham wrote:finn said
Quote:The fact is that before the war began, it was the Left who were telling us that democracy can't work in Iraq,
I'm sure you'll be forthcoming with citations.
Well the following doesn't really fit the timeline but it does fit the point:
From our very own Joe Nation:
joe nation wrote:Isn't democracy a great idea? Isn't the American style of it pretty wonderful? Yes, but that doesn't mean you can ship it intact to Iraq.
I was referring to the odd idea that one can insert a democracy into Iraq, or anywhere else, much like an inoculation. Neo-cons seem to think that everyone is just like us, sort of, that the Iraqis are just like Iowans except for some minor things. I think Wolfowitz and others thought that once Saddam and the Baathists were out there'd be peace in the valley, which was, at once, a wonderful thought and a totally baseless ideal.
Bringing democracy to Iraq is like, get ready for a strained analogy, giving a group of vegetarians total control of a steakhouse. (Soon to be an ABC pilot, I'm a genius!) They'd understand the set-up but have a hard time making it fit with who they are.
And we have not spent much time or effort figuring out who the Iraqis are. Let me quote George Packer in the New Yorker from the May 17 issue :
"(...perhaps the greatest mistake made by the architects of the war was to assume that their vision of a liberal state would by eagerly embraced by an ethnically divided, overwhelmingly Islamic country with a long history of dictatorship. The Coalitional Provisional Authority managed the occupation as if benevolent American intentions guaranteed success. ... and ....failed to anticipate the level of resistance that would emanate from Iraq's various factions--in particular, the Shia."
Two for the price of one: Joe Nation and George Packer.
finn
I was waiting here for Joe to respond. He and I have bonded over beers in a seedy Manhattan drinking establishment, and there's an implicit respect engendered by that ritual, as I'm sure you appreciate.
I'm not certain his comments reflect the same thing Craven was pointing to when Craven said...
Quote:The Iraqis need to be "taught" what freedom is, goes some of the claims...I for one, think this is a sad manifestation of hubris. The "liberated" now need to be "taught" to appreciate the liberty by some reckoning.
Where Craven details a set of notions that might be characterized as..."the backward Iraqis have to be helped by the more evolved to appreciate how backward they really are, and gosh oh golly, one day when they finally see the light, they'll say 'Thanks, daddy'"
Joe seems to be pointing to a different sort of hubris...that our system of governance is so appealing and natural that anywhere we attempt to stuff it in, regardless of local history and values, the folks there will take to it like a little republican from Lubbock would take to a mud puddle on a hot summer day.
Thank you. I would return the compliment, if it were deserved.
