View Full Version : 21st Century Vietnamization
July-31st-2003, 03:32 PM
Given the longhaul committment of a probable two-term administration to a military occupation of Iraq, what is most likely?
1. Saddam is killed/captured; a stable, popular pro-US state is established and US forces substantially withdraw.
2. Continuing casulties/defense expeditures cause a erosion of US support and force disengagement before we can "democratize" the country.
3. Anti-US forces (Al Queda, Iranian-backed Shi-ites, Baathist holdouts, radical Islamics, whatever) undermine/overthrow whatever we put in place forcing continued occupation or reoccupation.
4. Kurdish nationalism causes serious problems resulting in destabilzation of US/Turk relations and a continuing military presence.
5. Iraqi nationalism/anti-US sentiments become dominant and force either withdrawl of US forces or an occupation that results in high casulties and is domestically and/or internationally unpopular.
7. All of the above except 1
8. World events in Korea, Israel/Palestine, China/Taiwan, India/Pakistan,etc make Iraq seem insignificant.
Will the costs in dollars/lives/military morale become too high over the next decade or so? Will increasing terroist attacks, worldwide conflict and anti-US protest build until we retreat from superpower status into semi-isolation? I expect we'll see a long struggle and bitter debate before it's over. Sadly, the future appears reminescent.
July-31st-2003, 03:36 PM
The major difference is that unlike Vietnam, we have defeated the enemy in Iraq.
The Libby's will cry that we are losing more troups, and while it's an unfortunate part of war, it's not unusual. We lost 1000s after HItler committed suicide. Lost thousands after cease fire in Korea.
July-31st-2003, 03:36 PM
I pick 1. I have faith in the Iraqi people and the rest of the Muslim world as well as this administration
July-31st-2003, 04:00 PM
I'm uncertain of the exact outcome in Iraq, but I definitely predict a protracted involvement with less than hoped for results and also an escalating debate over US projection of power that will shape at least the next two presidential elections.
July-31st-2003, 04:35 PM
We lost more than 60,000 in Vietnam.
We'd have to stay in Iraq for about 60 years in order to match that number.
I don't think we plan on staying that long.
July-31st-2003, 04:52 PM
I don't think we're going to stay that long as Henry said, nor are we going to sustain casualties at the rate we currently are over time.
I'll say again, we averaged one death per day for the first 200 days after Nazi Germany capitulated in May 1945. We were there running the show for almost a decade before we turned them loose. These things take time.
What the end result will look like I have no idea. However, I think this literate and oil rich country has a better chance than perhaps any other Arab to modernize and democratize itself under a secular government.
It's a great experiment, and one worth the risks IMHO.
July-31st-2003, 06:09 PM
I would have much more faith if this was Iran instead of Iraq, however I still have to go with number 1. History is on our side.
August-1st-2003, 04:11 AM
I agree with those who feel the effort is justified, but not with the tolerance for casulties. We're not wrapping up a WW where tens of millions died. And unlike Vietnam, todays service members are volunteers, married w/children, and to a significant extent, reserves with careers and businesses. I'm a reservist who volunteered to be in a unit essentially guaranteed to be here. That's my axe, but I'm willing to bet that many units like mine will experience a giant sucking sound of reservists calling it quits or transferring to "safe" units.
August-1st-2003, 12:11 PM
from yahoo's homepage 31AUG03
TEHRAN (AFP) - The United States is being dragged into a new Vietnam War in Iraq (news - web sites), former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told worshippers at the main weekly Muslim prayers.
"They themselves freely admit that groups of Arab fighters are entering Iraq from Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Turkey to make war against them," said Rafsanjani, who remains a powerful figure within the Islamic regime.
"They themselves say they've become a punchbag for anyone who wants to have a go at them. The nightmare of Vietnam is rearing its head again for the Americans," he said Friday.
Asked who was behind the spate of guerrilla attacks which have killed 52 US soldiers since Washington declared major combat over on May 1, coalition ground forces commander Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said a whole host of groups, "probably" including Osama Bin laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaeda network were involved.
"As long as Americans are here, people will come to attack them -- just like they're trying to attack American interests around the world," the US general told reporters in Baghdad Thursday.
Like I said, I volunteered; I think it's worth the effort, but it feels like Vietnam. I knew a lot of people who were opposed to the war before it started, much less "ended". That's truly OK with me; people are entitled to their opinions; I guess what pisses me off is people like most of the employees of FOX "News" who sugarcoat everything and label someone trying to be realistic as unpatriotic. At least the Lt Gen's being realistic.
August-1st-2003, 12:42 PM
I don't look to Iran's totalitarian regime that refers to us as "the Great Satan" for any sort of guidance as to our foreign policy.
As for "the tolerance for casulties", I think Americans need to have this put in perspective. On 9/11 we lost approximately 3000 lives. In Afghanistan and Iraq combined we've lost at most 10% of that number. As in both places we're working to prevent more 9/11's, I'd say we're getting quite a bit of bang for our buck, wouldn't you?
August-1st-2003, 05:43 PM
August-2nd-2003, 01:20 AM
I will, however reluctantly, agree with the Kurpmeister on one thing: $4 bil a month is a bit stiff.
August-4th-2003, 10:26 AM
It is NOT Vietnam and will never be. It might; however, turn out to be like the French in Algeria during the 1950's and early 1960's. That would be unfortunate. I would hate to think that we are walking in a path forged by the French.
August-4th-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by NavyDave
Easily number 1.
Because the insurgents/Saboteurs from Iran are now being targeted and taken out instead of the waste of time arresting those bast@rds.
WE are going to be in Bosnia/ Kosovo (still there since 95) than we will be in Iraq.
Maybe #1 for now, but it will surely come back to bite us in the butt eventually. Remember why Iran is Iran? B/C we propped up a "US friendly" SOB (the Shah) who the population hated. As long as we insist on a soveriegn nation doing it our way, we will incur resentment.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.