Vietnam vs Iraq
Irish Mike
me, the turning point was the Tet Offensive in January, 1968. No one
remembers, or cares, now but it was a coordinated full scale Viet Cong/NVA
attack all across the country. Caught us pretty much by surprise because
Tet had traditionally been considered a holiday by both sides. Fighting was
fierce, 1,000 Americans were killed including some of my friends. But we
killed about 60,000 VC/NVA and, militarily, it was a disaster for them. It
crippled the VC in south Vietnam, the NVA suffered heavy loses in men and
equipment and we all felt confident we would continue the momentum and win
the war. But the American public and politicians were dismayed by the
losses and the fact that the VC/NVA could launch a country wide attack. The
press declared that the war couldn't be won and would drag out for years.
LBJ started pulling out U.S. troops and it was the beginning of the end.
Most of us couldn't believe it was happening. Later they switched the
strategy from search and destroy to containment. We were never defeated in
a single battle, killed the enemy at a ratio of twenty to one and still lost
the war.
Ho Chi Minh said:
"You will kill a great many of us.
We will kill a few of you.
You will tire of it first."
I didn't know it at the time but he was right. And now, listening to the
politicians talk about Iraq, it seems like he's still right.
Irish Mike
johnny_t
And for some reason, people like you never really learn the lesson.
Fighting wars is not about killing the enemy. And if you kill more of
them than you, it doesn't mean you win. Doesn't mean your moral even if
victorious. The worst offenders in history were often mighty warriors,
and killed many of their enemy.
Truly, historically, presently, might does NOT make right.
Bob T.
- Bob T.
Stephen Jacobs
"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:kClyj.8149$Mw....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>I don't know, or care, what historians say about the Vietnam war but, for
>me, the turning point was the Tet Offensive in January, 1968. No one
>remembers, or cares, now but it was a coordinated full scale Viet Cong/NVA
>attack all across the country. Caught us pretty much by surprise because
>Tet had traditionally been considered a holiday by both sides. Fighting
>was fierce, 1,000 Americans were killed including some of my friends. But
>we killed about 60,000 VC/NVA and, militarily, it was a disaster for them.
>It crippled the VC in south Vietnam, the NVA suffered heavy loses in men
>and equipment and we all felt confident we would continue the momentum and
>win the war.
I remember, I care and I studied it afterwards. One thing that's important
to understand about it is that there was a war going on between the North
and the South that the US wasn't particularly a party to. They were allied
against us, sort of. The Tet Offensive marked the military liquidation of
the (Southern) Viet Cong, and with it the political marginalization of the
Southerners. Ho always was hard on his allies. The US objectives in
Vietnam were never realistic after Gen. Taylor's "strategic enclaves" idea
was rejected (1965?), so it was no longer about US success or failure. We
were backing a dead and cremated horse (with an abundance of lives and
treasure).
That infamous "We had to destroy the village to save it" line was exactly to
the point. We could have done that larger. The line quoted at the time was
"They have made a wasteland and call it peace."
I don't know that anyone at all realized it at the time, but in deep
hindsight we probably would have been best off arranging a Viet Cong (very
much not North Vietnamese) victory after it became apparent that there
wasn't anyone to succede the Ngo brothers. Either Ho would have inherited
regional divisions, or the world would have had a clear view of him turning
on his allies.
The question about Iraq is very much like the post-Ngo issue in Vietnam. Is
there any outcome that is possible in the world of men that can be
considered a victory? I don't see one. A Shi'a-dominated state that
doesn't become a satellite of Iran seems unreasonable, and the only
alternative seems to be very Saddam-like despotism.
OrangeSFO
> Most of us couldn't believe it was happening. We were never defeated in
> a single battle, killed the enemy at a ratio of twenty to one and still lost
> the war.
But it was a big win for American armaments manufacturers Mike.
So...not a TOTAL loss.
Schmedley
"Stephen Jacobs" <jac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Tfadnef3ZaQnnVfa...@comcast.com...
I doubt if any central authority can be reimposed on that model. In the end
the Shia Arabs will be influenced by Iran, but probably will not be a
vassal, as the ethnic differences will overwhelm that. The Kurds, of they
survive what looks to be a sandwich between the Turks and Arabs, will have
their area. And the Sunni Arabs will get their desert and Saudi Arabia will
have to pay. The reseult will be a de facto partition and a level of
violence dictated by the parties over there.
Gary Carson
much of a battle, I think Texas had like 2 causulties at San Jacinto. And Santa
Ana lost the war.
Santa Ana destroyed the Texas army at Goliad, at the Alamo, during the Runaway
Scrape. Everytime he met Texas troops he destroyed them. Sam Houston wasn't
just losing battles, he was losing troops to desertion in huge numbers.
But the rebel forces still won the war, just like in Vietnam. Just like in
Iraq. That's always the way it works.
BTW, during Tet 68 we lost the battle at Hue. We retook it, I was there for
that second battle that we won. But we didn't win the Battle of Hue during Tet.
We got beat so bad in the first battle that the Army didn't even have any
artillery pieces left, they had to use Navy gunfire support for their artillery.
We lost lots of battles.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
lawh...@hiwaay.net
> "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
Per Stephen Jacobs,
... A Shi'a-dominated state that doesn't become a satellite of Iran
seems unreasonable, and the only alternative seems to be very Saddam-
like despotism.
Stephen:
Compared to what we have now, what is so wrong with "Saddam-like"
despotism? Except for brief periods of foreign occupation, (i.e. the
British during the 1920's, the Russians in Afghanistan during the
1980's, and now us in both Iraq and Afghanistan), the norm in those
countries - especially Iraq - has been iron fisted rule by a despot.
Saddam's "crimes" (and the fact that he was not a nice guy) have been
well documented. And like nearly all despots who live by the sword,
he eventually found himself hanging from a rope. That's just the way
it is in that part of the world. Why we here in the United States
thought we could march in, depose Saddam, and replace a thousand-year-
old mindset with "democracy" is totally beyond me.
For all the terrible human rights abuses and utter depravity that
existed under Saddam's rule, compared to the situation we have now,
there was relative stability within the country - and the oil
continued to flow - which is all anybody really cares about anyway. I
have thought for quite some time that the only way to restore relative
stability to Iraq - or the same level of stability that existed prior
to our invasion - would be to get out of there and let another Saddam-
like despot take over. It will be bloody for awhile, but eventually
the new despot will get the country (and the fighting religious
factions) under control. Of course, it won't be pretty, but does
anybody really believe that we are going to stay bogged down in Iraq
"... for the next 100 years" to quote John McCain?
Even the Russians, who didn't have to contend with the political
pressure of having to face "fair and free" elections every four years,
finally got tired of fighting in Afghanistan after nearly ten years.
Why does anybody think we're going to pour more money, lives, (and
blood) down a bottomless pit than the Russians poured down
Afghanistan?
One of these days we're going to learn that we simply can't impose our
will on the rest of the world, but that goes aginst the evidence of
history, so maybe I'm just dreaming.
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
da pickle
==================================
==================================
Alan, you seem to have too short a history reference. While it is true
"that part of the world" has indeed endured a long history of tribal warfare
and conflict, there are other places nearby that have a similar history and
have grown beyond it. You might take a look at the conflict between the
turks and the allies during WWI for an example of how present day Turkey is
not what she once was. Certainly T.E. Lawrence was unable to convince the
arabs of the value of "getting along," but times change. Time will also
tell whether the latest venture into to region will have results that are on
the whole considered good or not so good. Also, you seem to accept the
"terrible human rights abuses and utter depravity that existed under
Saddam's rule" as acceptable for your conclusion that the "relative
stability" then is clearly better than "the situation we have now."
johnny_t
> Why we here in the United States
> thought we could march in, depose Saddam, and replace a thousand-year-
> old mindset with "democracy" is totally beyond me.
That wasn't really the plan, and "democracy" wasn't for them, it was to
get US to agree to "march in".
Our despot, did what he needed to do, to get our machinery out there,
and it worked like a champ.
Well, collateral, damage, but who could have known?
Irish Mike
Iraq. He will pull the American troops out, al quieda will declare victory,
Iran will take over the country and control of the oil fields. The sunni
and shi'ah muslims will continue to kill each other - for the greater glory
of allah of course. Iran will then crush the opposition. The Kurds will
likely get caught in the middle between Turkey and an Iranian controlled
Iraq. Iran will, of course, continue its development of nuclear weapons and
expand it's influence in the region. Which will include support for the
Taliban fighting the Americans in Afghanistan. Iran will join Syria, with
behind the scenes support from Russia and possibly China, to step up attacks
on Israel. Eventually this will lead to a major confrontation. Israel will
take it for a while, then strike back - Syria first, then Iran. Iran,
bolstered by their victory over the U.S. in Iraq, will respond with a major
strike against Israel. Israel will want to respond with nuclear weapons,
the U.S. will be forced to step in, Russia and China will start rattling
their sabers and the real show will begin.
Irish Mike
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zt6dnR27JvM...@giganews.com...
johnny_t
> Well, if Obama gets elected, you won't need to wonder about the future of
> Iraq. He will pull the American troops out, al quieda will declare victory,
> Iran will take over the country and control of the oil fields. The sunni
> and shi'ah muslims will continue to kill each other - for the greater glory
> of allah of course. Iran will then crush the opposition. The Kurds will
> likely get caught in the middle between Turkey and an Iranian controlled
> Iraq. Iran will, of course, continue its development of nuclear weapons and
> expand it's influence in the region. Which will include support for the
> Taliban fighting the Americans in Afghanistan. Iran will join Syria, with
> behind the scenes support from Russia and possibly China, to step up attacks
> on Israel. Eventually this will lead to a major confrontation. Israel will
> take it for a while, then strike back - Syria first, then Iran. Iran,
> bolstered by their victory over the U.S. in Iraq, will respond with a major
> strike against Israel. Israel will want to respond with nuclear weapons,
> the U.S. will be forced to step in, Russia and China will start rattling
> their sabers and the real show will begin.
>
> Irish Mike
OMG, he's right. It IS Vietnam. It's the Domino Theory. It will lead
to the complete control of Communist Russia. It will lead to the death
of millions of free spirited Americans.
Or maybe, just maybe, it is a paranoid fantasy. That maybe bringing war
to another's home is simply not justified by fantasy. That "preemptive"
war is not morally justifiable when "imminent" means, in my dreams
man, in my dreams.
James L. Hankins
"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:kClyj.8149$Mw....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Isn't the lesson here that we should not become embroiled in the civil wars
of other countries on the other side of the planet?
Gary Carson
I think that would work better than taking foreign policy advice from a former
E5 turned retired corporate supply clerk who wasn't smart enough to figure out
how to keep out of the infantry.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Irish Mike
"James L. Hankins" <jhan...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote in message
news:DjEyj.11605$f8....@newsfe23.lga...
Especially when you don't have the will, determination and commitment to see
it through. These muslims/arabs/africans have been murdering each other for
a thousand years - for greed, power and the greater glory of allah. The
whole Danfur slaughter is a race war between arab muslims and black muslims.
All independent of the presence of the U.S., Russia or Israel.
Irish Mike
Stephen Jacobs
> Well, if Obama gets elected, you won't need to wonder about the future of
> Iraq. He will pull the American troops out, al quieda will declare
> victory, Iran will take over the country and control of the oil fields.
> The sunni and shi'ah muslims will continue to kill each other - for the
> greater glory of allah of course. Iran will then crush the opposition.
> The Kurds will likely get caught in the middle between Turkey and an
> Iranian controlled Iraq. Iran will, of course, continue its development
> of nuclear weapons and expand it's influence in the region. Which will
> include support for the Taliban fighting the Americans in Afghanistan.
> Iran will join Syria, with behind the scenes support from Russia and
> possibly China, to step up attacks on Israel. Eventually this will lead
> to a major confrontation. Israel will take it for a while, then strike
> back - Syria first, then Iran. Iran, bolstered by their victory over the
> U.S. in Iraq, will respond with a major strike against Israel. Israel
> will want to respond with nuclear weapons, the U.S. will be forced to step
> in, Russia and China will start rattling their sabers and the real show
> will begin.
>
> Irish Mike
>
So what's the solution? Eternal war with the US involved? Shiite Iraq?
Fragmented Iraq? Despotic Iraq? None sounds like a US victory. I can't
think of anything that sounds possible and sounds like victory. "Pacified"
Iraq, with a government regarded by few Iraqis as being "theirs" and
frequently put back into line by the US seems to be the most popular
outcome--but it doesn't sound like something that could last. (Fragmented
Iraq is probably the best from a selfish US viewpoint, especially since it
should be possible to get the Shiite piece to try to mediate between the US
and Iran).
Remember Clausewitz: "You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them."
lawh...@hiwaay.net
> "James L. Hankins" <jhanki...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote in messagenews:DjEyj.11605$f8....@newsfe23.lga...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike:
As soon as a vast deposit of oil is discovered underneath Darfur,
we'll be liberating that country too - and trying to "reconciliate"
all those folks [over there] who are busy killing each other. It's
really amazing how much that "black gold" brings out our heart felt
desire to solve the world's problems.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Mike:
>
> As soon as a vast deposit of oil is discovered underneath Darfur,
> we'll be liberating that country too - and trying to "reconciliate"
> all those folks [over there] who are busy killing each other. It's
> really amazing how much that "black gold" brings out our heart felt
> desire to solve the world's problems.
I've got a news flash for you, Captain Gratuitousquotes:
Sudan has been an oil-exporting country for quite some time now, with
Darfur being one of the country's oil-rich regions.
Maybe you'd now like to speculate on the possibility of finding oil in
Canada.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
>
> As soon as a vast deposit of oil is discovered underneath Darfur,
Darfur isn't a "country", Einstein.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
--------
Will in New Haven
That canard. The old WWI fantasy that armament manufacturers do a
great deal better in war-time. Only actual full-time peace could hurt
armament sales. They always have a huge and steady market and don't
need to foment any wars.
--
Will in New Haven
Iceman
> "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
Fragmented Iraq would be a disaster, and would guarantee continued
war, either immediately or after a brief period of rearmament by all
sides. The Shiites and Kurds have all of the oil, and without a share
of the oil money the Sunnis would be reduced to extreme poverty, and
would definitely fight. Iran would arm the Shiites - and the Saudis
would arm the Sunnis, and that's if they or other states didn't
actually enter the conflict. And the Turks might well invade Kurdistan
if it declared independence.
Deadmoney Walking
the same was once true of Europe. This war is to give the Iraqis a
chance for something other than despotism or theocracy.
Deadmoney Walking
>
> - Show quoted text -
When accidental deposits of valuable minerals give their thugs extreme
power than dang right we will.