|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is Iraq another Quagmire like Vietnam? |
| Yes, it very much is |
|
15% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes, it is in some ways |
|
47% |
[ 9 ] |
| Maybe/I am not sure |
|
10% |
[ 2 ] |
| No, except in a few ways |
|
21% |
[ 4 ] |
| No, it certainly is not |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:34 am Post subject: Is Iraq like Vietnam? |
 |
|
Edit: Title changed to reflect poll question
| Quote: |
Dien Bien Phooey
By Spengler
There is a difference between thrashing a spindly, bespectacled schoolmate who is an only child, and thrashing a spindly, bespectacled schoolmate whose sixteen-stone elder brother teaches martial arts. That summarizes the difference between Iraq and Vietnam. Had Washington unleashed its full fury upon Hanoi, the result well might have been nuclear confrontation. Then national security adviser Henry Kissinger feared that Indochina might become a flashpoint for Soviet-American confrontation. Part of his motive for abandoning America's South Vietnamese ally was to ensure that a proxy war did not escalate to hostilities between the two major powers.
In fact, the record suggests that Kissinger subordinated tactical requirements on the Indochinese ground to the requirements of superpower summitry over arms control. I will return to that topic blow.
Matters today are quite different. America is the sole superpower, and in any event Iraq's Sunnis have no friends among the remaining minor powers. As long as American casualties remain below the threshold of popular irritation in the United States, Washington's nation-building program can hit the wall with an arbitrarily high degree of splatter, without perceptible consequences.
I am not privy to the details of American military deployments, but the shift in casualty figures towards Iraqi soldiers and policemen and away from coalition personnel strongly suggest that CENTCOM is keeping Americans out of harm's way. Sunni terrorists, both homegrown and imported, display fearful abandon in suicide attacks, and no doubt wish to kill as many Americans as they can. The fact that they are killing Iraqis instead indicates that American soldiers are holed up in their compounds out of reach.
At the beginning of 2005, the monthly rate of Iraqi casualties was the same as coalition casualties. Since then coalition casualties have fallen by half while Iraqi casualties have tripled. There is no reason for these trends to change
Iraq's military and police forces well may become an instrument of Kurdish and Shi'ite domination of the Sunni minority. Assuming the putative worst case, namely that Shi'ites increasingly wage civil war against a Sunni resistance, their young men will continue to fill uniforms even if casualty rates rise drastically. Iraq's Shi'ites have no choice about it. The alternative would be to capitulate to a combination of Ba'athist remnants and Islamists whose agenda would be to restore the Sunni dominance of the status quo ante.
"Iraqification" bears no resemblance to "Vietnamization". Hanoi commanded a regular army of more than half a million men, with a record of conventional military victories going back to the siege of Dien Bien Phu in 1953-1954. It could count upon unlimited Russian materiel. After "Vietnamization", Northern regulars beat the army of the Republic of Vietnam in conventional war. The new Iraqi armed forces, haphazard as their organization might be, face no challenge from regulars, only the constant annoyance of suicide attacks. As noted, the Shi'ites have nowhere else to go. "Iraqification" may turn out to be a dog's breakfast, but no one will have to consume it on the Potomac.
Washington is embarrassed by this turn of events, but has no other choice than to adapt to it by removing American troops from the line of fire. Although President George W Bush and his advisors would prefer a stable and democratic Iraq, no degree of violence among Iraqis will undermine American interests. In an earlier era, the British would have encouraged such things. America lacks the sophistication, not to mention the cynicism, to stir the pot, but the pot appears to be stirring itself briskly enough without outside encouragement.
There is a world of difference between America's complacent position with respect to Iraq's problems and the Vietnam-era dangers of engaging an ally of the Soviet Union. The Nixon administration was at pains to ensure that its actions in Vietnam did not interfere with arms-control negotiations with the Soviet Union. The mining of Haiphong harbor and consequent damage to a Russian ship marked the sharpest threat to Russian-American relations during the Vietnam War, and Kissinger was eager to defuse the situation.
Anatoly Dobrynin, then Russia's ambassador to the United States, described the events in an interview with CNN aired in March 1997:
Some time before the [1972 Nixon-Brezhnev] summit [in Moscow], the Americans began to complain that the Vietnamese were speeding up their military activities, but we said to them, "Well, it's up to you: you have to finish the war." Then, on the 7th or 8th May Nixon said, "Five or six Vietnamese divisions have crossed the demilitarized zone and started light-scale assault operations, and we had to retaliate to restore the balance." ... He said, "I have to continue to step up the military activities, and unless [we] do something, the Vietnamese could destroy the American military contingent." I [told him] that on the eve of the [summit] meeting, [this] was a very delicate issue; but nevertheless he gave the order to his airforce to bomb North Vietnam and lay mines in the Haiphong port ... in order to prevent the delivery of any military equipment to Vietnam.
[The mines] almost sank one of our ships. Kissinger telephoned me and we talked on our hot line, about which no one knew, and Kissinger said that they didn't know that a Soviet ship had been destroyed; there had been no orders about that. Then he called me back again after he had talked to the president, and said that the president apologized and promised to pay for the damage; but nevertheless, they were going to carry on with their military activities. It was the 10th of May already. Moscow accused them of breaking international sea law, and they were involving us in that conflict. We all thought that the situation was serious. Kissinger apologized, and then said, "How about the summit? What will be happening?" I said I didn't have any instructions to say anything about that; I had to voice [the Kremlin's] protest against their activities. But he asked, "Can I tell the president that we aren't canceling the visit?"
Today there is no one at the other end of the hot line. America speaks imperially to itself. |
Last edited by Kuros on Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I voted no, except in a few ways, because I believe one of the curses during Vietnam was our extreme lack of intelligence capability balanced against our overwhelming technology. This holds for Iraq, too. In addition, I think public support was and is very low in both scenarios, which does not help the war.
Nevertheless, in Iraq we have a good chance of winning, because while we may not have full support of the indigineous population, the Shi'a and the Kurds have nowhere else to go, and neither are exactly sympathetic with the Sunni insurgency, much less the foreign fighters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think it is similar in the way that it is a war America is ultimalty destined to suffer terribly from, for generations, and perhaps, to lose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't hold your breath on that one. Most of the jihadist are from Saudi Arabia and most of the baathists are Sunnis. The majority of the population, the Kurds and the Shiia are behind the US on this one. The Sunnis will be the real loosers if the US pulls out. Can you say "no mercy"? If you don't believe this, look at the numbers of people being killed: mostly Shiia and those standing in lines to join the army and the police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| Don't hold your breath on that one. Most of the jihadist are from Saudi Arabia and most of the baathists are Sunnis. The majority of the population, the Kurds and the Shiia are behind the US on this one. The Sunnis will be the real loosers if the US pulls out. Can you say "no mercy"? If you don't believe this, look at the numbers of people being killed: mostly Shiia and those standing in lines to join the army and the police. |
I hope you are right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Good News and Bad News
This is the picture in Iraq: A conflict that the United States cannot easily lose, but also cannot easily win.
By Fareed Zakaria
I don't see how Iraq's insurgency can win. It lacks the support of at least 80 percent of the country (Shiites and Kurds), and by all accounts lacks the support of the majority of the Sunni population as well. It has no positive agenda, no charismatic leader, virtually no territory of its own, and no great power suppliers. That's why parallels to Vietnam and Algeria don't make sense. But despite all these obstacles, the insurgents launched 700 attacks against U.S. forces last month, the highest number since the invasion.
They are getting more sophisticated, now using shaped charges, which concentrate the blast of a bomb, and infrared lasers, which cannot be easily jammed. They kill enough civilians every week that Iraq remains insecure, and electricity, water and oil are still supplied in starts and stops. That's where things stand in Iraq—it's a conflict the United States cannot easily lose but also cannot easily win.
The positive picture is worth painting. Iraq has had successful elections, a new (and more legitimate) government, Sunnis included into the political process, and is working on a new constitution. The insurgents' attacks on ordinary Iraqis are having the predictable effect of making them lose popular support. When I was in Iraq recently, several Iraqis (all Sunnis) told me that they were losing respect for and patience with the insurgents. "These guys are thugs who are killing Iraqis, not resistance fighters battling the occupation," one of them said. And finally, Iraqi politicians have been more mature and steadfast than one could have ever hoped for—making compromises, arriving at consensus and moving forward under tremendous personal danger.
What I worry about is not a defeat along the lines of Vietnam. It is something different. If the insurgents keep up their attacks, prevent reconstruction and renewed economic activity and, most important, continue to attract jihadists to Iraq from all over the region and the world. Last month's leaked CIA report, which described Iraq as the new on-the-ground training center for Islamic extremists, points to the real danger. If thousands of jihadists hone their skills in the streets and back alleys of Iraq and then return to their countries, it could mark the beginning of a new wave of sophisticated terror. Just as Al Qaeda was born in the killing fields of Afghanistan, new groups could grow in the back alleys of Iraq. And many of these foreigners are kids with no previous track record of terror. Some even have European passports, which means that they will be very difficult to screen out of the United States or any other country.
Additionally, by the fall of 2006, it will be virtually impossible to maintain current troop levels in Iraq because the use of reserve forces will have been stretched to the limit. That's when pressure to bring the boys home will become irresistible. And that would be bad news for the Iraqi government, which is still extremely weak and in many areas dysfunctional.
The good news is that America has stopped blundering in Iraq. After two and a half years of errors, since late 2004, Washington has been urging political inclusion, speeding up economic reconstruction and building up local forces. But U.S. policy still lacks central direction‹and the energy, vision, increased resources and push that such direction would bring. Who is running Iraq policy in Washington?
The intense and bitter interagency squabbles of the past three years—and the disastrous mistakes made by the Defense Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority—have left Iraq something of an orphan. Day to day, Iraq policy is now run by the State Department and the U.S. Army, but those two chains of command never meet.
On the civilian side, for example, the American effort is massively understaffed. Several Army officers in Iraq told me that their jobs would be greatly improved if they had more people from the State Department, USAID and other civilian agencies helping. One said to me last year, "I've had 25-year-old sergeants adjudicating claims between Turkomans and Kurds, when they don't really know how they are different. We could use political officers who could brief them."
The vacuum is being filled by the U.S. Army, which has been building bridges and schools, securing neighborhoods and power plants and, yes, adjudicating claims between Turkomans and Kurds. It is doing these things because someone has to. Secretary Rumsfeld has long argued that American troops should never engage in nation building, leaving that to locals. But while we waited for Iraqis to do it, chaos broke out and terror reigned. So the Army on the ground has ignored Rumsfeld's ideology and has simply made things work. (It's a good rule of thumb for the future.)
But if we want to move beyond coping, we need a full-scale revitalization of Iraq policy, with resources to match it. Muddling along will ensure we don't lose in Iraq, but we won't win either. |
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/070405.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:51 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
A few factors:
1) In regard to NVA regulars, I would argue that it was the Vietcong who won Vietnam. In other words, it was a guerilla war that brought success. Regular NVA were frequently disposed of by the like of Arc-Light strikes.
Since the time of Vietnam, the US has basically been able to destroy anyone in an outright confrontation. Hence the reason that the US could sweep through Iraq unchallenged. There had already been a war of that nature in '91. Would one expect the same strategy?
The greatest mistake a general can make is to try and fight the last war.
I think that's what happened here.
2) The Kurds were protected by the no-fly zone long before '03. Surely having Saddam gone is a good thing for them, BUT they would also like to be fully autonomous. In other words, to have their own country. Politically, it's not good for the outside powers involved (USA and Turkey), but how about for themselves?
Likewise, they are basically autonomous already. Why should they be too concerned about the government of the rest of Iraq?
3) I don't know if you saw it, but this week's Herald Tribune had an article about whether the US populace has been making the proper "sacrifice" for Iraq. "Sacrifice" in this case refers to the rationing and such of WWII.
I find such a notion hugely artificial. A way that the military might inflict their loss upon the citizenry.
Indeed, I believe the best parallel between Iraq and Vietnam is the support of the populace.
The similarity, in my opinion, is about self-defense.
I believe that war, like murder, should be a last resort inly practiced in self-defense.
Vietnam was not about self-defense. Same goes for Iraq.
Some may disagree on both counts, but it is about the American populace.
WWII was about a threat to the free world. No spin required. Yes, I know about FDR, but his threat didn't suddenly disappear like the WMD did.
The Bush Administration has slowly consumed its well of "patriotism", and is now confronted with people who were full-on with him at the time of "Mission Accomplished". The populace will only take so much BS.
Not good for the troops. At all.
4) But I'm not just here to complain.
Point A) We spend a couple billion every day. Equip the Iraqi security forces with the best technology we have.
Point B) Re-establish the "National Guard" in America. Is the Coast Guard involoved in Iraq? Maybe they are, but I don't think so. Return the National Guard to their conceived duty of guarding our nation. I know they went to Vietnam, but that's also BS.
Point C) EXIT PLAN. No BS about it. No plan means there is no plan. That conflicts with "We're only staying as long as we're needed." Give an idea about how long we are needed.
Finally:I think that's playing it straight.. Anyone saying I'm unpatriotic because of these statements should be shot.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
No. they don't have Pho tai nam in iraq.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| To me it is similar in the observation that the indegenous people are rallying around a cause that may not be there own but is the closest thing to nationalism they can muster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derrek
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
The US will be moving out in the next few years, and then unleash the local forces to clean up the terrorists in their own fashion.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/27/iraq.main/index.html
Hardly a vietnam, as much as you left-wing US-haters would love it to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Derrek wrote: |
The US will be moving out in the next few years, and then unleash the local forces to clean up the terrorists in their own fashion.
|
Well, as things are at present, the terrorists are cleaning up the local forces in their own fashion. I wonder what will change between now and the supposed Spring pullout? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derrek
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Butterfly wrote: |
| Derrek wrote: |
The US will be moving out in the next few years, and then unleash the local forces to clean up the terrorists in their own fashion.
|
Well, as things are at present, the terrorists are cleaning up the local forces in their own fashion. I wonder what will change between now and the supposed Spring pullout? |
Cleaning up on? Seems to me that recruitment of those wanting to be Iraqi police continues to go up and up. Why do the terrorists bomb the lines of men seeking to become police officers? Because THERE ARE lines of Iraqi men WHO WANT to work as Police. Even after the bombings, the lines are still there. The training goes on. Still more come. The terrorists are losing.
Locals turn in the insurgents, too.
Once the US leaves, the locals will view the terrorists as more of an Iran-based or Syrian-based device for influence (many already do). Iraqi people don't like that. The local police forces will hunt down the terrorists and hang / behead / shoot them. The local police forces won't give a damn about appeasing PC viewpoints. Justice against the insurgents will be swift.
Sure, there will be suicide bombings in the name of Allah, but this now appears to be part of normal life worldwide. Killing 20 civilians here or there in areas populated by millions with opposing viewpoints doesn't cause a government to change.
After the US leaves, it will be more about internal religious issues (Sunni vs. Shiite). Since when has that never been a problem in the Middle East?
If the Arab/Moslem world continues to allow itself to lag behind developing along with the rest of the world because they keep bombing their own, then that's a shame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You mean it's a hidden gem to teach ESL with a decent wage?
Or that it will be in three decades after the fighting stops? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's too soon to determine if it is militarily similar and I don't want to get stuck fighting the last war.
However, the similarities I see are political:
1) The government seems to have told lies to the public in order to gain support for government policies, producing...
2) Government cover-ups aimed at critics of the wars.
3) The government kept up the happy talk as long as they could get away with it because they couldn't offer an explanation of when the wars would end.
4) Public support started dropping after a couple of years.
5) As support drops, the supporters are getting louder in their vocal support.
6) Increased division in the country. (the result of 4 & 5)
7) Johnson refused to raise taxes to pay for his social programs and the war (both Guns and Butter), so the government borrowed massively and went into debt. Bush reduced taxes and so the government borrows massively and is going into world-record debt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This was an essay question my undergrads were given a year-and-a-half ago when I was a uni TA. It was interesting how, early into the occupation, the comparisons were already flying. It was a lot harder to make them think of ways it was different than how it was the same. Most of them saw the most similarities in the 'home front', and indeed, I think here the US will lose the war. As with the Vietcong, American greatly underestimate Islamists' patience. They think they can win a war like this in a few years, and don't seem to realise that some movements can defeat themselves.
It's also interesting to observe how terms like 'occupation', 'guerrillas', 'insurgents', and even 'war' were debateable then but are commonplace now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
