Iraq is not like Vietnam.
Hadrian said 03/22, 01:27 PM
We haven't assisted in the assassination of its elected leader [1]
...yet [2].
[1]
1. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon2/pent6.htm
2. http://www.historynet.com/magazines/vietnam/3027721.html?showAll=y&c=y
3. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm
[2]
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803489.html?nav=rss_opinions/outlook?nav=slate
2. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/23/major-republican-firm-lobbying-to-undermine-maliki/
base89 said 03/22, 10:00 PM
Technically, we did kill their elected leader, if you remember before the war, Iraq held an election and Saddam won, now before you say anything, yes, it was a sham election, but that argument of election fraud can be used in our last two elections, and the most recent one in Russia as well, yet the leaders of those nations are still referred to as the elected leaders of their nations. Now, not mentioning the obvious topographical differences in the two countries, the situations we are facing in Iraq compared to Vietnam are quite similar. We are in the middle of a foreign war, the Sunnis and Shia are currently fighting for dominance in their nation, as were the North and South Vietnamese were doing forty years prior. We are currently in a situation where we cannot really win, as we were in Vietnam. While the casualty count has not reached the levels of Vietnam, the percentile of soldiers per day being killed to the amount stationed has been proportional to the amounts in Vietnam. We also have the underground insurgent force that we are fighting which in tactics are very similar to the Vietcong. Iraq is now shaping up to be a very long war, like Vietnam.
Hadrian said 03/24, 03:28 AM
The conflict in Vietnam was between communism and democracy -- albeit a democracy where we helped assassinate the elected leader of a country that only existed because our puppet government prevented the elections to unite the country that were promised under international treaty because we knew that the Communists would win.
Iraq is not yet officially divided but is essentially split by tribal and sectarian differences. The war is both a civil war and a war of resistance to the American occupation of that country. The conflict in Iraq is between Al-Quada and democracy -- albeit an Al-Quada that did not exist in Iraq until we allowed them in after the invasion and a democracy with an ineffective elected government that can not provide needed services and security to its people. "Democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future" says one US General in Iraq. [1] see comments for link.
base89 said 03/24, 03:00 PM
Except that Al Quieda makes up about 2 to 3% of the resistance force (like the Vietcong), that is also fighting the other insurgent forces as well. The real conflict is intrusions from outside national interests, despite the obvious (the U.S.) there is also involvement on multiple level from Iran and Saudi Arabia, with some funding also coming in small doses from China. In Vietnam, the Soviets, Chinese and Cambodians to an extent were involved along with us in the conflict (as were the French at the onset). In both conflicts, we were the main power on the ground, with few allied contributions, while all other nations did not involve themselves militarily, but played the economic war against us. Both wars have or did put America in an economic crunch at home, by the tail end of Vietnam, the economy was in a recession that did not really improve until the late 90's, whereas the current economic deficit set by the Iraq war is said to be one we will be battling for a couple of decades to come. Both wars never came with an official declaration of war. Both were widely supported at first and then faced massive opposition at home, with low approval ratings from the public as well.
Hadrian said 03/24, 04:55 PM
It would be easier to argue that the (US) War in Afghanistan is like the (USSR) War in Afghanistan...except the Russians never got distracted from the Afghan war by a war of choice in the Middle East.
It is more correct to say Iraq is like Algeria than to claim it is like Vietnam.
The comparison here is that "a major power is faced with an Arab insurgency that has targeted police, public servants, innocent civilians. All of that has preoccupied the Americans as it did the French." The Pentagon screened a film about the French-Algerian conflict and said about it: "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically."
A final comparison: The Vietnam War was an insurgency from the start, and remained mainly a guerrilla war for its duration. The Iraq War started as a conventional war during the initial invasion. It evolved into a guerrilla war in the months following the Fall of Baghdad in April 2003.
base89 said 03/24, 06:50 PM
Here is where your major comparison falls short, while there is the insurgency in Iraq like Algeria, you say the French had a plan that succeeded tactically but not strategically. Americas invasion failed both tactically and strategically, we had no real strategy to begin with on how to end the war. Vietnam started as a conventional war between to countries, North and South Vietnam, it became a guerrilla war once the United States became involved, since it was the only way to even the odds against them, such as Iraq. Also, both conflicts were started or escalated under false pretenses, WMD's and the Tolken Gulf Resolution both proved to be false even to the point of fabrication. Also, the two men widely regarded as the architects of the two wars (McNamara and Wolfowitz) would serve as president of the World Bank. Both wars were presided over, at a time, by oil-men (Johnson and Bush), there will most likely be conflict still after we leave (i.e. the fall of Saigon). Both conflicts have and will cost us dearly, in money, resources, lives and the ability for the average American to have some faith, or trust in their elected leaders to make decisions not in haste and aggression.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Hey, base89, remember all those videos going around of the hanging of Saddam? yeah, he wasn't assassinated by our military. He wasn't assassinated at all. He was hung by his own people. Those who elected him and discovered their mistake a little bit too late.
RTBA2A | 03/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Election fraud is not nearly as evident in the last two US elections as it was in Iraq so to compare the two seems a little flaky. A lot of the comparisons you make seem to taken out of scale. And the whole thing about the percentile of soldiers killed per day seems rather week. It's a rather unique way to gloss over the fact that the amount of US casualties is no where near what it was in Vietnam nor is the number of soldiers on the ground. and as a previous poster stated, we did not assassinate Saddam. He was tried and sentenced to death.
Skipper04 | 03/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
and it's debatable if we were in a situation that we really could not win in Vietnam. I happen to think so, but i have heard people who I have great respect for and who I can usually trust to give me a well-educated opinion argue to the contrary.
Skipper04 | 03/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
For the record, the CIA killed off the South Vietnamese leader, not the military.
base89 | 03/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
If I vote purely on the topic, base89'd get the win because while Iraq is not identical to Vietnam, even one similarity would make "Iraq like Vietnam." But that'd be a buttish way to vote, so I'll stand by.
Accidental Democrat | 03/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
As for the casualty percentages, that was a figure that was released around New Years of either 2006 or 07, I have been struggling to find the article (it did get some brief television time), if I do I will post the link.
base89 | 03/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Also, as for the election fraud comment, while Saddam won with 90% over 'No Saddam' (good platform), who's to say the real vote count (if this wasn't the real count) didn't truly favor the leader, for the fact is, no matter what country it maybe, a tyrant does not become so if everyone hates him.
base89 | 03/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Hopefully the links in my first debate comment will not get truncated here. [1] 1. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon2/pent6.htm 2. http://www.historynet.com/magazines/vietnam/3027721.html?showAll=y&c=y 3. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm [2] 1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803489.html?nav=rss_opinions/outlook?nav=slate 2. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/23/major-republican-firm-lobbying-to-undermine-maliki/
Hadrian | 03/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Link to quote used in my 2nd arguement: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html
Hadrian | 03/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
I wasn't saying that everybody hated him. I was saying that the evidence of voter fraud in the Iraq elections were on a whole different level than those in the US so to compare them seems a little misleading. I'd say that that is going to be the major hurdle you'll have to clear for me in this discussion. Not that example necessarily. But how do you compare to the things that vary so greatly in their scale.
Skipper04 | 03/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
The debate is NOT "Iraq is not like the US" but "Iraq is not like Vietnam". The issue of election fraud in Iraq is spurious unless base89 addresses the issue of voter fraud in the election of the leader of Vietnam we helped get assassinated. He has not done so. However, as has been pointed out -- THAT point is way off base as Saddam was not assassinated. But, please, continue to focus your comments on the issue of voter fraud so as to distract base89 from the fact that he is headed full speed into a dead-end with that arguement.
Hadrian | 03/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Haha, I agree with you Hadrian. Base is a fine debater but I see the only argument he has made so far is to say that Iraq is like Vietnam because the North vs South is similar to the Sunnis vs. Shias. I don't believe that to be a very strong arguement because one is fighting over religious beliefs adn the other is fighting for freedom and democracy. The only argument of his I can't find any argument for is his idea that these are both unwinnable and very long wars. I feel that this is true. However, that is not enough to say that Iraq is even close to being like Vietnam (that is for Accidental Democrate who feels that one similarity can make something like something else). I have 98% of the same genes as does a squid. Does that mean that I am like a squid? In what ways? I wouldn't consider myself very squid-like.
shrek | 03/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
What the two groups are fighting for is a moot point, both are fighting for the ability to control the whole nation, as was the situation in both conflicts. I was not making the comparison based on why they're fighting, but on the structure of the fight and how we are put into the situation and our role within. As for the Saddam point, it was simply to show that we had assisted in the elected leaders death, and the voter fraud was to combat the inevitable argument that was sure to be stated saying Saddam was elected in a shame election, which I could say that so were other currently elected leaders. It was merely a preemptive argument.
base89 | 03/24/08
Report Offensive Comment
Here is what makes Iraq and Vietnam different. In Iraq the sacrifice is being made by a small percentage while Vietnam put the issue on the backs of millions . This is what makes it so easy for so many to beat the drums of war and to those I say.....the commander in chief needs you so sign up. Second, the lies and cover-up which got us involved for so many years in Nam have risen to the surface and are now available for all to review. Iraq....some of the lies are painfully evident to those who can see or hear but as for the rest of the story,well, we're just going to have to wait.
Ron | 03/26/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th PresidentThe Brazen Pirates of Somalia
This year, close to 90 ships have been seized in and around the Gulf of Aden, more than triple the number of 2007
(Jason R. Zalasky / US Navy / EPA )
I am really interested to see where this debate goes. It's going to be hard for Base to convince me that this War is anything like Vietnam, but I guess anything is possible.
shrek | 03/22/08
Report Offensive Comment