Iraq vs. Vietnam...

[TypicalFish 0]

Sent to me by a friend on the Hill associated with the Republican Policy Committee. Not making a statement (I have my own feelings on the matters) ; just interested in people's commentary (I may share any feedback with them, if that is OK).

Fish

CLEARING UP THE “QUAGMIRE” IN IRAQ:
WHY KENNEDY’S VIETNAM IS NOT BUSH’S IRAQ
Comparing Vietnam and Iraq
Point 1:
a) What year did President Kennedy send forces to Vietnam? In 1961, JFK sent “advisers” to
Vietnam, but they were not authorized to use force (authorization to use force would not
occur for nearly another 3 years).
b) What year did President Bush send forces to Iraq? In 2003, under Congressional
authorization to use force that was provided in advance of any U.S. forces being deployed
(P.L. 107-243).
Point 2:
a) When did Congress authorize use of force in Vietnam? Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution in 1964 that authorized use of force. However, this was repealed by Congress in
January 1971.
b) When did Congress authorize use of force in Iraq? October 2002 (P.L. 107-243).
Point 3:
a) How many troops did the U.S. send to Vietnam? Approximately 3.5 million from 1964-75.
b) How many troops has the U.S. sent to Iraq? 466,985 total personnel were deployed for
Operation Iraqi Freedom, as of April 30, 2003 (Source: CRS-cited report prepared by the
staff of the U.S. Central Command, Combined Forces Air Component Commander).
Point 4:
a) How many draftees were sent to Vietnam? Approximately 2 million.
b) How many draftees were sent to Iraq? Zero. The U.S. has an all-volunteer armed force.

2
Point 5:
a) How many U.S. soldiers died in Vietnam? 58,178 names are on the Vietnam Wall
(approximately 20,000 were draftees).
b) How many U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq? Approximately 620.
Point 6:
A) How many allies joined the U.S. in the Vietnam War? Eight (South Vietnam, Australia, South
Korea, Thailand, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Spain).
B) How many allies joined the U.S. in Iraq? 30, including 16 of 26 NATO allies.
Point 7:
a) At the war’s end, how many North Vietnamese were liberated by U.S. forces during the war?
Zero. North Vietnam captured South Vietnam.
b) At the war’s end, how many Iraqis were liberated by U.S. forces during the war? 25 million.
Point 8:
a) What year and month did U.S. forces take Hanoi? This never happened during 11 years of
war.
b) What year and month did U.S. forces take Baghdad? April, 2003 (less than 30 days after the
start of the war).
Point 9:
a) When did U.S. post-war reconstruction efforts begin in North Vietnam? This never happened.
North Vietnam captured South Vietnam.
b) When did U.S. post-war reconstruction efforts begin in Iraq? Immediately.
Point 10:
a) How many different ethnic factions and religions had to be balanced in Vietnam? North
Vietnam was estimated to be 85% ethnic Vietnamese. However, once all of Vietnam became
Communist, religious and ethnic factions did not matter to the anti-democratic government.
b) How many different ethnic factions and religions must be balanced in Iraq? Many: Sunnis,
Shias, Kurds, Christians, Jews, and others.
Point 11:
a) How soon after the start of the Vietnam War did Senate Democrats vote to cut off funding and
benefits for soldiers fighting in the field? Nine years after President Kennedy sent advisors to
Vietnam, and nearly six years after Congress authorized the use of force in Vietnam (June
1970, vote #180, H.R. 15628).
b) How soon after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom did Senate Democrats vote to cut off
funding and benefits for U.S. soldiers fighting in the field? Only seven months (October 2003,
vote #400, S. 1689). Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and 11 others voted against Iraq supplemental.

Point 12:
a) Did the U.S. armed forces lose the Vietnam War? No, Congress did when it failed to support
South Vietnam after the peace treaty.
b) Will the U.S. armed forces lose the peace in Iraq? This depends on whether Congress fails to
support America’s efforts to reconstruct Iraq and build democracy there.
Comparing Ho Chi Minh and Saddam Hussein
Point 13:
a) How long did it take U.S. forces to capture Ho Chi Minh? This never happened.
b) How long did it take U.S. forces to capture Saddam Hussein? Less than nine months from the
start of the war, December 13, 2003.
Point 14:
a) What happened to the Vietnamese that fled Vietnam to Cambodia during the war? Many were
murdered by Pol Pot; many others never returned.
b) What happened after the war to the ethnic minorities and Iraqis that fled Iraq to neighboring
countries? Almost all have returned and started to build new lives under democracy and a
free-market economy.
Point 15:
a) How many UNSC resolutions did Ho Chi Minh violate? None.
b) How many UNSC resolution did Saddam Hussein violate? 17, beginning with UNSC Res. 687,
which was part of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement.
Point 16:
a) Against how many Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Lao did Ho Chi Minh use chemical and
biological weapons? None.
b) Against how many Iraqis, Iranians, and Kurds did Saddam Hussein use chemical and biological
weapons? Thousands. Exact fatality figures are still not known.
Prepared by RPC Analyst XXXX

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[outrager 6]

Yo !

A very dumb and meaningless comparison, especially considering the fact that a mess in Iraq is only beginning and will be getting worse for many years to come.

bsbd!

Yuri.

[kelpdiver 2]

This is mostly accurate, and not terribly skewed for parisan reasons. Couple thoughts.

- I wouldn't call Vietnam Kennedy's. LBJ made it the mess, and Nixon held onto that baby too long even after his Vietnamization speech.

- Point 11 appears a bit spun. Did Kerry vote to stop war funding, or did he want it funded in a different manner?

- It's a bit early to make this comparison as we are in year 2 (or 13 if 1991 counts) of this war. It would be akin to Vietnam in 1966.

[billvon 3,120]

Some eerie similarities:

Both administrations used false information to convince a reluctant congress to authorize the use of force. In the case of Vietnam it was fictional attacks against the Maddox; in the case of Iraq it was WMD's, which was the one reason, bureaucractically, everyone could agree on.

In Vietnam there were less than 100 fatalities during the first year of the war (1965.) Deaths didn't start to pick up until the second year.

In both cases the war provoked a massive schism in society, with both sides blasting the other for "killing children" or "making us lose the war."

In both cases, once the original premise was disproven, the war became a "fight against terror," to free peace-loving people from a brutal dictatorial government. From a US state department bulletin, 1965:

"South Vietnam is fighting for its life against a brutal campaign of terror and armed attack inspired, directed, supplied, and controlled by the Communist regime in Hanoi. This flagrant aggression has been going on for years, but recently the pace has quickened and the threat has now become acute. . . In Vietnam a totally new brand of aggression has been loosed against an independent people who want to make their way in peace and freedom."

In both cases supporters of the war claimed it wasn't like the last poorly-conceived military action. Again, state department 1965:

"Vietnam is not another Greece, where indigenous guerrilla forces used friendly neighboring territory as a sanctuary. Vietnam is not another Malaya, where Communist guerrillas were, for the most part, physically distinguishable from the peaceful majority they sought to control. Vietnam is not another Philippines, where Communist guerrillas were physically separated from the source of their moral and physical support."

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

Yo !

A very dumb and meaningless comparison, especially considering the fact that a mess in Iraq is only beginning and will be getting worse for many years to come.

bsbd!

Yuri.

Ummmm...ok...what makes you think that? Instead of just stating that something is dumb and meaningless, state why it is dumb and meaningless.


I personally believe that Vietnam and Iraq are like comparing apples and oranges. I don't know where to start with the differences...but this isn't one of them...

Quote

considering the fact that a mess in Iraq is only beginning and will be getting worse for many years to come.

~R+R

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[CDRINF 1]

If you want a historical analogy, the comparison of Iraq with the Spanish-American War in 1898 and subsequent Philipine Insurrection is probably more accurate than the somewhat contrived comparisons (like or unlike) to Vietnam.

In 1898 we started a war based primarily on government and media hype over revenge against the suspected perpetrators of a terrorist act (suspected Spanish bombing of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor) which the government used as justification to invade the Spanish Colonies of Cuba and the Philipines. This also gave us a convenient excuse to eliminate Spanish influence in the Western hemisphere which we had wanted to do for some time. The aptly named, "Splendid Little War" lead to U.S. seizure of these colonies in a relatively quick military campaign. The locals were initially grateful to be rid of the hated Spanish, but a large segment of the Philipine population came to resent continued U.S. presence and dominance of their country. This eventually gave rise to a Muslim extremist insurgency (does any of this sound familiar yet?) that lead to a very brutal guerilla war in the Philipines in the early 1900s. The Army eventualy defeated the guerrillas, but U.S. miitary presence in the Philipines continued through most of the 20th century with the country not given full independence until 1945 and the U.S. maintaining bases there until almost the end of the century. There is even still a residual U.S. military presence. .....and oh by the way... the remnants of the muslim guerrilla movement are still there.

CDR

[wmw999 2,589]

Personally, I think it's easy to compare apples to oranges; there are similarities, and there are differences, and you can learn from both.

That said, that's a really nice post comparing Iraq to the Spanish American war and the subsequent US-ification of the Philippines; new perspectives are great. Thanks

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[TheAnvil 0]

The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are really few and far between. I don't give a lot of credence to the arguments of those drawing such parallels because of the existence of so many random variables that impact foreign policy and its formulation. Those seeking to apply a 'cookie cutter' approach to foreign policy shall always meet strenuous opposition from the facts facing them.

A few random thoughts from TheAnvil:

- There isn't a North Iraq and a South Iraq (nor and East/West)

- COMINTERN is not backing any insurgents in Iraq, nor is any other multi-national group boasting a superpower as a member

- though a bastardized form of Containment Theory could be formed with regards to terrorism, it is not the main reason for our presence in Iraq and would be so mutated from the original I doubt that either Kennan or his nemesis Mr. Lippman would recognize it.

- the Cold War has ended and with its cessation the bi-polar geopolitical environment has gone the way of the dodo

- the schism in US society during the Iraq conflict was engineered by the democratic party. The one during the Vietnam war was not.

- Kerry served in Vietnam, in case you hadn't heard. Don't think he's been to Iraq lately.

- The insurgents in Iraq have no superpower funding/assisting/training them

- the insurgents in Iraq have no home base of operations such as North Vietnamese insurgents in the South had.

That's all for now. I need to work out.

Beers to all,

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[jakee 1,596]

Just looking at the more political type points there

Quote

the schism in US society during the Iraq conflict was engineered by the democratic party.

By having a different point of view than the Republicans?

Quote

Kerry served in Vietnam, in case you hadn't heard. Don't think he's been to Iraq lately.

Ummm, because he's old? Maybe in 30 years another democratic candidate will point to his Iraq experience.
Besides, you could say that the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that Bush at least showed his face in the second one

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Kerry served in Vietnam, in case you hadn't heard. Don't think he's been to Iraq lately.

Ummm, because he's old? Maybe in 30 years another democratic candidate will point to his Iraq experience.
Besides, you could say that the difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that Bush at least showed his face in the second one

A number of other nation's leaders have also visited Iraq. I think what Anvil was citing though was that Senator Kerry hasn't even visited Iraq yet (I could be wrong). I wonder what kind of reception the troops in the field would give him? Kerry's service says one thing and commands respect, his conduct says another.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[mikkey 0]

It is problematic to compare different Wars in different locations in different decades.

However, there is some similarity in my opinion and that is the inability of American decision makers and military to understand "the locals". One of the reasons the North Vietnamese / Vietcong "won", was that they took full advantage of the local conditions (weather, terrain, etc.) and that their mentality and culture was very different – able to endure and displaying ruthlessness and applying guerrilla type tactics that a “westerner” probably would not.
We are IMO seeing a little of this again in Iraq. The culture and mentality is very different in both tactics (e.g. not many “westerners” would act as suicide bombers) and how the people react. Depending on military strength might really backfire. The way things have gone in Falluja and Najaf shows that the US commanders do not understand the locals and that might become a major problem. Trying to kill everyone of the “insurgents” will only create more of those with plenty of money, weapons and explosives available. These guys are not “scared” the way we westerners are – going in hard might pacify a country in a different part of the world – in places like Iraq it might just do exactly the opposite.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[maxmadmax 8]

If we don't stop 'em over there then THEY will do THIER DAMNDEST TO STOP US HERE.

we ARE AT WAR.......................

Don't go away mad....just go away!

[bch7773 0]

Quote

This is mostly accurate, and not terribly skewed for parisan reasons. Couple thoughts.

- It's a bit early to make this comparison as we are in year 2 (or 13 if 1991 counts) of this war. It would be akin to Vietnam in 1966.

I totally agree with this... its really kinda early to say its another vietnam, but this iraq mess really doesn't look promising.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Tonto 1]

Quote

If you want a historical analogy, the comparison of Iraq with the Spanish-American War in 1898 and subsequent Philipine Insurrection is probably more accurate than the somewhat contrived comparisons (like or unlike) to Vietnam.

This is a far more valid comparison than Iraq/vietnam, with one possible exception.

I certainly hope the Iraqi civilian death toll remains in the 10's of thousands and doesn't make it to the 100's of thousands.

t

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/philippine.htm

"During the War with Spain, Emilio Aguinaldo (who had led an unsuccessful insurrection in 1896-97) organized a native army in the Philippines and secured control of several islands, including much of Luzon. Following the victory in the War With Spain, treaty negotiations were initiated between Spanish and American representatives in Paris. The Treaty of Paris was signed on December 10, 1898. Among its conditions was the cession of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico to the United States (Cuba was granted its independence). Cession of the Philippines to the United States (Treaty of Paris, 10 December 1898) disappointed many Filipinos. President William McKinley issued a proclamation on December 21, 1898, declaring United States policy to be one of "benevolent assimilation" in which "the mild sway of justice and right" would be substituted for "arbitrary rule." When this was published in the islands on January 4, 1899, references to "American sovereignty" having been prudently deleted, Phillipine President Aguinaldo issued his own proclamation that condemned "violent and aggressive seizure" by the United States and threatened war. Hostilities broke out on the night of February 4, 1899, after two American privates on patrol killed three Filipino soldiers in a suburb of Manila.

Thus began a war that would last for more than two years. Some 126,000 American soldiers would be committed to the conflict; 4,234 American and 16,000 Filipino soldiers, part of a nationwide guerrilla movement of indeterminate numbers, died. The general population, caught between Americans and rebels, suffered horribly. According to historian Gregorio Zaide, as many as 200,000 civilians died, largely because of famine and disease, by the end of the war. Atrocities were committed on both sides.

The Filipino troops, armed with old rifles and bolos and carrying anting-anting (magical charms), were no match for American troops in open combat, but they were formidable opponents in guerrilla warfare. For General Ewell S. Otis, commander of the United States forces, who had been appointed military governor of the Philippines, the conflict began auspiciously with the expulsion of the rebels from Manila and its suburbs by late February and the capture of Malolos, the revolutionary capital, on March 31, 1899. Aguinaldo and his government escaped, however, establishing a new capital at San Isidro in Nueva Ecija Province. The Filipino cause suffered a number of reverses. The attempts of Mabini and his successor as president of Aguinaldo's cabinet, Pedro Paterno, to negotiate an armistice in May 1899 ended in failure because Otis insisted on unconditional surrender.

Still more serious was the murder of Luna, Aguinaldo's most capable military commander, in June. Hot-tempered and cruel, Luna collected a large number of enemies among his associates, and, according to rumor, his death was ordered by Aguinaldo. With his best commander dead and his troops suffering continued defeats as American forces pushed into northern Luzon, Aguinaldo dissolved the regular army in November 1899 and ordered the establishment of decentralized guerrilla commands in each of several military zones. More than ever, American soldiers knew the miseries of fighting an enemy that was able to move at will within the civilian population in the villages.

Although Aguinaldo's government did not have effective authority over the whole archipelago and resistance was strongest and best organized in the Tagalog area of Central Luzon, the notion entertained by many Americans that independence was supported only by the "Tagalog tribe" was refuted by the fact that there was sustained fighting in the Visayan Islands and in Mindanao. Although the ports of Iloilo on Panay and Cebu on Cebu were captured in February 1899, and Tagbilaran, capital of Bohol, in March, guerrilla resistance continued in the mountainous interiors of these islands. Only on the sugar-growing island of Negros did the local authorities peacefully accept United States rule. On Mindanao the United States Army faced the determined opposition of Christian Filipinos loyal to the republic.

Aguinaldo was captured at Palanan on March 23, 1901, by a force of Philippine Scouts loyal to the United States and was brought back to Manila. Convinced of the futility of further resistance, he swore allegiance to the United States and issued a proclamation calling on his compatriots to lay down their arms. Yet insurgent resistance continued in various parts of the Philippines until 1903.

The Moros on Mindanao and on the Sulu Archipelago, suspicious of both Christian Filipino insurrectionists and Americans, remained for the most part neutral. In August 1899, an agreement had been signed between General John C. Bates, representing the United States government, and the sultan of Sulu, Jamal-ul Kiram II, pledging a policy of noninterference on the part of the United States. In 1903, however, a Moro province was established by the American authorities, and a more forward policy was implemented: slavery was outlawed, schools that taught a non-Muslim curriculum were established, and local governments that challenged the authority of traditional community leaders were organized. A new legal system replaced the sharia, or Islamic law. United States rule, even more than that of the Spanish, was seen as a challenge to Islam. Armed resistance grew, and the Moro province remained under United States military rule until 1914, by which time the major Muslim groups had been subjugated.

Sources and Methods
President McKinley and American Imperialism: A Study on United States Foreign and Domestic Policy in the Philippines 1898-1900 John W. Miller III; Carl D. Baner (Faculty Advisor) Air Command and Staff College 1998
Mr. Dooley on Imperialism: Satire by Finley Peter Dunne By Jim Zwick, Syracuse University [If you have not previously read these, you should immediately remedy this situation. If you have read them before, you will surely wish to do so again.]
Mark Twain on the Philippines By Jim Zwick, Syracuse University
Sentenaryo/Centennial A Collaborative Exploration of the Cultural and Political Impacts of the Philippine Revolution and the Philippine-American War
Philippine Insurrection @ US Army Center for Military History "






t

It's the year of the Pig.

[boudy 0]

Not to dispute your point that it is good to consider the war/occupation from a different perspective, but the Philippine comparison was publicly aired by Pres. Bush himself in October 2003. So, I guess we have a bi-partisan agreement that the best bad anology might be the Philippines.

If you'd like some relevant, interesting views on American patriotism, dissent and military adventurism, Google Mark Twain & philippine war/occupation.

Here's link to story regarding our President's view of history revisited:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090114/
"The Bush administration seems, for the moment, to have stopped making analogies between post-Gulf War II Iraq and post-World War II Germany (an argument that has been refuted at least a couple of times). Now President Bush himself has taken to likening the democratic prospects of modern Iraq to those of the early 20th-century Philippines. In a recent speech in Manila, Bush said, speaking of the critics of the Iraqi occupation:

Democracy always has skeptics. Some say the culture of the Middle East will not sustain the institutions of democracy. The same doubts were proven wrong nearly six decades ago, when the Republic of the Philippines became the first democracy in Asia.

The comparison between Iraq and the Philippines may be more accurate than the one between Iraq and West Germany, but it is hardly more comforting. In fact, it is so discomfiting—it implies such a dismal forecast for America's occupation in Iraq over the next several years (for that matter, the next few decades)—that it's hard to imagine Bush would have made such a remark if he'd understood its full implications."

[rickjump1 0]

Every time we showed any sign of weakness like stopping the bombing, there was an increase in enemy activity in the south (we got more rocket and mortar attacks at night).The only thing they understood was force. We certainly never killed all the insurgents in Vietnam, but we broke their back during the Tet Offensive of 68 and they never fully recovered. From then on we fought the North Vietnamese Army (usually under their terms; kicking their asses). They only came to the peace talks after a relentless bombing campaign up north with B52's in Dec '72 I believe. A little thing called Watergate probably saved North Vietnam from being bombed back to the stone age. I'm glad now this never happened. Our adversary today knows only one thing: force. No amount of diplomacy will stop him from his objective of killing every American and he will come here to do it. Thats why we fight him in his neighborhood.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.