Hi Guys,

I know I am not a war Vet or a Soldier but I want your opinion on whether Iraq is the new Vietnam. With all this insurgency it reminds me of how the Vietnam War was fought. I would like to know what you guys think. Thanks guys!

I don't think Iraq War is anywhere same as Vietnam. Vietnam war was fought in a way where US troops were greatly outnumbered. Plus, US soldiers were not equipped with the advances of today's technology!

I believe that with US advanced technology today, they are definitely many times more powerful with their weaponary advantage!

Besides, i think the Iraqis today are nowhere even near the toughness of the Vietnamese back then.

IMHO it will be rememebered as the Vietnam of our time.
When you get to the "basics" of this mess........ it's the same.... go in to "free" some people and the gorillia style of warefare begins...........

I'ld have to agree with Matt. It very well may go down as this generations Vietnam. Not necessarily due to the nature of the fighting but rather the politcal quagmire and military mission without an end or clearly difined condition of victory

I'd agree with Art & Matt. US technology during the Vietnam war was as cutting edge for the time as current US mil tech. Also, NVA/VC individual toughness wasn't apparent at the time, only in hindsight, or possibly towards the end of the war. It'll take many more years before we really get a good picture of the Iraqi insurgents that isn't coloured by propoganda.

In terms of scale and impact on the US psyche, Iraq is certainly comparable to Vietnam, particularly when you realise that the Iraq war is only four years old, and Vietnam went on for roughly ten.

Absolutely not. 65,000 + died in Vietnam. About 3000 have died in Iraq most from IED's. The "insurgents" have learned that if they engage in conventional combat they die. Thus far this has been of the least costly of any major campaign the U.S. and Britian have conducted.

Least costly in tearms of What??? Lives??? ANY life isn't worth losing due to a bunch of Politics..........

One of my best friends once told me he was tired of hearing how many GI's had been killed each day on the news. I told him it would matter to him more if he had known any of the fallen. He then said more had died in vietnam. I told him it didn,t matter....they are still dying.
IMHO, the main problem with this whole Iraq mistake is that we are a military at war, not a nation at war. I'ld bet my entire model stash that if they brought back the draft you would see either a very quick end to this fiasco when the American public suddenly had a very real stake in this endeavor or the same division and unrest which divided this nation during the Vietnam war.

I fear this IS this generation's Vietnam. The paralels are frightening.
Both started or gained momentum under questionable issues, the absent wMD's and the Gulf of Tonkn Incident. Bith had initial great popular support, Both involved major US forces against a difficult to define enemy. Both edvolved into civil wars with our goal of turning the fighting over to a force marginall;y willing or able to carry the fight on. In both cases, poor preparation led to improvised systems on our vehicles, i.e., the gun trucks. Both feared or relied on a domino effect, one of SEA falling to the Commmunists and the other of the Middle East falling in line for democracy. Both pitted the technologically superior US aainst a force using sometimes imnprovised to eveb primitive booby traps.
Hopefully, somehow, the fighting will end reasonably soon and like Vietnam, the country will stabilize, either as a unified Iraq or as three Iraq sub-states.
We've lost more than 3000 lives and have damaged 20,000+ more, some irreparably due to head trauma that gets much less coverage than the high tech prosthetics being used on amputees. Reports come in that the National Guard in some states is virtually crippled at home with inadequate material or personel to do their jobs in emergency situations where their training and expertise are needed.
Such a sad situation.

Al,
I think your analysis is spot on!

I agree with you Al there are many similarities with the struggle in Vietnam but there are just as many differences. Iraqi command structure has admitted that WMD's were moved out of country to Syria and to Iran. Our presence in the Mideast has quite possbily prevented additional attacks in our own nation by tying up Islamic extremists there. The North Vietnamese people were not interested in imposing their communist agenda upon us they simply wanted a unified and sovreign nation of their own. Let us make something clear here the Muslim extremists want us dead or converted. They despise everything our nation stands for. If we pull out of Iraq the Iranians will most definitely invade to "free their Shia brethren" and then become the worlds largest oil producer which would operate out of OPEC's influence with impunity. The mostly foreign insurgency in Iraq is nothing like the hyper determined and disciplined North Vietnamese Army. The Vienamese communist forces were indeed dedicated and well led. In Iraq extremist forces there are ineffectual and annoying at best having to resort to IED"s to do their bidding. Primarily because they have learned if they face U.S. or English forces in a straightup fight they die. I don't discount their ability to terrorize the Iraqi people and they have been successful at destablizing certain regions of the country.

I certainly agree that the troops, American and British are becoming bogged down and there seams to be no way out at the moment. In the first Gulf War which I fought in, we had the Iraqis beaten, their top units were smashed to pieces on the road to Basra.
But we were ordered to stop. Why? The road to Baghdad was open and we could have been there in 48 hours, and ended it then. But for George Bush Senior, this sorry mess still goes on. From a frontline soldier who was there, it was a very pointless order, we should have carried on and finished the job.
Scott

Even the Pentagon and the CIA admitted there were no WMDs. (By the way, the chemical weapons, and the know-how they had 20 years ago came from where? England, Germany, and the United States.) The WMDs were lies -as most everybody knows by now.
Iraq was the only stable, secular arab country in the region, with nothing to do with Islamic extremists. Sure, Hussein wasn't a nice guy, but most of the genocide he did was done in the 80s -when he was an ally, if you recall. If it didn't bother anyone then, why now? Nothing substantiates the things you state. (Certainly not the facts.) Besides a few acres in Baghdad, the whole country is destabilized. I don't just read the news. There happen to be veterans in my classes, so I heard first-hand accounts. These fundamentalists aren't just a "bother". They murder people.
If you want to invade a country, that HAS ties to islamic extremism, invade Saud Arabia...

It is a tragic war -and nobody here mentioned the civilian lives lost in this conflict.

Hi guys
I just want to point out a thing that my history teacher told me. when you watch the news (particularly at the begginig of the OIF) they mainly say something like 3 american soldiers died, and they make it a big tragedy, sure it is one, but just after that they say 2500 iraqis died, and they make a statistics out of that. isnt that strange?

Andrew, 65,000 US troops may have died in Vietnam, but that was in 10 years. How many were killed in the first four? I wonder how many will be killed if the Iraq war goes on for 10 years. And Scott's question wasn't "Is Iraq like Vietnam?" but "Is Iraq the Vietnam of our times?" Sure there are differences, but that wasn't the point.

Scott, the reason the US-led coalition didn't go for Baghdad in '91 was that the UN mandate was to liberate Kuwait. War hadn't been declaared on Iraq the way it was on Germany in WW2. So it would've been illegal to continue after Kuwait was secured, the way they did after France was liberated. Remember what happened to MacArthur when he wanted to extend the Korean War by attacking China?

Guys, do you still have to be 21 to vote in the US, or is it now 18? Reason I ask is that the US govt was able to get away with the draft for so long during the Vietnam War because draftees couldn't vote. Would it be the same today?

The voting age is 18 in the US.
I deleted the rest as it could be seen as a rant.

However, if you are unfamiliar with American democracy as a political process, the more you learn about it the more surprised you will be.

I am going to have to disagree with many here on this subject.

While there are certainly parallels between the two wars, the differences are more significant.

1. Vietnam began as a civil war and was perceived by the US as a war of communist (Russian and Chinese) aggression, much as the Korean war was. The Viet Communists saw their struggle as one of nationalism...throwing out yet another imperialist country. On the other hand, the current sitaution in Iraq is not a civil war in the truest sense - it is more like a free-for-all barroom brawl. Certainly, there is a component of Iraqi nationalism. But a significant component of the conflict struggle is between Sunni and Shia. That would occur with or without the presence of the outside forces. An additional facet of this basic disagreement is muslim extremism in the form of Al Qaida. These clowns target anyone who does not believe the way they do....Sunni, Shia, Buddhist, Christian....it doesn't matter.

2. The Viet Cong, and their NVA allies truly understood guerrila warfare and waged it fairly well. The Iraqi insurgency does not understand guerrila warfare. They target civilians with terror. No true guerilla fighter ever does that, because a guerilla is dependent upon the support of the population. Mao took over most of China by protecting the Chinese people against terrorist warlords. The current "insurgents" ar ethe kinds of folks that Mao waged war against. As has already been seen, the terrorists have worn out their welcome among even the Sunni population.

3. Vietnam presented essentially a single people-group with thousands of years identity as a people. Iraq is a fairly recent artifact of British cartography, as are the other nations of the Near East. Most of the countries in that region were created by the Brits after WW I and the disolution of the Ottoman Empire. When they drew all those nice straight borders, the Brit cartographers intentionally split people-groups (i.e.: the Kurds) in an attempt to make them easier to control as part of the British empire. The diverse Iraqi population has a basic family/tribal structure. This mitigates against a traditional solution that will stand the test of time. Western style governments won't work.....but then neither will Shuria law (without trampling minorities). The Iraqis will need to develop their own unique type of government. Unfortunately if we don't protect them from the waring factions until they can work out this new form of governance, they won't have a snowball's chance in the desert of pulling it off. We have to buy them time as best we can.

The cost of what is being done in Iraq is high...not as high as Vietnam...but high. I understand the cost first hand. As U. S. Marine officer, I had the duty of notifying families of the death or wounding of their Marine in Vietnam. I helped prepare their bodies for burial and I tended to their families after they were gone. For two years after I returned from Vietnam, I was assigned to lead the Marines in a Naval hospital. I also lost a lot of friends in that war. When I went to the "The Wall", I didn't take a name - I took a list.

But the cost to the entire world of failure in Iraq is much higher. We must not abandon the Iraqis who have trusted us and are stepping up to create their nation from the rubble of years of Saddam's dictatorship. Zawahiri of Al Qaida has already threatened to behead them when we leave. We must see this through, as unpleasant as that might be.

Semper Fi,
Dave (Whiskey6)

Whiskey 6

Although I a agree that, “While there are certainly parallels between the two wars, the differences are more significant.”

I disagree with several of your points and further think that you have wandered off topic, into an espousal of current US administrative propaganda.

“the current sitaution in Iraq is not a civil war in the truest sense - it is more like a free-for-all barroom brawl.”
I am not sure what you mean by “a Civil war is in the truest sence” , but my dictionary defines it as “A war between factions or regions of the same country”

“The Iraqis will need to develop their own unique type of government. Unfortunately if we don't protect them from the waring factions until they can work out this new form of governance, they won't have a snowball's chance in the desert of pulling it off. We have to buy them time as best we can.
I certainly agree that ““The Iraqis will need to develop their own unique type of government.” The current Iraqi government that was democratically elected while under US protection obviously does not rule with the consent of the population due to their differences lumped together from previous outside influence. And protect who, The Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, or those not currently taking part in this affray? They are all Iraqis by a “fairly recent artifact of British cartography,” as you so well pointed out. Whomever we “help” will only be the favorite target of the others, and again the outside influence can only protract and exacerbate one of the bloodiest forms of war.

“An additional facet of this basic disagreement is muslim extremism in the form of Al Qaida.”
As I recall Al Qaida. Was unwelcome in Iraq prior to our involvement, and I challenge you to produce proof of any truthfully, self proclaimed (not from “interrogation”) Pre 9/11 member Al Qaida operating in Iraq.

“No true guerilla fighter ever does that, because a guerilla is dependent upon the support of the population.”
A guerilla fish can only swim in his own water. No water, no fish.

“The current "insurgents" are the kinds of folks that Mao waged war against. As has already been seen, the terrorists have worn out their welcome among even the Sunni population.”
Hardly, other than not being commies! Once again it is a matter of more factions in an arena who’s borders were defined by others. The Sunni’s still welcome there own terrorists, and if they were not in the minority would join the others in their attempts to remove the foreign influence in their civil war, insted of seeking it to bolster thier failing position.

“The cost of what is being done in Iraq is high...not as high as Vietnam...but high. I understand the cost first hand. As U. S. Marine officer, I had the duty of notifying families of the death or wounding of their Marine in Vietnam. I helped prepare their bodies for burial and I tended to their families after they were gone. For two years after I returned from Vietnam, I was assigned to lead the Marines in a Naval hospital. I also lost a lot of friends in that war. When I went to the "The Wall", I didn't take a name - I took a list.”
Wow, great emotional appeal! The rest deleted.

“But the cost to the entire world of failure in Iraq is much higher. We must not abandon the Iraqis who have trusted us and are stepping up to create their nation from the rubble of years of Saddam's dictatorship. Zawahiri of Al Qaida has already threatened to behead them when we leave. We must see this through, as unpleasant as that might be.”
Such rhetoric. What is the cost to the rest of the world? . We must not abandon the Iraqis…like we did under Bush senior, when we called for them to rise up against Sudam and when they did, we allow him to use armed helicopters to suppress them at the loss of 50k+ Shiite lives? Let them create their nation(s), only they can do it. More lives have been lost on average per year than under Sadam, even when he used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Out side involvement only bellows the flames of this civil war that we have made for them. Zawahiri of Al Qaida wants to behead them when we leave because they are the puppets of infidels and he would be looking to cut off heads regardless. Gee, where does he draw his power, authority and support from? And what was he doing before we invaded?