Is Iraq the new Vietnam War?

J. Weiland · Nov 15, 2006

I believe it is so. I just finished watching Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and although it is a magnificent film it also depresses me, as it reminds me of what is going on in Iraq. The Danish population, of which I am one, did not wish for this war but the government did not ask us, and thus we are caught up in this struggle together with the U.S. and the other nations who saddled up for the wrong reasons; the weapons of mass destruction.

FMJ reminded me of Iraq because it is obviously the same kind of conflict; a conflict where no one knows what they are fighting for (although the Bush government is fighting for oil; they just hoped no one noticed) Oh yes, there are ideas that the U.S., as usual, are the saviors who wish to enlighten people with democracy even though they have to kill a lot of innocents in order to make people see the light.

The U.S. never got control of what was happening in Vietnam (yes, they lost that war), and they still have no control of what is happening in Iraq. Just as in Vietnam, we have half a people who did not wish to be saved, and there are suicide bombers who are able to strike where ever they wish, just as in Vietnam.

The war in Iraq will last at least ten to twenty years more. The "allies" can not leave, since if they do, it will be a national disaster, civil war with the most horrific consequences ever seen. I try not to think much about it in my everyday life, but it makes me sad when I do.

aadams73 · Nov 15, 2006

Yes, absolutely. Every single Iraqui is a potential "Charlie."

William Haskins · Nov 15, 2006

inasmuch as strategy is driven by politics, yes.

Sheryl Nantus · Nov 15, 2006

except, of course, that Canada has more oil than Iraq.

but why confuse the issues with facts?

J. Weiland · Nov 15, 2006

Unfortunately Canada does not have an evil dictator, so there is no excuse.

robeiae · Nov 15, 2006

No.

There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

And we are hardly engaged in an attempt to prop up a long-standing and corrupt regime, nor are we fighting against an overwhelming majority of the people in Iraq who had been repressed by that regime, nor is our engagment with the insurgents taking place in primarily rural/jungle areas. For starters.

J. Weiland · Nov 15, 2006

robeiae said:
No.

There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

And we are hardly engaged in an attempt to prop up a long-standing and corrupt regime, nor are we fighting against an overwhelming majority of the people in Iraq who had been repressed by that regime, nor is our engagment with the insurgents taking place in primarily rural/jungle areas. For starters.

If there had been a lot of trees in Iraq, they would have been erased by flammable liqids by now, I believe.

dclary · Nov 15, 2006

Like oil?

rtilryarms · Nov 15, 2006

I am a Vietnam War historian, specializing in the events leading up to and the mistakes of the aggression over North Vietnam (it could not officially be a war or we would have started WWIII).

The Parallels are absolutely astonishing. The only significance is that Vietnam was Democrat action and Iraq is Republican.
Soon we will begin hearing the smart words like de-escalating aggression, humanitarian cease-fire for peace talks, and declaring successful goals met as we re-Iraq the native Military which is already in progress.

If McNamara resigned sooner, Vietnam would have ended 2 years and 20,000 bodies sooner. Rumsfeld just saved thousands of lives stepping aside, you watch. Unfortunately the saving of American lives was not his motivation for stepping aside. It was pure politics. Had Johnson committed to running for re-election, McNamara would have been out. But Johnson stayed with his sinking ship until the last rat climbed to the crows-nest with the others.

Sheryl Nantus · Nov 15, 2006

J. Weiland said:
Unfortunately Canada does not have an evil dictator, so there is no excuse.

obviously you never had to live under Jean Chretien.

J. Weiland · Nov 15, 2006

With ten years in power, he probably wasn't that bad.

Celia Cyanide · Nov 15, 2006

Sheryl Nantus said:
except, of course, that Canada has more oil than Iraq.

but why confuse the issues with facts?

How does that fact confuse the issue?

greglondon · Nov 15, 2006

robeiae said:
There is/was only one Vietnem, just as there is/was only one WWII.

Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed on the grounds that the sand is different and the air has a differnt scent. Besides, the US military never wore those new pixelated cammies until Iraq, so that right there makes it different. We wore tigerstriped cammies and plain olivedrab fatigues in vietnam, which rules out any apples to apples comparison.

J. Weiland · Nov 15, 2006

greglondon said:
Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed on the grounds that the sand is different and the air has a differnt scent. Besides, the US military never wore those new pixelated cammies until Iraq, so that right there makes it different. We wore tigerstriped cammies and plain olivedrab fatigues in vietnam, which rules out any apples to apples comparison.

Be careful, Greg; You might be accused of being a "liberal".

.

I know, I'm careful.

robeiae · Nov 15, 2006

greglondon said:
Any attempts to compare Iraq to any previous military failure will be dismissed on the grounds that the sand is different and the air has a differnt scent. Besides, the US military never wore those new pixelated cammies until Iraq, so that right there makes it different. We wore tigerstriped cammies and plain olivedrab fatigues in vietnam, which rules out any apples to apples comparison.

Depends on who you're talking to.

Why not just deal with Iraq for what it is, regardless of your ideological orientation? I don't get it.

J. Weiland · Nov 15, 2006

robeiae said:
Depends on who you're talking to.

Why not just deal with Iraq for what it is, regardless of your ideological orientation? I don't get it.

What do you believe it is then?

robeiae · Nov 15, 2006

J. Weiland said:
What do you believe it is then?

Ummm...a place that the U.S. invaded and is now engaged with resistance to it's occupation?

J. Weiland · Nov 15, 2006

robeiae said:
Ummm...a place that the U.S. invaded and is now engaged with resistance to it's occupation?

How soon do you think the country will be stable again, as in society is back to normal without dozens of people getting killed every day?

robeiae · Nov 15, 2006

J. Weiland said:
How soon do you think the country will be stable again, as in society is back to normal without dozens of people getting killed every day?

It depends on what actions are taken from here on in: more of the same leads to more of the same.

greglondon · Nov 15, 2006

robeiae said:
Why not just deal with Iraq for what it is, regardless of your ideological orientation? I don't get it.

Because if you insist that
"Iraq is like nothing we've ever seen before"
you insist that we could not have predicted the quagmire we're in now.
If it is completely without precedent, there is no historical comparison
to be made that would explain why we are where we are,
which is knee deep in a quagmire.

And that's hogwash.
The generals knew exactly how this would turn out,
and it's turning out exactly like the generals predicted.
Therefore, there is historical precedence that we can take
the lessons of the past and apply them to the current situation.

We are three years into something that might turn out to be
our new vietnam. If we get full blown civil war, that's it,
it's the north invading Saigon, and an evacuation of troops.
The death tolls will be comparable. The helicopters evacuating
the embassy will be ch53's and uh-60's instead of the old hueys,
but the lessons will be the same.

Iraq is exactly like what we've seen before.
The differences are surface differences.
Sun Tzu still applies.
There are no surprises in the current trajectory of Iraq.
Except for those who only remember the surface
of history, rather than it's deeper lessons.

You can only predict based on what you've seen before,
and the patterns you've extracted from those observations.
That is basic scientific principle, scientific method.

If you say there are no comparable observations to Iraq,
then you're looking at surface differnces, not deeper patterns.

greglondon · Nov 15, 2006

shorter me:
You can only predict based on what you've seen before,
and the patterns you've extracted from those observations.
That is basic scientific principle, scientific method.

greglondon · Nov 15, 2006

J. Weiland said:
Be careful, Greg; You might be accused of being a "liberal".

I'd prefer the term "reality-based progressive", but I hear ya.

blacbird · Nov 15, 2006

Sheryl Nantus said:
except, of course, that Canada has more oil than Iraq.

but why confuse the issues with facts?

An aside, but let's not confuse facts, either. Canada has more hydrocarbon resources in the ground than does Iraq (or anywhere else, probably). Problem is, the vast bulk of it is in tar sands, which are presently problematical to extract, and not viable economically. Regards conventionally produceable oil, Iraq is considered somewhere between 2nd and 4th among nations in the world, depending on whose figures you see, behind Saudi Arabia, and possibly Iran and Kuwait.

caw

blacbird · Nov 15, 2006

robeiae said:
Why not just deal with Iraq for what it is, regardless of your ideological orientation? I don't get it.

Sure would have been nice if GWB and his crew had done this back in 2003, wouldn't it?

caw

robeiae · Nov 15, 2006

greglondon said:
Because if you insist that
"Iraq is like nothing we've ever seen before"...

Greg's putting words in my mouth again. What shocker.

If I disagree with the statement "Iraq is the new Vietnam War," it does not logically follow that I accept the statement "Iraq is like nothing we've ever seen before."

Very poor reasoning.

Is Iraq the new Vietnam War?

Lurker

A Work in Progress

poet

Holding out for a Superhero...

Lurker

Touch and go

Lurker

Unabashed Mercenary

Crossbows and Handgonnes

Holding out for a Superhero...

Lurker

Joker Groupie

Planet Wookie techno geek

Lurker

Touch and go

Lurker

Touch and go

Lurker

Touch and go

Planet Wookie techno geek

Planet Wookie techno geek

Planet Wookie techno geek

Touch and go