Vietnam Myths

[time expired]

Daftandbarmy,there are some parallels, however there are major differences.In Vietnam
the Johnson/McNamara regime decided on a policy of gradual increasing military
pressure which at some point the enemy would realise it could not win and throw in the
towel.This did not work, and had the added disadvantage of telegraphing the next
move to the North Vietnamese,and the US never reached the towel throwing point,
they had badly underestimated the resolve of the Viets.
Iraq strategy however was a result of lessons learned from the mistakes made in Vietnam.
Massive firepower right from the opening whistle,and it worked in both Gulf Wars, it was
the aftermath that went wrong.
I feel the Americans like wars with clear cut aims and battles that have an obvious winners
and losers and wars that are as complicated as Iraq or Vietnam leave them confused and
they quickly lose interest.The British,because of their colonial past seem to be used to the
idea that their Army was mucking about in the world and were less liable to demand
instant results.
Thats my take on the differences.
                                        Regards
 

 

[GAP]

The US in Iraq squandered a classic opportunity and are paying the price for it now. First they won the war, then they disbanded the army, then sat on their duffs for 9 months while AQ and others gained a foothold......sad.

 

[tomahawk6]

The US in Iraq squandered a classic opportunity and are paying the price for it now. First they won the war, then they disbanded the army, then sat on their duffs for 9 months while AQ and others gained a foothold......sad.

The Iraqi Army went home. There wasnt anything to disband. The IA was a draftee Army backed up by Saddam's regime troops IRG and Special IRG. We couldnt allow those elements to remain without setting up a return of the Baath Party. The Sunni insurgency kicked off with aid from Syria and AQ expanded its presence as part of the insurgent umbrella. Neither Syria or Iran see a democratic Iraq as desireable and as a result both states have supported the insurgency.

 

[GAP]

The Iraqi Army went home. There wasnt anything to disband. The IA was a draftee Army backed up by Saddam's regime troops IRG and Special IRG. We couldnt allow those elements to remain without setting up a return of the Baath Party. The Sunni insurgency kicked off with aid from Syria and AQ expanded its presence as part of the insurgent umbrella. Neither Syria or Iran see a democratic Iraq as desireable and as a result both states have supported the insurgency.

Thanks for the correction....I didn't realize that. I sure hope they can get a grip on things and get the country functional in short order...I can see the democrats running like rats from a salvageable situation.

 

[tomahawk6]

I would add though that perhaps we could have kept the police on duty to prevent looting in large cities. Had we done this perhaps we could have avoided looting in Baghdad nad use them to help guard the massive ammo dumps. Our biggest problem in standing up the Army and police was weeding out terrorist sympathizers. In fact we lost time because we had to start over after we realized the first group of police and army were riddled with insurgent agents. What we have had to do in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to stand up police and army from the ground up while at the sametime fighting an insurgency determined to regain its lost power. Its a tall order and one that takes time. How long does it take to make an NCO or officer in the CF ? Years right ? Yet we are expected to accomplish the same task in Iraq/Afghanistan in months because time isnt on our side due to the demands of defeating the insurgency or else lose everything we have accomplished.