Iraq more similar to Vietnam or Afghanistan?

[whiskeytown]

A post by Andyfox about Iraq/Vietnam similarites hit close to something I wanted to write a poll on.

Most of us who look past the propaganda one-liner about the enemy "hating our freedoms" understand that Osama's tactics are much deeper and well thought out then given credit for. As many writers have stated, the broad goal of Osama is to create a repeat of the Afghanistan situation, where a world power is drawn into a quagmire and literally bankrupted and brought down from within as the Soviet Union was in the late 80's/early 90's.

Iraq is similar to Vietnam, it is also similar to the Afghanistan situation the Russians faced in the 80's and was compared frequently to Vietnam during that time frame.

Which comparison is more accurate and why?

rb

[Copernicus]

neither

[zasterguava]

Well here's some reasons it isn't similar to Vietnam courtesy of Christopher Hitchens:

[ QUOTE ]
1) The Vietminh, later the Vietnamese NLF, were allies of the United States and Britain against the Axis during the Second World War. The Iraqi Baath party was on the other side.

2) Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson in proclaiming Vietnam's own declaration of independence, a note that has hardly been struck in Baathist or jihadist propaganda.

3) Vietnam was resisting French colonialism and had defeated it by 1954 at Dien Bien Phu; the real 'war' was therefore over before the US even landed troops in the country.

4) The subsequent conflict was fought to preserve an imposed partition of a country striving to reunify itself; if anything, the Iraqi case is the reverse.

5) The Vietnamese leadership appealed to the UN: the Saddamists and their jihadist allies murdered the first UN envoy to arrive in Iraq, saying that he was fit only for death because he had assisted in securing the independence of East Timor from Indonesia.

6) Vietnam never threatened any other country; Iraq under Saddam invaded two of its neighbours and declared one of them (Kuwait) to be part of Iraq itself.

7) Vietnam was a victim of chemical and ecological warfare; Iraq was the perpetrator of such illegal methods and sought to develop even worse nuclear and biological ones.

8) Vietnam neither sponsored nor encouraged terrorist tactics beyond its borders; Iraq under Saddam was a haven for Abu Nidal and other random killers and its 'insurgents' now proclaim war on Hindus, Jews, unbelievers and the wrong sort of Muslim.

9) There has for years been a 'people's war' fought by genuine guerrillas in Iraq; it is the war of liberation conducted by Kurdish fighters against genocide and dictatorship. Inconveniently for all analogies, these fighters are ranged on the side of the US and Britain.

10) The Iraqi Communist party and the Iraqi labour movement advocated the overthrow of Saddam (if not necessarily by Bush), a rather conspicuous difference from the situation in Indochina. These forces still form a part of the tenuous civil society that is fighting to defend itself against the parties of God.

11) The American-sponsored regimes in Vietnam tended, among other things, to be strongly identified with one confessional minority (Catholic) to the exclusion of secular, nationalist and Buddhist forces. The elected government in Iraq may have a sectarian hue, but at least it draws upon hitherto repressed majority populations - Kurds and Shias - and at least the American embassy works as a solvent upon religious and ethnic divisions rather than an inciter of them.

12) President Eisenhower admitted that if there had ever been a fair election in Vietnam, it would have been won by Ho Chi Minh; the Baath party's successors refused to participate in the Iraqi elections and their jihadist allies declared that democracy was an alien concept and threatened all voters with murder.

13) The Americans in Vietnam employed methods ('search and destroy'; 'body count') and weapons (napalm, Agent Orange) that targeted civilians. Today, those who make indiscriminate war on the innocent show their hand on the streets of Baghdad and are often the proxies of neighbouring dictatorships or of international gangster organisations.
1) The Vietminh, later the Vietnamese NLF, were allies of the United States and Britain against the Axis during the Second World War. The Iraqi Baath party was on the other side.

2) Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson in proclaiming Vietnam's own declaration of independence, a note that has hardly been struck in Baathist or jihadist propaganda.

3) Vietnam was resisting French colonialism and had defeated it by 1954 at Dien Bien Phu; the real 'war' was therefore over before the US even landed troops in the country.

4) The subsequent conflict was fought to preserve an imposed partition of a country striving to reunify itself; if anything, the Iraqi case is the reverse.

5) The Vietnamese leadership appealed to the UN: the Saddamists and their jihadist allies murdered the first UN envoy to arrive in Iraq, saying that he was fit only for death because he had assisted in securing the independence of East Timor from Indonesia.

6) Vietnam never threatened any other country; Iraq under Saddam invaded two of its neighbours and declared one of them (Kuwait) to be part of Iraq itself.

7) Vietnam was a victim of chemical and ecological warfare; Iraq was the perpetrator of such illegal methods and sought to develop even worse nuclear and biological ones.

8) Vietnam neither sponsored nor encouraged terrorist tactics beyond its borders; Iraq under Saddam was a haven for Abu Nidal and other random killers and its 'insurgents' now proclaim war on Hindus, Jews, unbelievers and the wrong sort of Muslim.

9) There has for years been a 'people's war' fought by genuine guerrillas in Iraq; it is the war of liberation conducted by Kurdish fighters against genocide and dictatorship. Inconveniently for all analogies, these fighters are ranged on the side of the US and Britain.

10) The Iraqi Communist party and the Iraqi labour movement advocated the overthrow of Saddam (if not necessarily by Bush), a rather conspicuous difference from the situation in Indochina. These forces still form a part of the tenuous civil society that is fighting to defend itself against the parties of God.

11) The American-sponsored regimes in Vietnam tended, among other things, to be strongly identified with one confessional minority (Catholic) to the exclusion of secular, nationalist and Buddhist forces. The elected government in Iraq may have a sectarian hue, but at least it draws upon hitherto repressed majority populations - Kurds and Shias - and at least the American embassy works as a solvent upon religious and ethnic divisions rather than an inciter of them.

12) President Eisenhower admitted that if there had ever been a fair election in Vietnam, it would have been won by Ho Chi Minh; the Baath party's successors refused to participate in the Iraqi elections and their jihadist allies declared that democracy was an alien concept and threatened all voters with murder.

13) The Americans in Vietnam employed methods ('search and destroy'; 'body count') and weapons (napalm, Agent Orange) that targeted civilians. Today, those who make indiscriminate war on the innocent show their hand on the streets of Baghdad and are often the proxies of neighbouring dictatorships or of international gangster organisations.


[/ QUOTE ]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
A post by Andyfox about Iraq/Vietnam similarites hit close to something I wanted to write a poll on.

Most of us who look past the propaganda one-liner about the enemy "hating our freedoms" understand that Osama's tactics are much deeper and well thought out then given credit for. As many writers have stated, the broad goal of Osama is to create a repeat of the Afghanistan situation, where a world power is drawn into a quagmire and literally bankrupted and brought down from within as the Soviet Union was in the late 80's/early 90's.

Iraq is similar to Vietnam, it is also similar to the Afghanistan situation the Russians faced in the 80's and was compared frequently to Vietnam during that time frame.

Which comparison is more accurate and why?

rb

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Bush in a "major" speech on terrorism a few weeks ago compared pulling out of Iraq to pulling out of Vietnam. He said U.S. shouldn't repeat the mistake it made in pulling out of Vietnam.

Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam

Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
neither

[/ QUOTE ]

I think both are difficult comparisons, but I voted for Vietnam as the question posed only a binary choice and asked "which is more like...", and that seemed the best I could muster.

Which brings us to question #2, following the format of this quiz:


Which is more similar to an Owl: a Cat or a Dog?

[NewTeaBag]

Similar more ever slightly to Vietnam only in that, yet again, politicians, with minimal military experience themselves, have sent The US Military off to do a job which it is neither trained nor properly equipped to do with little to no thought to the "post major combat phase."

On the whole, though, Vietnam was a very different situation with numerous things effed up about the way the conflict was fought from the US side. The major similarity is just that a similar number of things are messed up about the prosecution of The Iraq campaign vice similar types of things.

[anatta]

Bush has compared this War to Vietnam, the lasting presence to Korea and WWII, WWII numerous times in fact, and this war is compared to the Revolutionary War, our Civil War.

Reminds me of the Barbary Wars, you know, but for the pirates, the parallels are scary.

[CORed]

I voted for Afghanistan, although there are parallels with both. Like the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, we are occupying Iraq with the objective of imposing our system of government on them. While I firmly believe that our system is superior to the Soviets' there is an irony in the notion of trying to impose democracy by force that his hard to reconcile. If one were to use Vietnam as an analogy, our role is probably more like that of the French than of our own role there.

We are essentially engaged in an effort in colonialism, hoping that we can solve all of our problems by teaching the ignorant savages how to live right, whether they want to be taught or not. It probably won't work any better for us than it did for the Russians in Afghanistan, the French in Indochina and North Africa or the British in India and Africa. There is a reason none of the old colonial empires exist any more.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
Well here's some reasons it isn't similar to Vietnam courtesy of Christopher Hitchens:

[ QUOTE ]
1) The Vietminh, later the Vietnamese NLF, were allies of the United States and Britain against the Axis during the Second World War. The Iraqi Baath party was on the other side.

2) Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson in proclaiming Vietnam's own declaration of independence, a note that has hardly been struck in Baathist or jihadist propaganda.

3) Vietnam was resisting French colonialism and had defeated it by 1954 at Dien Bien Phu; the real 'war' was therefore over before the US even landed troops in the country.

4) The subsequent conflict was fought to preserve an imposed partition of a country striving to reunify itself; if anything, the Iraqi case is the reverse.

5) The Vietnamese leadership appealed to the UN: the Saddamists and their jihadist allies murdered the first UN envoy to arrive in Iraq, saying that he was fit only for death because he had assisted in securing the independence of East Timor from Indonesia.

6) Vietnam never threatened any other country; Iraq under Saddam invaded two of its neighbours and declared one of them (Kuwait) to be part of Iraq itself.

7) Vietnam was a victim of chemical and ecological warfare; Iraq was the perpetrator of such illegal methods and sought to develop even worse nuclear and biological ones.

8) Vietnam neither sponsored nor encouraged terrorist tactics beyond its borders; Iraq under Saddam was a haven for Abu Nidal and other random killers and its 'insurgents' now proclaim war on Hindus, Jews, unbelievers and the wrong sort of Muslim.

9) There has for years been a 'people's war' fought by genuine guerrillas in Iraq; it is the war of liberation conducted by Kurdish fighters against genocide and dictatorship. Inconveniently for all analogies, these fighters are ranged on the side of the US and Britain.

10) The Iraqi Communist party and the Iraqi labour movement advocated the overthrow of Saddam (if not necessarily by Bush), a rather conspicuous difference from the situation in Indochina. These forces still form a part of the tenuous civil society that is fighting to defend itself against the parties of God.

11) The American-sponsored regimes in Vietnam tended, among other things, to be strongly identified with one confessional minority (Catholic) to the exclusion of secular, nationalist and Buddhist forces. The elected government in Iraq may have a sectarian hue, but at least it draws upon hitherto repressed majority populations - Kurds and Shias - and at least the American embassy works as a solvent upon religious and ethnic divisions rather than an inciter of them.

12) President Eisenhower admitted that if there had ever been a fair election in Vietnam, it would have been won by Ho Chi Minh; the Baath party's successors refused to participate in the Iraqi elections and their jihadist allies declared that democracy was an alien concept and threatened all voters with murder.

13) The Americans in Vietnam employed methods ('search and destroy'; 'body count') and weapons (napalm, Agent Orange) that targeted civilians. Today, those who make indiscriminate war on the innocent show their hand on the streets of Baghdad and are often the proxies of neighbouring dictatorships or of international gangster organisations.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

When you want the point to be missed or intentionally misleading, you would use comparing differences strategy to deny similarities, like many posters here. Not to blame them too much - Bush and media are perfect examples how strategy of comparing differences is successful in bringing a fog over publics eyes; after all talking about similarities opens a debate, brings a discussion, are comparable, while those are not needed too much when talking about differences. It puts you in position of choosing a side rather than fight against the real evil or finding a solution.

Here are some similarities and those are what should be talked about IMO:
- USA was unwanted invader and occupier
- aggression was justified by trumping up similar 'noble' reasons
- aggression resulted in millions of victims and torture was justified
- establishing the same puppet government with no authority on the ground
- hundred of billions of dollars spent
- no victory, total failure

Looking about similarities rather than finding differences bring much better perspective and much clearer picture about the subject and finding solutions. Of course many would disagree.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A post by Andyfox about Iraq/Vietnam similarites hit close to something I wanted to write a poll on.

Most of us who look past the propaganda one-liner about the enemy "hating our freedoms" understand that Osama's tactics are much deeper and well thought out then given credit for. As many writers have stated, the broad goal of Osama is to create a repeat of the Afghanistan situation, where a world power is drawn into a quagmire and literally bankrupted and brought down from within as the Soviet Union was in the late 80's/early 90's.

Iraq is similar to Vietnam, it is also similar to the Afghanistan situation the Russians faced in the 80's and was compared frequently to Vietnam during that time frame.

Which comparison is more accurate and why?

rb

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Bush in a "major" speech on terrorism a few weeks ago compared pulling out of Iraq to pulling out of Vietnam. He said U.S. shouldn't repeat the mistake it made in pulling out of Vietnam.

Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam

Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what the Hitchens article I quoted was in response to. I don't agree with Hitchens on the Iraq war but as always his writing is amazing.