Iraq: Learning The Lessons Of Vietnam

[STING2]

Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam
Melvin R. Laird
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005

"Summary: During Richard Nixon's first term, when I served as secretary of defense, we withdrew most U.S. forces from Vietnam while building up the South's ability to defend itself. The result was a success -- until Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by cutting off funding for our ally in 1975. Washington should follow a similar strategy now, but this time finish the job properly."

"MELVIN R. LAIRD was Secretary of Defense from 1969 to 1973, Counselor to the President for Domestic Affairs from 1973 to 1974, and a member of the House of Representatives from 1952 to 1969. He currently serves as Senior Counselor for National and International Affairs at the Reader's Digest Association."

This great article posted in the recent edition of Foreign Affairs can be read here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051...ird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html

Its about 8 pages long but is a very informative article by the Secretary Of Defense who presided over the Vietnamization of the war in Vietnam which was a success until the United States completely abandon the effort. The article does indeed provide some lessons for the current conflict in Iraq.

 

[financeguy]

If my uncle had boobs

he'd be my aunt.

 

[STING2]

If my uncle had boobs

he'd be my aunt.

Umm and what does that have to do with this thread?

 

[financeguy]

Umm and what does that have to do with this thread?

The parallels are overstated, that's what.

Now seeing as I read your article, do me the courtesy of reading my thread about the outrageous corruption and massive fraud associated with the invasion - detailed in a CONSERVATIVE mag, no less, so you can't accuse it of being a far left propaganda source.

 

[STING2]

The parallels are overstated, that's what.

Now seeing as I read your article, do me the courtesy of reading my thread about the outrageous corruption and massive fraud associated with the invasion - detailed in a CONSERVATIVE mag, no less, so you can't accuse it of being a far left propaganda source.

Really, can you provide an explanation thats longer than one sentence.

 

[financeguy]

Really, can you provide an explanation thats longer than one sentence.

As I posted my article first, it was reasonable to ask for it to be considered first, given the gravity of the issues raised.

However, given that you have provided your detailed response to the article I posted, as I requested, then it is reasonable for you to request me to do the same with regard to the article you posted. Fair enough, I will try to respond with some further comments in a day or so.

 

[deep]

Poll shows Iraqis back attacks on UK, US forces

Sat Oct 22, 5:45 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. and British troops are justified, according to a secret poll said to have been commissioned by British defense leaders and cited by The Sunday Telegraph.


Less than 1 percent of those polled believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security, according to poll figures.

Eighty-two percent of those polled said they were "strongly opposed" to the presence of the troops.

The paper said the poll, conducted in August by an Iraqi university research team, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defense.

 

[STING2]

The 8 million Iraqi's who voted in the January elections and the current constitutional referendum have a different view point. Most Iraqi's support the political process which would not exist and would be impossible to carry out without coalition troops in the country at the current time.

 

[FatBratchney]

THe parallels are not "over-stated"--they are FABRICATED.

The USA LOST the Vietnam War.

And now they are LOSING the Iraq OCCUPATION.

 

[STING2]

THe parallels are not "over-stated"--they are FABRICATED.

The USA LOST the Vietnam War.

And now they are LOSING the Iraq OCCUPATION.

Fabricated? Perhaps you should read the article again, that is if you did read it.

The United States lost the Vietnam war because it withdrew prematurely from the conflict and did not supply the aid required to keep South Vietnam going.

The United States will lose in bringing a stable government to Iraq if it withdraw's prematurely before the Iraqi government and military can survive on its own.

The idea that the United States is losing the current Iraq Occupation is absurd. Have any United States Divisions been overrun by insurgents? Have any cities and towns where US troops are stationed been attacked and taken over by insurgents? Have the insurgents been able to stop and reverse the political process? How successful were the insurgents in stopping the January Elections? What were the insurgents able to do in attempting to stop the referendum on the constitution which just passed by a large majority? How many of Iraq's 18 provinces have insurgent violence going on in them? Have the insurgents been able to stop the development and growth of the new Iraqi military? Have the insurgents been able to increase the average number of casualties on coalition forces per month since April 2004?

If you really believe the United States is losing in Iraq, I'd like to see your answers to each one of those questions.

 

[FatBratchney]

The United States lost the Vietnam war because it withdrew prematurely from the conflict and did not supply the aid required to keep South Vietnam going.

The United States will lose in bringing a stable government to Iraq if it withdraw's prematurely before the Iraqi government and military can survive on its own.

Sorry,Stinko2-the USA LOST the Vietnam War with an UNprecedented level of manpower,hardware and money.

They LOST because they had ZERO support from the Vietnamese THEMSELVES!!

They LOST--and you are dealing with some "Vietnam Syndrome" bullshit from the Bush sr./Reagan era.


The USA dropped over 6-7 Million TONNES of high explosives on South Vietnam ALONE--and you are going to say that there was "not enough aid to keep S.Vietnam going"?

Are you NUTZO?

That is 2-3 times the paylaod of ALL of WW2.


I'm sure you are a resident Neo-Con and beyond any Objective Reasoning.

I have no further comments.

 

[STING2]

Sorry,Stinko2-the USA LOST the Vietnam War with an UNprecedented level of manpower,hardware and money.

They LOST because they had ZERO support from the Vietnamese THEMSELVES!!

They LOST--and you are dealing with some "Vietnam Syndrome" bullshit from the Bush sr./Reagan era.

Your factually wrong on each count, but these are indeed myths believed by many Americans. I'd be happy to respond and show you in detail, but you seem to be more interested in name calling and other irrelevent behavior, rather than a serious discussion.

 

[FatBratchney]

"Myths"?

You better PUT DOWN the Ann Coultier books and talk to Robert MacNamara on that one.

He clearly and concisely delineates US Military budgetary outlays in Vietnam during his tenure as Secretary of Defence in the documentary "the Fog of War".

His autobiography goes into MUCH MORE budgetary details which you SHOULD READ VERY CAREFULLY --BEFORE you PRETEND to be knowledgable.



There are TOO MANY carpet bombings to detail in this forum--and COUNTLESS failed "search and destroy" missions which only fanned the flames of Vietnamese HATRED for the USA.


Grow UP and REALLY READ a book.

 

[FatBratchney]

The CARPET BOMBINGs alone -blot out,in SCALE,A.L.L. of WW2.
(Thats means ALL bombing campaigns COMBINED!)

That is a MASSIVE scale to achieve in a LITTLE country like Vietnam ot Cambodia(Kampuchia).

 

[STING2]

"Myths"?

You better PUT DOWN the Ann Coultier books and talk to Robert MacNamara on that one.

He clearly and concisely delineates US Military budgetary outlays in Vietnam during his tenure as Secretary of Defence in the documentary "the Fog of War".

His autobiography goes into MUCH MORE budgetary details which you SHOULD READ VERY CAREFULLY --BEFORE you PRETEND to be knowledgable.



There are TOO MANY carpet bombings to detail in this forum--and COUNTLESS failed "search and destroy" missions which only fanned the flames of Vietnamese HATRED for the USA.


Grow UP and REALLY READ a book.

The Secretary of Defense you need to pay attention to is "Melvin R. Laird" not MacNamara's failures early in the war or his revisionist books in later years with the help of liberal writers. The total amount of bombs dropped on Vietnam is an irrelevant statistics once you understand that MacNamara's policies prevented the US AirForce and US Navy from dropping bombs on key targets. Most bombs were unfortunately dropped on empty forest and there for accomplished nothing from a military standpoint.

The South Vietnamese did not hate Americans they fought and died with Americans against the Vietcong and North Vietnamese. Take any year you want to, and I'll point out the casualties that the South Vietnamese took in comparison to what American forces suffered. For every US soldier killed in the war, the South Vietnamese lost 4 soldiers. So once again, this idea that the South Vienamese hated the United States is a myth. The Vietcong, the rebel element in South Vietnam was no longer an effective fighting force after the TET offensive and by 1970, the North Vietnamese had to carry on all the fighting.

My own father served in Vietnam for all of 1968. He was a combat advisor to an ARVN Division and worked every day of his tour of duty with the South Vietnamese. He saw for himself their dedication and desire to prevent their country from being overrun by the Communist on a daily basis.

Going back to your statistic on the bombing total, if one compares total number of civilian deaths to total number of bombs dropped in Vietnam, Vietnam appears to be a war with a very low ratio for civilian loss of life vs. total number of bombs dropped. After all, look at World War II with over 50 million dead with as you say only a fraction of the total number of bombs dropped in Vietnam, and this was before technology allowed precision bombing on the scale and accuracy level we see today.


One more thing, calling someone a name or telling them to grow up, is against the Faq/Rules which one is suppost to agree to abide by when you become a member of this forum. If one has not read the faq/Rules one should so that do not find themselves out of line with the rest of the forum.

Had the United States not prematurely withdrawn from South Vietnam and then cut of funding to the country after 1973, South Vietnam would still be an independent country today as prosperous as South Korea.

The fact is, by 1972, the South Vietnamese were doing 90% of the fighting on the ground and were winning with American aid and Airpower. The Easter offensive by North Vietnam in 1972 was a failure and was thrown back by the South Vietnamese with the aid of US Airpower and US military advisors. Had these factors still been in place in 1975, the North Vietnamese offensive that year would have been crushed as well.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

FatBrachtney,
Insulting other posters, for instance by calling them offensive names and telling them to grow up isn't acceptable in FYM. Your views are welcome but in accordance with the rules of the forum you agreed to when you signed up, you need to express those views without insulting others.

Thanks,
*Fizz.

 

[FatBratchney]

One more thing, calling someone a name or telling them to grow up, is against the Faq/Rules which one is suppost to agree to abide by when you become a member of this forum. If one has not read the faq/Rules one should so that do not find themselves out of line with the rest of the forum.

Had the United States not prematurely withdrawn from South Vietnam and then cut of funding to the country after 1973, South Vietnam would still be an independent country today as prosperous as South Korea.

The fact is, by 1972, the South Vietnamese were doing 90% of the fighting on the ground and were winning with American aid and Airpower. The Easter offensive by North Vietnam in 1972 was a failure and was thrown back by the South Vietnamese with the aid of US Airpower and US military advisors. Had these factors still been in place in 1975, the North Vietnamese offensive that year would have been crushed as well. [/B]

The end RESULT?

4 Million dead Vietnamese.

Not ALL of the 4 Million tonnes of high explosives dropped on S.Vietnam hit "empty forests".

In any event-it would appear as though you are in a agreement with certain parties so I will refrain from any further comments.

Don't want to hurt anyones feewings....snivel...

 

[japes4]

If the United States had launched a full-scale invasion of North Vietnam the war would have been over in a fairly short amount of time.

However, the Johnson administration did not want to risk another Chinese incursion like we saw during the Korean War.

This essentially hamstrung the U.S. military who resorted to aerial bombardment in the North and rural pacification in the South in an effort to destroy North Vietnam's will to fight.

The U.S. did not lose the war because of a lack of manpower. It lost because of politics...the same reason why it may lose in Iraq.

 

[FatBratchney]

If the United States had launched a full-scale invasion of North Vietnam the war would have been over in a fairly short amount of time.

However, the Johnson administration did not want to risk another Chinese incursion like we saw during the Korean War.

This essentially hamstrung the U.S. military who resorted to aerial bombardment in the North and rural pacification in the South in an effort to destroy North Vietnam's will to fight.

The U.S. did not lose the war because of a lack of manpower. It lost because of politics...the same reason why it may lose in Iraq.

Maybe you could take the time to explain in detail-on what pretext would the USA have to invade/bomb N.Vietnam starting at the 1954 Geneva Convention in which the USA refused to allow FREE elections in Vietnam.

At least 5oo ooo US Soldiers ended up in Vietnam after the faked Gulf of Tonkin inceident.
500 000 men/MORE armaments dropped my the USA then was dropped in WW2/countless brutal "search and destroy" missions like Speedy Express INSIDE SOUTH VIETNAM...4 Million dead Vitenamese...and YOU SAY the US Military was "hamstrung"?





Wow...

 

[STING2]

Maybe you could take the time to explain in detail-on what pretext would the USA have to invade/bomb N.Vietnam starting at the 1954 Geneva Convention in which the USA refused to allow FREE elections in Vietnam.

At least 5oo ooo US Soldiers ended up in Vietnam after the faked Gulf of Tonkin inceident.
500 000 men/MORE armaments dropped my the USA then was dropped in WW2/countless brutal "search and destroy" missions like Speedy Express INSIDE SOUTH VIETNAM...4 Million dead Vitenamese...and YOU SAY the US Military was "hamstrung"?





Wow...

Most of the 4 million Vietnamese who died, died as a result of the actions of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. What pretext did North Vietnam have to force a Communist dictatorship on people that wanted to live in freedom. The Vietcong directly targeted South Vietnamese civilians.

Once again, the whole "More bombs dropped by the USA in Vietnam than in World War II is an irrelevant statistic".

What is very relevant are the constraints under which the United States had to operate. Not allowed to invade North Vietnam, large area's of North Vietnam off limits for bombing. Had the United States launched Linebacker II in 1965, as opposed to 1972, and continued such a bombing campaign as needed combined with developing and the South Vietnamese military, the war could have ended earlier with South Vietnam remaining independent.

 

[FatBratchney]

Most of the 4 million Vietnamese who died, died as a result of the actions of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. What pretext did North Vietnam have to force a Communist dictatorship on people that wanted to live in freedom. The Vietcong directly targeted South Vietnamese civilians.

Once again, the whole "More bombs dropped by the USA in Vietnam than in World War II is an irrelevant statistic".

What is very relevant are the constraints under which the United States had to operate. Not allowed to invade North Vietnam, large area's of North Vietnam off limits for bombing. Had the United States launched Linebacker II in 1965, as opposed to 1972, and continued such a bombing campaign as needed combined with developing and the South Vietnamese military, the war could have ended earlier with South Vietnam remaining independent.

Wow.

So you still think the USA was "constrained" in Vietnam despite more than 2 times the amount of high explosives used in ALL of WW2 being dropped on this little south east country?

Sorry-thats just DELUSIONAL beyond words.


Back to the 1954 Geneva Contvention.
At the time-Ho Chi Minh-a VIETNAMESE Citizen and his army of VIETNAMESE Citizens had beaten the French at Dien Bien Phu--fair and square.

The Vietnamese simply wished to move on to an Election.
The USA REFUSED to allow this to happen--going so far as to organize a treaty organization(SEATO) designed to oppose FREE ELECTIONs in Vietnam.

I don't know HOW the Vietnamese Communists planned on "forcing a communist dictatorship" on the Vietnamese with FREE Democratic ELECTIONs...do you?
You make no sense to those of us who know Ann Coultier is a braindead-dipshit who REALLY believes that Canada participated in the Vietnam War--yeah,she's that DUMB!




After the distasterous Operation Speedy Express in the Mekong Delta in Kien Hoa the Vietnamese body count was marked at 11ooo corpses.

How many WEAPONS captured?
748 small arms and rifles.

These type of "operations" lead to the "White Papers" which Daniel Ellesberg tried to bring to public attention.

Nixon/Kissinger almost sacrificed their careers at impeachment trials to cover up the Government Military Audit which clearly showed --back in the early 1960's that Vietnam was UNwinnable in any circumstance.


The USA Opposed Democratic Elections in Vietnam in the late 1950's because they KNEW that Ho Chi Minh would win by a landslide --EVERYTIME.

I'm sure you will not be banned from these message boards for your historical revisions.

 

[japes4]

Maybe you could take the time to explain in detail-on what pretext would the USA have to invade/bomb N.Vietnam starting at the 1954 Geneva Convention in which the USA refused to allow FREE elections in Vietnam.

At least 5oo ooo US Soldiers ended up in Vietnam after the faked Gulf of Tonkin inceident.
500 000 men/MORE armaments dropped my the USA then was dropped in WW2/countless brutal "search and destroy" missions like Speedy Express INSIDE SOUTH VIETNAM...4 Million dead Vitenamese...and YOU SAY the US Military was "hamstrung"?





Wow...

Yes, hamstrung. Your statistics are irrelevant to that arguement. The United States did not use every option at its disposal to win the war. If your going to fight a war, you have to attack your enemy with overwhelming military force, whether it be the army, the navy or the air force. Fighting a PC war only prolongs the fighting and creates more casualties. You have to destroy the enemy's ability to fight as swiftly as possible or you will end up fighting an insurgency that will never end....which is exactly what happened in Vietnam and may now be happening in Iraq.

 

[FatBratchney]

Before I say something that NEEDs to be said--something VERY MEAN and dismissive of the intelligence level of these Anti-Vietnamese Neo-Cons....

Should the USA have nuked Vietnam?
These other posters are clearly at the Rush Limbaugh level--apparently unaware of basic budget figures/and factual historical accounts by Kissinger and MacNamara THEMSELVES.



Nixon drove the US Economy into the ground spending VAST portions of the Miltary budget.
The Carpet Bombings were UNprecedented in scale at the time.

YET---these neo-cons say that the USA was "hamstrung"??



WTF?

The only logical next step beyond these HUGE carpet bombings would be nukes.

Do the neo-cons agree that nukes should have been dropped on a country which barely had an AirForce?

 

[STING2]

Wow.

So you still think the USA was "constrained" in Vietnam despite more than 2 times the amount of high explosives used in ALL of WW2 being dropped on this little south east country?

Sorry-thats just DELUSIONAL beyond words.


Back to the 1954 Geneva Contvention.
At the time-Ho Chi Minh-a VIETNAMESE Citizen and his army of VIETNAMESE Citizens had beaten the French at Dien Bien Phu--fair and square.

The Vietnamese simply wished to move on to an Election.
The USA REFUSED to allow this to happen--going so far as to organize a treaty organization(SEATO) designed to oppose FREE ELECTIONs in Vietnam.

I don't know HOW the Vietnamese Communists planned on "forcing a communist dictatorship" on the Vietnamese with FREE Democratic ELECTIONs...do you?
You make no sense to those of us who know Ann Coultier is a braindead-dipshit who REALLY believes that Canada participated in the Vietnam War--yeah,she's that DUMB!




After the distasterous Operation Speedy Express in the Mekong Delta in Kien Hoa the Vietnamese body count was marked at 11ooo corpses.

How many WEAPONS captured?
748 small arms and rifles.

These type of "operations" lead to the "White Papers" which Daniel Ellesberg tried to bring to public attention.

Nixon/Kissinger almost sacrificed their careers at impeachment trials to cover up the Government Military Audit which clearly showed --back in the early 1960's that Vietnam was UNwinnable in any circumstance.


The USA Opposed Democratic Elections in Vietnam in the late 1950's because they KNEW that Ho Chi Minh would win by a landslide --EVERYTIME.

I'm sure you will not be banned from these message boards for your historical revisions.

Once again, your bombing statistic is irrelevant. Once again, look at the number of bombs dropped and the number of people killed compare to World War II and you'll see that the number of people killed by bombs in Vietnam was a tiny fraction of the ratio who died from bombs in World War II. Most bombs were dropped on empty forest and were not dropped on real meaningful targets that would have truely effected the progress of the war.

What form of government did North Vietnam have? How many elections did North Vietnam have after 1954? The fact is, the United States and other countries did not want to be a part of a process that would doom those who wanted to live in a democracy in Vietnam to communist dictatorship. You seem to be ok with that which is amazing. No election that forces a people to live in slavery is fair. The United States had ever right to intervene especially since the Soviet Union and China were already present in regards to helping North Vietnam.

I don't understand why you bring up " Ann Coultier". I never read anything by her nor do I know anyone that has. Please stop stereotyping people here.

Any report that claims that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable back in the early 1960s is clearly wrong, that is if such a report exist and clearly stated that.

If the United States had not withdrawn prematurely from South Vietnam in the early 1970s, the South Vietnamese military and government would have been able to develop sufficiently to the point that no North Vietnamese offensive would be able to achieve its goals. Unfortunately, the United States essentially abandon South Vietnam in 1973 and that is the only reason that North Vietnam was able to take over the South, although it would not happen for another 2 years despite the absence of the United States.

 

[japes4]

Before I say something that NEEDs to said--something VERY MEAN and dismissive of the intelligence level of these Anti-Vietnamese Neo-Cons....

Should the USA have nuked Vietnam?
These other posters are clearly at the Rush Limbaugh level--apparently unaware of basic budget figures/and factual historical accounts by Kissinger and MacNamara THEMSELVES.



Nixon drove the US Economy into the ground spending VAST portions of the Miltary budget.
The Carpet Bombings were UNprecedented in scale at the time.

YET---these neo-cons say that the USA was "hamstrung"

The only logical next step beyond these HUGE carpet bombings would be nukes.

Do the neo-cons agree that nukes should have been dropped on a country which barely had an AirForce?

All I was saying is that if you are going to fight a war, you have to use every option at your disposal to win. If your not interested in winning a war, maybe you shouldn't be fighting it.

If the United States had fought World War II with the same restraints that it had in Vietnam and now has in Iraq, it never would have won.

FatBrachney, at no point have I ever insulted you. Please give others the same courtesy.

 

[deep]

yes, of course



they were pushing real hard for bunker-busted nukes

to use today

and just recently backed away

it was kind of hard trying to isolate N Korea and Iran on nukes

when they were arguing for nukes they WOULD have used all over Iraq and Afghanistan if they had them.


they are fucking NUTS

and their right-wing "we are on the side of the angels" base is the sickness the feeds this festering madness

 

[STING2]

Before I say something that NEEDs to be said--something VERY MEAN and dismissive of the intelligence level of these Anti-Vietnamese Neo-Cons....

Should the USA have nuked Vietnam?
These other posters are clearly at the Rush Limbaugh level--apparently unaware of basic budget figures/and factual historical accounts by Kissinger and MacNamara THEMSELVES.



Nixon drove the US Economy into the ground spending VAST portions of the Miltary budget.
The Carpet Bombings were UNprecedented in scale at the time.

YET---these neo-cons say that the USA was "hamstrung"??



WTF?

The only logical next step beyond these HUGE carpet bombings would be nukes.

Do the neo-cons agree that nukes should have been dropped on a country which barely had an AirForce?

Anyone interested in name calling should read the Faq/Rules.

I'd like to discuss the facts of the war, but that does not seem to be what your interested in discussing.

 

[deep]

If the United States had fought World War II with the same restraints that it had in Vietnam and now has in Iraq, it never would have won.

and a civil war in Viet Nam was the same threat as Hitler and the same threat as the Japanese that had bombed Pearl Harbor?


if you are going to use the WWII comparisons we had no business in VN or in Iraq today.

 

[STING2]

yes, of course



they were pushing real hard for bunker-busted nukes

to use today

and just recently backed away

it was kind of hard trying to isolate N Korea and Iran on nukes

when they were arguing for nukes they WOULD have used all over Iraq and Afghanistan if they had them.


they are fucking NUTS

and their right-wing "we are on the side of the angels" base is the sickness the feeds this festering madness

The United States has plenty of different types of Nuclear Weapons it could use anywhere if it chose to. Unfortunately, its typically the "left wing" who are ignorant of these facts and claim any new development of any type of system automatically means it is going to be deployed and used on a mass scale. The United States has not used nuclear weapons since 1945 and had no need or true desire to use such weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

[FatBratchney]

I guess you need to read up on the the USA/Vietnam Conflict a little more.
I mentioned Ann Coultier because she was seen being interviewed by a Canadian journalistic regarding the downfall of Journalistic Integrity in the USA.
In passing she remarked that it was odd that Canada participated In Vietnam (gulp..?) but would NOT participate in the invasion of Iraq.

The journalist CORRECTED this twit Coultier--coultier puts on her best smart person face and suggets that the Canadian journalist had the facts wrong.




Wow---such a BASIC issue.

BASIC ISSUE:The US Military ITSELF had conducted a detailed field audit of operations in Vietnam--the result was the PENTAGON PAPERs which clearly delineated that the war was UNwinnable.

Johnson and Kissinger buried these audits which were conducted by high ranking US Military officials such as Gen. Maxwell Taylor.




How democratic elections equate with a "communist dictatorship" is indicative of some fallacious reasoning.