Am I the only one who thinks a full scale land war in Afghanistan would be the next Vietnam?

[notfred]

Think of the similarities. The viet cong didn't fight in squadrons and platoons all marching in orderly lines, they fought in small geurilla groups that hid in the bushes and didn't feel bad about shooting people in the back. I think Bin Laden's people would do the same. The Viet cong weren't afraid to use children as bombs - strapping explosives to them and tellingt them to go talk to the Americans - We've already seen how these people feel about killing civilians. Vietnam was unfamiliar territory - a jungle that none of our men knew thier way around, Afghanistan is the same, except replace 'jungle' with 'mountain range'.
One thing that bin laden's men have over the VC - they're all willing to commit suicide as long as they take a few Americans with them. I think the only major difference is that the VC were a larger force, in terms of sheer numbers.

I dont want the US to lose another 58,000 men only to give up 10 years later. I think president Bush has to be very careful with his decisions....

 

[dcdomain]

Well we'll use the Vietnam Conflict as a learning experience. We probably won't send many troops in. We'll more than likely use our technological prowess to bomb the hell out of them.

 

[reitz]

You're not the only one, but you are part of a very small minority.

Think of the differences:

Vietnam was fought in jungles under think cover; Afganistan is a mountainous, but mostly barren country.
Vietnam was a limited war, without a clear objective or method to acheive it. Afganistan will be a much larger conflict, with only two goals: punish the Taliban and erradicate Bin Laden's terrorist organization.
In Vietnam, we were fighting against an enemy who was impossible to identify, and who was armed by the Soviet Union. The Taliban's military is underfunded, ill-equipped, and lacks the support of the Afgani people.
Vietnam was a conflict that lacked the support of NATO, The UN, Congress, or the American people; the last week should tell you that is not the case right now.
Vietname required that we completely destroy the enemy and force them into submission to end the conflict. In Afganistan, we only need to take out al Qaeda, and deal a blow to the Taliban; it won't take much to bring down that government and allow the Northern Alliance to take power.
Most importantly, in Vietnam we didn't have a clue as to what we were getting into. This time, we are preparing ourselves for a long and difficult conflict if the need arises.

 

[SpongeBob]

I agree that a ground war in afghanistan would be folly. Why don't we ask our allies, the former soviet union about that?

 

[mastertech01]

For one thing Vietnam was not a full scale land war... it was a policing action. If the USA had committed a full scale land war it would have ended about 10 years sooner. The fact of the cold war with the Soviet Union and the threat of China intervening prevented it from being such. This would not be anything like an action within Afghanistan. Not only that but the sophistication of our weaponry today so much more advanced than in the 60s that there could be no comparison. IMHO

 

[Talon]

Lengthy but interesting article on the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.

http://call.army.mil/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/waraf.htm

 

[Looney]

I agree that a ground war in afghanistan would be folly. Why don't we ask our allies, the former soviet union about that?

Ignorant statement... Afghanistans had the backing of US, China, Iran, and who knows what other country. Who do they have this time? Nobody, and this time the whole world is coming down on them.

 

[SpongeBob]

Ignorant statement... Afghanistans had the backing of US, China, Iran, and who knows what other country. Who do they have this time? Nobody, and this time the whole world is coming down on them.

Actually it's not an ignorant statement. In the past few days I have talked to many army officers(I work for the dept. of defense/dept. of the army) who have echoed the same thing I said in the earlier post. These people have immense knowledge not only of ground war, but of afghanistan itself. Of course, they think we could win such a war, but it would be extremely costly.

/edit for spelling

 

[MrChicken]

The differences this time are that the Taliban has no powerful backer (not now), and that they and their enemies are roughly equal.

Without powerful countries backing them, any US invasion should be fairly quick (by the Vietnam standard). We just need to upset the balance of power enough that the rebels can take over. Then we hope that they arent as bad as the Taliban.

Probably with just an air campaign and some support to the rebels, the Taliban will be expelled.

 

[OatMan]

Anyone who thinks A-Stan couldn't be another Viet Nam is niave. It isn't about how big their military is or how good ours is. We dropped orders of magnitudes more bombs on Viet Nam than all nations on all sides in world war 2 combined. The failure of Russia and the US in A-stan and Viet Nam was more about complete lack of understanding of the culture and the values of those cultures. That failure in Viet Nam began long before the fist "observers" sent to help the French in the early 60's and even 50's.

The other overlooked tradgety in the making is the potential terrorist whitch hunt wich could mirror the communist witch hunt of the "Tail Gunner Joe" erra. If I'm losing you please go to a library for some history, but start with "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it..."

Too many have died, families ruined, and it is not nearly over.

Cheers! (sorry for lack of spell check)

 

[Joe2Cool]

No, ur not the only one.

I doubt the US will send much land forces in initially and heavily rely on air attacks and bombing as their primary strategy. it might work at the beginning but then the enemy will learn and eventually forces the US into sending in ground forces.

and we shouldn't forgot, we'll be fighting a war to their advantage in terms of terrain.
Sometimes sophisticated weapons and huge numbers aren't the way to victory. If the Afghanis are determined and can stand out long enough, the war will eventually becomes unpopular@ home and demoralized the army.

If Afghanis were smart, they should've studied "Sun-Tzu's Art of War"

these only reflect my own opinion.

my 2 bytes.

 

[lowtech1]

"We'll more than likely use our technological prowess to bomb the hell out of them."

The VC didn?t have much of weapons compare to the American, but they survived she loads of bombs (same amount of bombs was used as the entire WWII).

Afghanistan is not going to be exactly the same as Vietnam, but is the American public willing to sacrifice thousands of their men to teach the terrorist in question a lesson???
The American publics have to be willing to sacrifice more than just the men in the field, but they many need to stand be hind their untrustworthy government even if the fighting happens on American soil.
Personally, I think it is too much trouble to ask of the American publics to endure.
War is not won by just destruction, but it is won mostly by physiological believe.

Who will take the place of the Taliban when the American done with the destruction?
Is the replacement government one that the American can spin, or they have to come back in 20 years to slap them into their place?
Does America wash their hands off the crippled county after the destruction or their moral tells them to continue supporting it long after the aftermath?
The long-term question is what we want to look at?not the momentary redistribution of shoot first then ask later?

 

[rickn]

You really cannot compare Vietnam to this. Different terrain -- US troops are trained in desert conditions, but not so much jungle/tropical forest conditions that existed in Vietnam; USA has much much more sophisticated technology compared to the Vietnam era. We certainly will use that technology to our advantage in trying to avert the loss of america casualties; Aghanis are poorly equipped, have very limited anti-aircraft defensive capabilities -- they are no Iraq in other words.

 

[Viperbob]

#1 The Vietnam war was fought with politicail considerations in mind . Politicains are not military leaders The ROE was totally screwed up
#2 We thought the Iraqi's would fight like bastards they couldn't surrender quick enough The ROE was clear The military was in command

See the differance?

We need to work with forces (nationals not co-alition) to unseat the Taliban and establish elections we need to capture Bin Laden we need to make Afganistan a better place (albeit with a few less people) for people to live. Then we need to move to the next target,all the time sweeping up terrist networks that exist amoungst us here.

 

[Jmman]

Vietnem was a valuable lesson, but I think we have learned not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Don't forget that we completely annihilated the Iraqi army (the 4 largest in the world at the time) with hardly any casualties, completely vindicating what is now known as the "Powell Doctrine." If it really does come down to all out war with them, rest assured that we will go with completely overwhelming force. Not only that, but some military experts are even calling for tactical nuclear strikes....... Afghanistan might not even be habitable by anyone shortly......

 

[nEoTeChMaN]

Technology only goes so far.

 

[ToBeMe]

Hmm, I'm not saying it will be easy......no way it will be, but, I have also seen where Putin has written that "Had Russia been allowed to fully deploy in their war, it could have been ended rather quickly, but, due to international pressure, Russia was not able to do that." Also, Russia had a LOT of problems with Stinger missles, and helos that were restricted to high altitudes............they admitt they had not developed that because they saw no need/threat for them before the onset of their conflict.

OK, having said that, let's review some of the comments at before Desert Storm........

We will be fighting some of the most elite, well equipped, seasoned troops in all the world in the "Republican Guard" and an army which is 3rd largest in the world in numbers and equipement.

We will be fighting on their "Home Turf" where the victor is almost always the homeland.

We will be fighting in a terrain we are not equipped for and will bog down our troops and equippment and make them sitting ducks.

We will constantly be in danger of Chemical/Biological and Nuclear Warfare. (at the onset, it was not known for sure if Saddam had Nuclear capabilities or not AND he may well have used Chemical/Biological Warfare)

We could perhaps be starting WWIII if all the Muslims decided to group together and defend one of "their own".

Due to the terrain, it may take years to win this type of war because the Iraqis were so seasoned at "guerrilla warfare tactics".

Our troops would be to soft because few of them had EVER seen "real" action and the Iraqis were just coming off an extended war with Iran.



Now, as I said above, I know this will be completely different once again, but, our forces have seen this possible war coming for the past several years and have been training for just such an event. They now have "Sniper Oufits" with capabilities of up to 300yds. accurately which outdistances the Taliban Rebels by about 150yds.. They have also developed missles with "deep penetration" capability thanks to Saddam!

Also, like Russia, we never fully deployed in Vietnam......not to say it would have definately made the difference, but, the Dept. of Def. seems to think so!

Finally, With my time in the "Corp", and knowing full well the state of mind of the armed forces as a whole, I find it very hard to believe anyone in the D.O.D., or the Army would ever make a comment saying they thought this war was not "winnable" or would turn out to be another "vietnam".............that's just Taboo in any of the forces.........

Don't get my wrong, I'm not lobbying that this will/would be an easy conflict, but, lets see how the chips fall before scaring the hell out of people and making predictions without full knowledge of how this will be handled!



<< Personally I think it too much trouble to ask of the American publics to endure. War is not won by just destruction, but it is won mostly by physiological believe. >>



Well why don't you just sit back and see for yourself! The last time any country hit the US was Dec. 7th, '41.........remember how that turned out?????

 

[Pocatello]

One other thing is that the Vietcong never attacked America and killed thousands of innocent Americans. While I disagree with the Vietcongs purpose (since my family was on the losing side of the conflict), they never seeked to destroy America. America was never threatened if the whole of Vietnam became a communist country or not. Right now, I believe that America face further death and destruction if we let the terrorists go.

 

[johnjohn320]

Vietnam never bombed us.

 

[SinMen]

What I would afraid is what other plans the terrorists have. If they had spent so much time to plan this bombing, I expect they had other surprises for us. I would imagine they plan on us retaliating, and they just won't sit there and wait. They are well aware of the power and technology we have, so they might be all well prepared too.
Pride and confidence is good, but too much can be dangerous.

 

[QueenShanequa]

I think sending in land troops would be very dangerous. We are much better off with a wave of tactical bombings and possibly a nutron bomb. Q

 

[shifrbv]

"If they had spent so much time to plan this bombing, I expect they had other surprises for us. I would imagine they plan on us retaliating, and they just won't sit there and wait."

This is what I am afraid of too. I believe too many Americans are underestimating these people. Obviously, they have the network and capability to succeed in some horrific stunts and to do it in almost a simplistically brilliant way.

The Taliban has already threatened revenge if the US attacks and I don't believe they're bluffing. This first attack was only thousands. Who can tell what the next will be and if it has already been planted in the US some time ago? They have had to have a strategy. I am praying for brilliant leadership on our part. But I see no mass deportations from the US, so we can only fear that there may be "sleepers" still among us awaiting their next orders.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It seems wildly unlikely to me that we would undertake a full-scale ground war in Afghanistan. Unlike the former Soviet Union, we have no readily-available friendly insertion point for troops, and the terrain around that area is inhospitable to say the least.

The Afghans have some capacity for longish strikes (they have some Scuds left behind by the Soviets, as well as some slightly crusty, questionably-maintained Soviet fighters, with poorly-trained and inexperienced pilots) and some AAA and ground-to-air missiles, but we could likely destroy all of these assets fairly quickly, making them easy pickings for a wide array of tactical bombing. I doubt we will insert large numbers of troops until after the conflict is over and we are helping keep the peace. I guess it would not be surprising to see Delta Force and other SOCOM sniper teams inserted, though . . .

 

[Total Refected Power]

ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are not afraid of escalation with another Superpower. In Vietnam, we had to worry about the Chinese and of course the Soviet Union.

AFGHANISTAN will largely stand alone.

 

[SJ]

The majority of the land wars wont take place in Afghanistan, there will be some, but it will mainly be special ops. The land war will come when we go in to Iraq which I see happening within the next year. Afghanistan wont be the only place we attack.