Iraq versus Vietnam -Gallup Analysis

[minionofmidas]

Point is in both cases the vastly militarily superior country was trying to occupy another one, but failed because they were unable to keep up with the constant tide.

Propaganda aside, how is that *really* relavent to Iraq? The U.S seems to want to get out as soon as possible (sooner even. Why do you think all these deadlines were inserted into the constitution drawing up process?) and doesn't seem remotely interested in either staying for the long term or clinging onto Iraq (which is where the analogies all break down).

I would very much doubt that the US has any intention whatsoever of giving up power in the area. Drastically reduce their military manpower there as soon as the country's pacified, yes, but that's a completely different thing. Anyways the French in Algeria had the same intention, the French in Viet Nam, and the Russians in Afghanistan all shared that intention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hardly ever happens. Unless the meaning of "defeated" is changed... and the meaning of "militarily superior" actually.
[/quote]Hear, hear.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would very much doubt that the US has any intention whatsoever of giving up power in the area.

True, but that's more a general regional thing rather than specific control over Iraq

You must be logged in to read this quote.

<insert a couple of hundred other conflicts (with all sorts of outcomes here>

I don't think it's possible to make a specific analogy to another conflict without seriously distorting the facts (but that's true of just about every conflict that's been analogisied. What happend in Afghanistan in the '80's was nothing like what happend in Vietnam in the '60's and '70's... except in an extremely generalised way) however tempting it is to do so... besides so far just about every analyst or pundit from just about every angle has been wrong about what will happen in Iraq (even if most won't admit it ) which leads me to mistrust any attempts to tie Iraq to some previous conflict... just thinking about it but it's got about as many simileraties to Vietnam as it has to the early years of the Troubles in Northern Ireland... and I don't see anyone claiming that Iraq is a new Northern Ireland. Or maybe Iraq is the new South-during-the-Reconstruction. Or the new Jacobite Rising. Or the new etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

[minionofmidas]

I don't think it's possible to make a specific analogy to another conflict without seriously distorting the facts (but that's true of just about every conflict that's been analogisied. What happend in Afghanistan in the '80's was nothing like what happend in Vietnam in the '60's and '70's... except in an extremely generalised way) however tempting it is to do so...

Well, yes, obviously. Still wouldn't you agree that all these three conflicts, and the current Iraq conflict, are more similar to each other than any of the four is to the American War (as the Vietnamese call it)?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting one...although it don't think the US has quickly taken sides with the Sunnis and is suppressing the Shi'as and Kurds that it originally intended to protect. Are maybe that just hasn't happened yet.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, yes, obviously. Still wouldn't you agree that all these three conflicts, and the current Iraq conflict, are more similar to each other than any of the four is to the American War (as the Vietnamese call it)?

Yes... but that's not saying a lot

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But isn't it just the sort of thing that Rumsfeld would decide to do on an insane whim?

But personally I have decided that Iraq is obviously the new Jacobite Rising. Why Zarqawi (sp?) even looks a little like that little Charlie weirdo guy doesn't he? All we need to find now is a place called Al Kullodan and get exclusive filming rights to it

[Blue Rectangle]

As I'm pretty sure you noticed Mr Realpolitik, he's referring to the fact that unlike in Viet Nam, there is no regular army around that's closely allied to the guerrillas.
Which is indeed the largest difference between Viet Nam and Iraq. Oh, and than there's Viet Nam's insidious onset. That Gallup report obviously treats the Viet Nam war as beginning at Tonkin Incident, but that's rubbish. That was an escalation, not a beginning. From which it should follow that all you guys' comparing 2004 to 1968 is ridiculous. The real mark for Bush to be held up to is LBJ 1964.

The Iraq War was also an escalation and not a beginning.  We had invaded Iraq 12 years before the re-invasion.  We had troops in Northern Iraq since then.  We had no-fly zones since then (with frequent air strikes inside and outside the zones).

2004 is far more similar to 1968 than 1964.  Are our deployments in Iraq going to increase ten-fold in the next four years?  Are our casualties going to also increase ten-fold?  A year before the 2008 elections, are 100,000 insurgents going to pour out of the Syrian Desert, supported by heavy artillery and aircraft?

[minionofmidas]

The Iraq War was also an escalation and not a beginning.  We had invaded Iraq 12 years before the re-invasion.  We had troops in Northern Iraq since then.  We had no-fly zones since then (with frequent air strikes inside and outside the zones).

Yeah, I said that too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prob'ly not. Certainly not without a draft, as that would be beyond your means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unlikely, but not impossible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Utterly impossible - but then, that never happened in Viet Nam either. That was the Vietnamese army.

[angus]

Also, in 1968 Jane Fonda was absolutely delicious.  Anyone see barbarella?  Mother must have been watching that with me in utero, because I was born with a raging hard-on.  What a babe she was way back when.  No so anymore.  There's the real difference.

[Blue Rectangle]

The Iraq War was also an escalation and not a beginning.  We had invaded Iraq 12 years before the re-invasion.  We had troops in Northern Iraq since then.  We had no-fly zones since then (with frequent air strikes inside and outside the zones).

Yeah, I said that too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prob'ly not. Certainly not without a draft, as that would be beyond your means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unlikely, but not impossible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Utterly impossible - but then, that never happened in Viet Nam either. That was the Vietnamese army.

I guess I misunderstood your point on escalation vs. a beginning.

The main point I was trying to make was that casualties and deployment levels have both likely peaked before the 2004 election.  Thus, it is similar to 1968.  It is also similar to 1968 in terms of media attention, which was very low on the subject of Vietnam in 1964.

[The Duke]

Also, in 1968 Jane Fonda was absolutely delicious.  Anyone see barbarella?  Mother must have been watching that with me in utero, because I was born with a raging hard-on.  What a babe she was way back when.  No so anymore.  There's the real difference.

angus, don't ever leave us.


Anyhoo, there are some similarities, as there are between this war and many wars, for that matter between nearly any war in history and nearly any other war in history.  But Hagel's point is not a reflection on parrallels in military history, its a political point.  The perception of Vietnam is a disaster that was mismanaged and could not have been won.  That's the perception he now wants to create about Iraq.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam, and I hate those kinds of comparisons.  All they serve to do is simplify a complex problem and give politicians on both sides the opportunity to make information-free soundbites.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam, and I hate those kinds of comparisons.  All they serve to do is simplify a complex problem and give politicians on both sides the opportunity to make information-free soundbites.

Stop compressing my arguements into two-and-a-bit lines

[minionofmidas]

The Iraq War was also an escalation and not a beginning.  We had invaded Iraq 12 years before the re-invasion.  We had troops in Northern Iraq since then.  We had no-fly zones since then (with frequent air strikes inside and outside the zones).

Yeah, I said that too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prob'ly not. Certainly not without a draft, as that would be beyond your means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unlikely, but not impossible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Utterly impossible - but then, that never happened in Viet Nam either. That was the Vietnamese army.

I guess I misunderstood your point on escalation vs. a beginning.

Not really, as my point changed mid-post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just read they're moving an extra 1500 troops there these days (not much I know.) Point is, your position is partly influenced by wishful thinking. Which doesn't necessarily make it wrong. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1966 midterms maybe? 1968 is three years past Tonkin, when even the dumbest could see (if he wanted to) that nothing much was going right. That's quite unlike 2004. Nobody (no sane body, anyways) expected a peaceful Iraq for 2004 at the time of the invasion.

[MODU]

Iraq is not even close to what Vietnam was.