Where are they going with the war???

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Iraq has no jungles, it's clearly 100% different!

A City is a bigger Jungle than any forrest of trees will ever be.
Would you rather be lost in a Jungle in the Amazon, or lost in the wrong side of town in Philladelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, or St. Louis ?

 

[Starbuck1975]

The enemy there rarely wore a uniform, unless you consider the traditional Black Pajamas and Conical Straw Hat to be a Uniform of Issue It was the way the pesants dressed throughout the country, except those in the higher classes of people - in the cities.

Not entirely true...America faced two enemies in Vietnam...the NVA, which was a conventional military force, and wore the uniforms that identified them as combatants...then you had the Viet Cong, which was a peasant based resistance force fighting against foreign occupation of Vietnam after growing tired of the French.

The Viet Cong never won a decisive victory against America...while they carried out intelligence, logistics and ambush functions, if America was left to face the Viet Cong alone, it would have been an easy threat to isolate in the countryside.

The larger threat was the North Vietnamese Army, which similarly never truly won a decisive victory against American forces...because of the sometimes insane "rules" of Vietnam, American forces were left on the defensive...unable to invade North Vietnam proper and take Hanoi, for fear of a possible Soviet or Chinese response.

Instead, American forces defended the South, playing by the rules of conventional warfare, while the North Vietnamese used Cambodia for supply routes and had the luxury of remaining on the offensive throughout the war.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The enemy there rarely wore a uniform, unless you consider the traditional Black Pajamas and Conical Straw Hat to be a Uniform of Issue It was the way the pesants dressed throughout the country, except those in the higher classes of people - in the cities.

Not entirely true...America faced two enemies in Vietnam...the NVA, which was a conventional military force, and wore the uniforms that identified them as combatants...then you had the Viet Cong, which was a peasant based resistance force fighting against foreign occupation of Vietnam after growing tired of the French.

The Viet Cong never won a decisive victory against America...while they carried out intelligence, logistics and ambush functions, if America was left to face the Viet Cong alone, it would have been an easy threat to isolate in the countryside.

The larger threat was the North Vietnamese Army, which similarly never truly won a decisive victory against American forces...because of the sometimes insane "rules" of Vietnam, American forces were left on the defensive...unable to invade North Vietnam proper and take Hanoi, for fear of a possible Soviet or Chinese response.

Instead, American forces defended the South, playing by the rules of conventional warfare, while the North Vietnamese used Cambodia for supply routes and had the luxury of remaining on the offensive throughout the war.

I don't need to suffer your lectures about Veitnam - I was there in '65 & '66.
The NVA didn't bother wearing uniforms much either.
A 5 year old was as likely to be your killer - as was his momma, or uncle.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't need to suffer your lectures about Veitnam - I was there in '65 & '66.
The NVA didn't bother wearing uniforms much either. A 5 year old was as likely to be your killer - as was his momma, or uncle.

Interesting, because the several Vietnam veterans in my family, and those I interacted with while doing volunteer work at the local American legion, painted an entirely different picture.

Also, the NVA switched to unconventional tactics towards the end of the war, a sign of their growing desperation and inability to match American military forces on the battlefield...the well trained and equipped American units serving at the outset of the war were quite capable of defeating the numerically superior NVA forces.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Interesting, because the several Vietnam veterans in my family, and those I interacted with while doing volunteer work at the local American legion, painted an entirely different picture.

Also, the NVA switched to unconventional tactics towards the end of the war, a sign of their growing desperation and inability to match American military forces on the battlefield...the well trained and equipped American units serving at the outset of the war were quite capable of defeating the numerically superior NVA forces.

The war dynamics changed after I left, as they had changed before I arrived.
I was Air Forcee - but attached to the 1st Cav in the Highlands, then set up two base operations Phu Cat and Cam Rahn Bay for aircraft transferered from Army Inventory.
The Ia Drang battle with the NVA happened shortly before I got there, but it changed the entire structure of the war for both sides.

We Were Soldiers
Long complicated read - movie was based on 24 hours of a weeklong battle.

Street without Joy
by Bernard Fall was the History of the French from the same base camp that the 1st Cav used.
Was required reading for those who were based at An Khe.
Our campgrounds were littered with spent brass from a previous decade.
We tented on the grounds that the French Mobil Group 100 departed from - to their total analiation.

Technically the US won each and every battle in Viet Nam. The Tet Offensive broke their back,
but the hearts and minds were lost - we never understood their culture, they just wanted us to go away in the end.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The war dynamics changed after I left, as they had changed before I arrived.

The largest challenge of the war was that the enemy proved quite adept at changing tactics, with our soldiers restricted by politicians trying to run the war from Washington.

We Were Soldiers Long complicated read - movie was based on 24 hours of a weeklong battle.

"We Were Soldiers," along with "Platoon Leader" were both required reading for my military history and tactics class...both excellent books...and no, the Mel Gibson movie did not do the book, or the battle for that matter, justice.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The largest challenge of the war was that the enemy proved quite adept at changing tactics, with our soldiers restricted by politicians trying to run the war from Washington.

I am still pissed off 38 years later about being taken off the flight line where I was working on a C-7A Caribou -
that had taken battle damage to RAKE GODDAMN SAND so a Polititian and his groupies
could see a nice neat tidy base living quarters area.

Talk about stupid - an aircraft that was used to ferry supplies and troops to LZ's and retreive the WIA to hospital units had to sit
unworked for hours while idiots patted each other's backs.
I have little use for any Polititians of any odor.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I have little use for any Polititians of any odor.

Amen brother...while I never saw combat, the political back slapping game compelled me to hang up my boots as well.

 

[Lemon law]

What scares the hell out of me is that the idiots in the Bush administration who got us into this Iraq war are still in charge.

What scares me even more is the idiots who demand we get out right now leaving the mess behind and
creating an instant civil war that will engulf the entire mid-east.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Please stop comparing Iraq to Vietnam. We aren't fighting an army, we are fighitng terrorists. We have lost a little over 2,000 troops in Iraq compared to 30,000+ in Vietnam.

You have to compare Iraq to Vietnam. The only difference is the speed of the media. In Vietnam, the battered, bloodied viet cong knew they had time on thier side. If they could hold out they knew public opinion wanted the U.S. out of there.

Fast forward to 2005. The battered, bloodied insurgents need only to hold on and wait. The get instant news via the internet and satellite TV and they know public opinion is thier side and that everyone is now clamoring to get U.S. troops out of there.

Its a screwed up situation for sure. One could only have hoped that RUmsfield approved the 300,000 troops that the chiefs of staff wanted instead of only sending about half that number. There was no way they could have enough people to secure munitions and the border.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I don't need to suffer your lectures about Veitnam - I was there in '65 & '66.
The NVA didn't bother wearing uniforms much either. A 5 year old was as likely to be your killer - as was his momma, or uncle.

Interesting, because the several Vietnam veterans in my family, and those I interacted with while doing volunteer work at the local American legion, painted an entirely different picture.

Also, the NVA switched to unconventional tactics towards the end of the war, a sign of their growing desperation and inability to match American military forces on the battlefield...the well trained and equipped American units serving at the outset of the war were quite capable of defeating the numerically superior NVA forces.

I too was there during the Vietnam war and my family members were fighting for the Cong Hoa (South Vietnam & US) directly & as inteligent, NVA directly & as inteligent, and VC directly. My deceased father was a secret agent/writer for the secret elite Can Lao party of Ngo Dinh Diem/Nhu.

Pretty much what CaptnKirk said was true in Vietnam. And, the VC were the one that were the most dangerous because they come in at night kill, maim, rob, boobies traps and disappear before day break. Presently the Wolf Brigade in Iraq is frighteningly similar to the death squad CL of Vietnam, and situation in Iraq with the myriad of factions fighting for power is very similar to the greedy parties of the South VN during the war.

Below is an example of the corruption of the South VN involving money, and there are way too many atrocities that I don't want to start. The coruption of SVN government during the war is one of the main contribution of the fall of the South, and Iraq govern body is heading currently in the same direction.

Nguyen Van Thieu was one of the last president of SVN that were accused of stolen hundreds of millions of US dollar from the national treasury, and over 30 crates of priceless national history arts/gold of SVN in the last few months of the war. He also was accused of siphon money from the billions dollar aid from the US intended for road work and bridge projects (given enough time I'm sure my rusty memory will recall many more atrocities, stupidities, and crimes that were done in the name of Democracy/Communist liberation).

I personally say that the US should cut the lost and go home, because it will save lives and money.

 

[irwincur]

I hope they stay over there because they are infinitely tougher than we are.

Which is why we are killing them at an approximately 100:1 ratio...

It is easy to be 'tougher' when you have the ability to hide in public, attack with surprise at a whim, and most importantly, you have the media on your side (the American media). It is harder to defend against those that are not in uniform and have these advantages over you.

In terms of the type of war this is (an insurgency in a largely urban environment) this has been a resounding success. Similar urban actions is Vietnam typically average hundreds of deaths per hour. The Pentagon stepped back after Vietnam and totally rebuilt the army for a modern war (not a Korean type model used in Vietnam). The success of this shift is evident today.


But I am sure that those on the left will simply cry about the war without putting anything in perspective. Usually a result of their immature thinking and coping mechanisms and their utter innability to live in the real world.

 

[Polish3d]

The insurgents in Iraq are not fighting for "freedom" in any sense... so to call them freedom fighters is simply inaccurate. Their vision of governance is the antithesis of what George Washington helped to create, so these comparisons are rather stupid. I tend to think its more out of a desire to disagree and be anti-everything-related-to-Bush's-view-of-Iraq than an actual objective analysis. Sad to see.

 

[Lemon law]

To Frackal,

As I earlier posted, the insurgency is just the little side show everyone is watching. They make lots of noise, blow up things, and you are correct they really stand for nothing. But the real failure ignored is that the three main groups, the Shites, the Sunni, and the Kurds have no common ground and can't be forced into a mutually governable position unless compelled.---at present our occupation is the compulsion, before that it was Saddam, and if we now leave its likely to fly appart with disasterous results the will spread accross many borders.

Maybe its valid to bash Bush for being fool enough to go in, its stupid to compare Iraq to Vietnam because of different times and different consequences for US withdrawal, but now that we are in this fine mess, what to do to get out of it is the better present question.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: Frackal
The insurgents in Iraq are not fighting for "freedom" in any sense... so to call them freedom fighters is simply inaccurate. Their vision of governance is the antithesis of what George Washington helped to create, so these comparisons are rather stupid. I tend to think its more out of a desire to disagree and be anti-everything-related-to-Bush's-view-of-Iraq than an actual objective analysis. Sad to see.

You can call them any thing you want, and so far part of their goal is to disrupt the current government and killing people and that is including American and it is costing the US Trillions. Before the war they weren't killing American, but now they are.

From what I recall during the war, the VC was terrorizes SVN exactly the way the Iraqis are doing to their country at the moment. The people/news/government of the South weren?t considering them freedom fighter and I personally feels what they had done is inexcusable and is a crime to the Vietnamese/American. However that was the tools that they had and it was quite affective, and now is being perfected/implemented by the "terrorist".

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Frackal,

As I earlier posted, the insurgency is just the little side show everyone is watching. They make lots of noise, blow up things, and you are correct they really stand for nothing. But the real failure ignored is that the three main groups, the Shites, the Sunni, and the Kurds have no common ground and can't be forced into a mutually governable position unless compelled.---at present our occupation is the compulsion, before that it was Saddam, and if we now leave its likely to fly appart with disasterous results the will spread accross many borders.

Maybe its valid to bash Bush for being fool enough to go in, its stupid to compare Iraq to Vietnam because of different times and different consequences for US withdrawal, but now that we are in this fine mess, what to do to get out of it is the better present question.

Can't you see the Iraqis require a common enemy to unite their people under one banner? And, the American is the enemy that they needed.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Frackal,

As I earlier posted, the insurgency is just the little side show everyone is watching. They make lots of noise, blow up things, and you are correct they really stand for nothing. But the real failure ignored is that the three main groups, the Shites, the Sunni, and the Kurds have no common ground and can't be forced into a mutually governable position unless compelled.---at present our occupation is the compulsion, before that it was Saddam, and if we now leave its likely to fly appart with disasterous results the will spread accross many borders.

Maybe its valid to bash Bush for being fool enough to go in, its stupid to compare Iraq to Vietnam because of different times and different consequences for US withdrawal, but now that we are in this fine mess, what to do to get out of it is the better present question.

The Sunnis are the outcast sect now, in a sense, but they are the ones who ostensibly want a strong central government and a united Iraq more than the other two groups...

So you have the uncooperative Sunnis who are causing most of the problems but nevertheless have the most to lose if Iraq is divided. (I guess, it would be an all-around disaster IAL)

The Shia are a mix, they are friendly to us for the most part and are making a noble effort at the political process

The Kurds are the best of the three, tolerant, fairly secular, peaceful, democratic... I suspect they will cooperate in a united Iraq as long as they gain a certain amount of autonomy.

You are quite correct in that other thread when you stress that any kind of pullout cannot be taken or done lightly... what do you think we should do??

 

[jjzelinski]

It's tragically ironic that we've liberated with deadly force a country that didn't need liberating, and we're torturing an enemy that happens to be the people we've liberated.

Crazy.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Which is why we are killing them at an approximately 100:1 ratio...

The problem with this is that to kill 3 or 4 'Insergrnts', they're haveing to kill 95 or so women, children, civilians in the mix.
That's the ratio of giving them replacement martyrs for decades - revenge against the perpetrators, blood debts to be paid back.

kids over 7 and under 18 who have had parents, brothers, sisters, and freinds killed by US action gonna get you on their timetable.

What's the option here ? Kill every single one in the country ?

We're rotating out every 6 months for Marines, and annually for the Army. Do you think there's continuity of knowledge there ?
We hard;y speak their laanguage - and they understand ours more than we understand theirs.
We're outnumbered 26,000,000 : 160,000 = that's over 160 to one, can't possibly monitor all the people all the time.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Pretty much what CaptnKirk said was true in Vietnam.

With the exception that such tactics, at least from a tactical and strategic perspective, does not win wars in isolation...using such tactics against a motivated and determined enemy will only cause them to fight harder...the only time such tactics prove effective is in a "hearts and minds" unpopular war, with the intent of eroding the enemy's will to fight. Under the tenets of conventional war, eroding the enemy's will to fight essentially consists of killing or wounding numerous enemy soldiers, destroying their military industrial support structure, and attriting their combat power (WW2 for example). Under unconventional war, you can erode the enemy's will to fight using such underhanded tactics...such tactics may not cause attrition from a numerical perspective, but it definitely creates an emotional toll, especially for soldiers who may not already believe in the cause for which they are fighting.

And, the VC were the one that were the most dangerous because they come in at night kill, maim, rob, boobies traps and disappear before day break.

More of a threat to their own people then American forces...although it does disrupt the reconstruction efforts that such death squads can roam freely and eliminate or otherwise intimidate anyone who chooses to collaborate with the Americans.

The problem with this is that to kill 3 or 4 'Insergrnts', they're haveing to kill 95 or so women, children, civilians in the mix. That's the ratio of giving them replacement martyrs for decades - revenge against the perpetrators, blood debts to be paid back

Complicated further by the fact that you cannot distinguish combatants from civilians.

The coruption of SVN government during the war is one of the main contribution of the fall of the South, and Iraq govern body is heading currently in the same direction.

Arguably one of the main reasons we failed to win the hearts and minds, as the SVN government was largely considered a corrupt puppet regime installed by the French and sustained by the Americans...quite a few "refugees" from Vietnam live in SoCal...living the luxurious good life on money and funds their families raped from Vietnam in the 1960s...this is not to say that every wealthy Vietnamese immigrant did this...but you can usually tell the difference...the ones who earned their wealth wake up and go to jobs in the morning...the scum go shopping at the luxury malls.

I personally say that the US should cut the lost and go home, because it will save lives and money.

What America needs to do is apologize to the world, appeal to the UN for international assistance on the ground, get neighboring Middle Eastern nations involved in the rebuilding process to place a Muslim face on the reconstruction efforts, and then depart the theater permanently.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975


Complicated further by the fact that you cannot distinguish combatants from civilians.

It becomes a cycle of revenge that sustains itself. The Brits found this out there under the 'Laurence of Arabia' days.
We're just doing it again - nothing learned from history in dealing with the culture.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975


Complicated further by the fact that you cannot distinguish combatants from civilians.

It becomes a cycle of revenge that sustains itself. The Brits found this out there under the 'Laurence of Arabia' days.
We're just doing it again - nothing learned from history in dealing with the culture.

You will notice a great shortage of students of history endorsing this war - especially those that have studied military history.

Countries always get in trouble when the ideologoues would rather you listened to their speil, rather than read a book or two...

Future Shock

 

[irwincur]

It's tragically ironic that we've liberated with deadly force a country that didn't need liberating, and we're torturing an enemy that happens to be the people we've liberated.

OK, so Iraq was a free nation before we removed Saddam? Free maybe for a few at the top. The fact of the matter is that even with the insurgency, fewer Iraqi's are dying every month than when Saddam was in power.

I would also like to see where we have an open policy of torture.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: irwincur

It's tragically ironic that we've liberated with deadly force a country that didn't need liberating, and we're torturing an enemy that happens to be the people we've liberated.

OK, so Iraq was a free nation before we removed Saddam? Free maybe for a few at the top. The fact of the matter is that even with the insurgency, fewer Iraqi's are dying every month than when Saddam was in power.

.

Do you actually believe that if the Dub and his handlers had tried to sell this war based on the "freedom" of the Iraqi's the American public would have supported it? The truth is Americans care for the Iraqis about as much as the Iraqis care for Americans which is not very much.

 

[Lemon law]

Getting back to Frackal who asks what do I think we should do now.

We have no choice but to ride the Tiger and hope we can get a stable government going. Right now the question is will we fall off the Tiger or can we hang on. Meanwhile, Bush can tone down his rethoric, stop the torture, and start to do less talking and more listening.

And also ramp up fixing Iraqie infrastructure so the people can have running water, electricity, and fix far faster all that we destroyed in the past 15 years. And less joy riding to show the flag---all that does is make the US a target for the insurgents.

And we are going to have to listen to regional players like Syria and Iran instead of just demonising them. Just because we started out on the wrong PR foot does not mean we can't start to turn that around instead of making it even worse than present.

In short, all the things Bush is not doing and does not have a clue needs doing.