Defeatest Howard Dean Says US Troops Can't Win

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[Howard] Dean is an idiot if he thinks Iraq resembles Vietnam in any meaningful way. So many things about Vietnam are almost the exact opposite of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny but the hawkiest of Vietnam hawks himself, Melvin Laird, U.S. Secretary of Defense during the latter and toughest phase of the Vietnam War thinks different!

That's the gist of his article in the latest Foreign Affairs magazine. One can google it up if one is interested in an insider's opinion.

But, of course, you guys here could be more experienced in that war -- or you could be more hawkish than ...Melvin Laird.

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[BCPVP]

Good call Cyrus. From the article you mentioned:
[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq is not "another Vietnam."

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope that wasn't the ace up your sleeve...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Good call Cyrus. From the article you mentioned:
[ QUOTE ]
The war in Iraq is not "another Vietnam."

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope that wasn't the ace up your sleeve.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the article more carefully. Then you will, perhaps, notice the blatant similarities in the military and political situation between Vietnam and Iraq that Melvin Laird points out. Laird is particularly angry with the prospect of the United States making the same "mistakes" as in Vietnam.

If we were obliged to make an all-or-nothing call, then no, of course "Iraq is not Vietnam".

But then what is ?

[cardcounter0]

Rummy says they only way the insurgents will be defeated is not by US Troops but by turning over the job to the Iraqis.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Vietnam-Started with few soldiers, ended with a full-scale war.
Iraq-Started as a full-scale (sorta) war, ending (will end) with fewer soldiers.
The type of enemy we're fighting, they're goals, etc.
Iraq is not Vietnam.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one difference followed by several aspects of the wars that are actually similar. The type of enemy we're fighting? In Vietnam, it was the NVA and militant guerrilla fighters. In Iraq it's militant guerrilla fighters (as we defeated the main army). Their goals, in both cases, were to get the U.S. out of the country. You might try to branch this into the goals of terrorists worldwide versus communists in Vietnam, but that's oversimplifying both cases.

[MtSmalls]

Are Iraq and Vietnam EXACTLY the same battle? Of course not. But there are a host of striking similarities:

- Both started with contrived events (Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11)
- In both cases the US Military/Government believed that firepower and military victory were the only issues. In both cases they were completely wrong.
- In both cases there is a substantial portion of the population that didn't want to be "rescued". There is a great bumper sticker being seen more frequently here: Be Nice, or we'll bring Democracy to your country.
- In both cases the Military/Industrial complex had FAR too much influence.
- In both cases the US infantry grunt was woefully unprepared for the type of combat being seen. In Vietnam, it was right up front that the jungle combat was something not prepared for. Armor and airpower accounted for very little, as apposed to Korea, WWII. In the case of Iraq, the soldiers have been woefully mistreated by the Adminstration and their own logistics officers.

The problem in Iraq today is not one of a genocidal dictator or corrupt government that can be replaced either by fiat or by election. Rather it is a deeply rooted religious and societal problem that no amount of military force will be able to contain. Having 100K troops in Iraq or 400K troops won't make a difference. They will still be assalted in twos and fours and tens and die for reachable goal. The Shiites will still hate the Sunnis, and the Kurds will despise and fear them both. There will be decades of backlash from the repressed majority against the minority. The country will continue, despite any 'democratic election' to be run from the mosques rather than from any capital building.

No armed force is going to change any of those things, so why should we ask our soldiers, who have been shafted from day one of this mission, to be picked off, to die in the desert for nothing?

(Thanks BCPVP for allowing me to have a meaningful 500th post)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
In both cases the US infantry grunt was woefully unprepared for the type of combat being seen. In Vietnam, it was right up front that the jungle combat was something not prepared for. Armor and airpower accounted for very little, as apposed to Korea, WWII. In the case of Iraq, the soldiers have been woefully mistreated by the Adminstration and their own logistics officers.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been the case in almost every war we have fought.The problem with the military acquisition process is that it reactionary in nature. Its hard to get the beancounters to spend money on things that might be. Tactics is somewhat the same, although to a lesser degree since we have more control over those at lower levels.

I however would like to hear exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that that American soldiers have been mistreated by their own logistics officers. I will pass on your answer to one of my best friends, who is a Marine Corps Logistics Officer currently on his second tour in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
...meaningful 500th post

[/ QUOTE ]

Matter of opinion I guess. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If we were obliged to make an all-or-nothing call, then no, of course "Iraq is not Vietnam".

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this what I said? I said Iraq isn't Vietnam, you responded by pointing out an article by a guy who says the same thing yet claim he thinks differently. I'm aware that the U.S. could make similar mistakes, but that does not mean the two wars are equivalent.

Do you even read the posts you respond to?

[ QUOTE ]
This has been the case in almost every war we have fought.The problem with the military acquisition process is that it reactionary in nature. Its hard to get the beancounters to spend money on things that might be. Tactics is somewhat the same, although to a lesser degree since we have more control over those at lower levels.

[/ QUOTE ]


Folks who, for whatever reason, can't lay claim to military service will never understand this.

Folks who, in spite of their claims otherwise, don't have high regard for the military will never accept this.

Folks who love to scream about troops not having this, that or the other (after the fact), IMO, are the same ones who scream about the gigantious sums being "poured" into the DOD's coffers.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this what I said? I said Iraq isn't Vietnam, you responded by pointing out an article by a guy who says the same thing yet claim he thinks differently. I'm aware that the U.S. could make similar mistakes, but that does not mean the two wars are equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can tell, the sequence of events was this

1) You said that "Dean is an idiot if he thinks Iraq resembles Vietnam in any meaningful way."

2) Cyrus pointed out that Melvin Laird disagrees with you.

3) Ignoring the whole point of the article, which was to explore in what ways Iraq does and does not meaningfully resemble Vietnam, you lifted one quote from the first page to support the untenable position that the article was simply implying no meaningful resemblance.

4) Cyrus pointed out that obviously no war will be exactly like another and therefore, on some level, it will always be difficult to say X is another Y.

5) You then responded by changing your original point, asserting to have said Iraq is not another Vietnam when you actually said that it bore no meaningufl resemblance. Then you repeated your misreading of the article. Then you attacked Cyrus personally.

Or do I have it wrong?