A little help from Vietnam and Iraq veterans

[auburngrad82]

I'm considering writing an article comparing Iraq to Vietnam. One thing I've noticed is that conservatives HATE it when anyone compares Iraq to Vietnam. I think we could get a lot of mileage by comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. If anyone has any input as far as comparisons and concrete examples, I would appreciate it. Also, feel free to send me a private message if you have personal experiences related to Vietnam or Iraq that I can use in my article.

In many people's minds Vietnam was both a military and a political failure and the neocons don't want Iraq associated with that war. But the fact is there are many similarities between the current war and the Vietnam war. For instance:

There is no way to tell who is an enemy and who is a normal Iraqi citizen. In Vietnam, everyone looked the same. There were no uniforms or insignia that signified that the person was an enemy. That's why the US military had "free fire" zones in which anyone moving could be considered an enemy and shot. Faluja became a free fire zone in October when the US tried to remove the enemy from the city.

There was no "front." Like Iraq, Vietnam was one big "red zone" surrounding many small "green zones," ie military compounds. In a conventional war, you could measure success by how far you pushed the enemy back from the front. In Vietnam and Iraq, once you vacated an area, the enemy just surged back in. For example, when the US tried to remove the enemy from Faluja, they simply moved to Mosul and other cities. Once the US backs off from Faluja the enemy will return. In effect, there was no way to secure an area from enemy occupation.

In Vietnam the US troops were constantly being bombarded by mortars and rockets aimed at their bases. In Iraq, mortar and rocket attacks on US bases are a daily occurence.

The US spent millions of dollars trying to train the South Vietnamese Army to be self sufficient and to be able to fight the North Vietnamese. Like the Iraqi security forces, the South Vietnamese just had no desire to fight the war when the US would do it for them. They frequently refused to go into combat or ran away once the shooting started, and South Vietnamese soldiers would many times just find a nice place to sit and watch while US troops did the actual fighting.

In Vietnam, rockets, booby traps, and mines such as the infamous "Bouncing Betty" and small arms were the weapons of choice of the Viet Cong because they were easily concealed and easily transported. Also, mines didn't require an enemy to be on site to attack the Americans. In Iraq, rocket propelled grenades, IEDs and small arms are preferred for the same reasons.

In Vietnam, the environment caused constant breakdowns in equipment. The humidity was such that if you didn't oil things constantly they rusted. In Iraq, the environment is equally hard on the equipment. The desert environment guarantees that sand will work its way into every conceivable nook and cranny and cause major problems with equipment. Many of the helicopter crashes in Iraq are not due to enemy fire but to equipment failure and the environment surely has a lot to do with that.

Like Iraq, there were very few major battles in Vietnam (with a few notable exceptions). Most of the fighting was carried out with small groups of Viet Cong attacking platoon sized groups of Americans. In Iraq, American troops constantly face skirmishes with small bands of Iraqi citizens. Many times the ambush occurs as the Americans are moving from one location to another.

In Vietnam, we were fighting to overthrow a communist regime and to install a Democratic government in Southeast Asia. In Iraq, we began fighting first to overthrow a dangerous and repressive regime and then to install a Democratic government in Southeast Asia.

In Vietnam, the Viet Cong had a very extensive tunnel system which they used to carry out ambushes, to store and move weapons, and to move troops. In Iraq, the Iraqis have used the houses and buildings in a very similar manner. Weapons caches have been found inside residences, tunnels have allowed Iraqis to move from one building to another, and attacks are carried out from behind the walls of the buildings.

Am I missing anything? There are many similarities and the most common neocon rebuttal to the similarities is "there are no similarities because one was a jungle and the other is a desert." It's a very simplistic response because they know they have no way to actually rebut the argument that we are getting ourselves into another Vietnam.

[pleiku52cab]

1. Look up the records

and find out how long it took us to lose as many men in nam as we have already lost in Iraq.

[auburngrad82]

3. Casualty figures are hard to compare because of troop levels

During the first 4 years of Vietnam, the US troop level was very low so you can't compare on a time basis. Also, beginning in 1965 troop level was about twice of what we have in Iraq so it's also hard to compare.

There are other factors involved as well. The field medical teams in Iraq are much better prepared for catastrophic injuries from explosives than they were in Vietnam. Many of the troops that have been wounded in Iraq due to IEDs would have died in Vietnam.

Also, in Vietnam, you had to wait for a medivac helicopter to remove the troops from the jungle and get them to a hospital. In Iraq, the hospitals are much closer and easier to get to. So troops that might not have survived their injuries in Vietnam are being saved in Iraq.

[meti57b]

2. "no similarities because one was a jungle and the other is a desert."

Could you please tell me why anyone would think that statement even applies, in terms of difference in anything other than the terrain? I haven't heard that one but if that is what neocons are using, it almost sounds like an admission that they are exactly the same.

The difference in numbers of casualties probably also confuse some people on whether they are the same. However, there were far fewer casualties in the early years of Vietnam, too.

Let's see, one possible difference is that the North Vietnamese were alleged to be allied with Chinese communists of some such, a government outside of Vietnam.

[auburngrad82]

4. It doesn't apply. It's a weak argument but I've heard it several times

It's kind of an Orwellian argument, kind of like "Clear Skies Initiative". The point is they have no other basis to argue the point that there are no similarities and they are grasping at straws.

As for the Communist link, the Bush administration has done everything they can to try to tie the Hussein-led Iraqi government to Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, so there is a slight similarity there. The difference is that the North Vietnamese did get help from China while there have been no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq proven. Even Zarqawi, the Bush Administration's chosen "leader" of the insurgents, has never actually been seen so it's very debatable whether he is anything more than a face that the Bush administration has put on the insurgency.

[meti57b]

5. auburngrad82, I for one, would appreciate seeing an article on similarity

with the differences explained, such as your explanation of troop levels and casualty numbers. It would be an important entry to Demopedia. .... perhaps with a side by side chart of similarities with differences explained, ... for use in shoving under the nose of people with short attention spans who believe bush.

Edit to add: ... oh yeah, right, I keep forgetting the OBL link, ...so preposterous I don't usually consider it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. Similarities and differences

All conflicts share similarities, and Iraq and Vietnam are no different. Both have the US pitted against an enemy using guerrilla tactics, and many of the points you brought up are indicative of a guerrilla war.

You failed to mention the role North Vietnam played in the conflict. They did have a standing army, the NVA who wore uniforms and and fought with a mix of guerrilla and conventional tactics. They were tough, disciplined soldiers who operated from "safe" zones in the north and west. They also had an airforce with competent pilots trained by the Soviets and Chinese, flying MiG-17, 19 and 21 fighters. They never seriously contested air superiority over North Vietnam, but they did manage to shoot down numerous USAF jets, at one time maintaining a 1 to 3 ratio in air combat.

It can be argued that Syria, Iran and the foreign fighters entering Iraq fill the NVA's roll in Iraq, however the support, resources and troop strength is much, much less. You also had the constant fear of escalation of the war with China or the Soviet Union. Iraq has no Superpower backing, but they do have the support of anti-American Arab and Persian states in the region.

The Vietcong alone could never have defeated the US and taken control of South Vietnam. In fact after 1968 the VC played a much diminished roll in the conflict, with the NVA taking the brunt of the major fighting. In 1972 the North launched a major conventional invasion of the South including tanks artillery and aircraft. It was defeated by the ARVN bolstered with remaining US forces. In 1975 they tried again and succeeded.

The US has suffered an average of aprox 50 deaths a month in Iraq. A tragic, much to great a number. In Vietnam that number was 600. Staggering but true.

Iraq could certainly end up being another Vietnam in outcome, and comparing it to Vietnam is certainly valid in some ways if flawed in others.