Topic: Is this starting to scare anybody?

[thirstymoose_2000]

U.S. Military Dismisses Iraq Attacks
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - More than a dozen rockets fired from donkey carts slammed into Iraq's Oil Ministry and two hotels Friday - attacks dismissed by a U.S. general as ``militarily insignificant'' but which also exposed weaknesses in gathering intelligence on insurgents. The brazen, coordinated strikes at some of Baghdad's most heavily protected civilian sites defied a U.S. crackdown.

I don't know ... this is starting to sound more and more like Vietnam to me. Saddam said that they would hide in the shadows and attack until the States left and that's what they are doing. As soon as I saw the abandonned Republican Guard base in Ticrit (sp?) when the States first attacked, I thought "oh oh" they've got a plan and have gone underground. Did Bush really think that saddam was sitting in Iraq for the last 12 years since the Guf War NOT thinking about what to do if the US struck again? He had a plan and we're seeing it in action!

It's also a fact that more soldiers have died since Bush declared the fighting to be "over". Well guess what - somebody forgot to tell the other side!

Sorry, heavy stuff for a Friday afternoon but came accross this news story on CNN.  Wondering if anyone had any thoughts to share.

   

[50 Mission Cap]

It is impossible for the States to pull out of Iraq. In doing so they would create a power vacuum, and likely see hardline anti-US forces take control. That would further destabilize the middle East, and put into jeopardy the US's roadmap for peace in Israel. Further, and power vacuum in Iraq would also tempt Iran to renew hostilities with its neighbour. It is no secret that Iran has long been compelled to either forcefully take control of Iraq, or set up a militant Islamic government in its place. Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein was not well received by many Islamic states due to his rather soft Islamic beliefs. it was only there greater dislike of the United States that helped to forge a unified front.

The number indicating that the number of US soldiers killed following the cesation of hostilities is indeed higher, but only due to the rather small amount of casualties sustained during the war.

Any occupying force realises that there will be casualties during an occupation and transfer of power. In fact, in every major conflict of the 20th century, the occupying force has had to deal with the guerilla tactics of an enemy not ready to admit defeat.

The comparison to Vietnam is inaccurate and misleading because Vietnam was a full out conflict where high casualties were expected by the war planners, but not recieved well by the general populous.

[thirstymoose_2000]

My comparison to Vietnam is the tatical strategy used by the opposition. In both cases there have been outright assults on each other, but when I've seen documentaries about Vietnam, the soldiers, officials and historians all seem to suggest that the problem they had was the Vietnamese Army's ability to lurk in the jungles, tunnels and villages and ambush/attack seemingly out of no where.

This attack with the donkey carts reminded me of that - that was my comparison – I wasn't comparing outcomes or the confilcts themselves - just the tactics used by the opposition.

These aren't neccessarily guerillas not admitting defeat, my point is that this was probably their strategy from the start (hence the abandonned base). Run to the hills and fight with more presice, targeted attacks another day, because they knew from '91 that there was no way in hell they'd have a chance going head to head in an all-out conflict.

However, in the current status I agree with your suggestion that if they pulled-out now the whole region would explode in kaos.

[jubejubed]

I pretty much agree with what you guys are saying... he can just say "well lets leave" since they don't really have a set gov over there yet. I've been following as much as I can, and I have my parents telling me day in and day out about it, at school our teachers are trying to talk to us about it but the only thing that ever comes out about the hole thing is 1) we're glad Canada doesn't have troops over there and 2) Bush is an idiot. I understand that they want to try and "rebuild" Iraq but it doesn't look like they really had everything planned out. *heavy sigh* day in and day out, more and more bombings, reported Al-Quaida links, people just blowing themselves up to try and make a point. I dunno, I just think it's absolutly the stupidest thing ever! Im lucky enough to not have been born yet during the WWs and during Vietnam, and so all this is just, I don't know how to explain, I've never been more wary about even just going out, not that I'm affraid that we'll be bombed just with all the killings, the fact that I have family in the States, my brother's in the Army (at Pettawawa) and etc etc it just really makes you think and try to put everything into perspective....

[armchaircoach]

he can just say "well lets leave" since they don't really have a set gov over there yet. ........... 1) we're glad Canada doesn't have troops over there and 2) Bush is an idiot. I understand that they want to try and "rebuild" Iraq but it doesn't look like they really had everything planned out. *heavy sigh* day in and day out, more and more bombings, reported Al-Quaida links, people just blowing themselves up to try and make a point. ...

sounds alot like Jr learned from Sr.... or didn't, as the case may be  

Bush wont pull out because he has a Napoleon-complex (in mentality, not necessarily in actual stature) He also has an opportunity to use this as a training ground at the expense of the Iraqi's....

[50 Mission Cap]

he can just say "well lets leave" since they don't really have a set gov over there yet. ........... 1) we're glad Canada doesn't have troops over there and 2) Bush is an idiot. I understand that they want to try and "rebuild" Iraq but it doesn't look like they really had everything planned out. *heavy sigh* day in and day out, more and more bombings, reported Al-Quaida links, people just blowing themselves up to try and make a point. ...

sounds alot like Jr learned from Sr.... or didn't, as the case may be  

Bush wont pull out because he has a Napoleon-complex (in mentality, not necessarily in actual stature) He also has an opportunity to use this as a training ground at the expense of the Iraqi's....

If you honestly believe that, then I suspect that you have no idea on the complexities of foreign relations, and the middle east sphere of politics.

If the US pulls out, the situation becomes 100 fold worse, for the reasons I stated above.

Oh and the Napoleon Complex in actuality simply refers to a small person acting big. It has nothing to do with seeking to expand a nations sphere of influence, or increase its territorial domain.

[jubejubed]

OMG! ok sorry guys I'm really stupid, that was a typo, I seriously meant "CAN'T" not can... sorry... my bad!  :  Yeah, I meant to type they CAN'T just leave since there is no set gov....

[armchaircoach]

he can just say "well lets leave" since they don't really have a set gov over there yet. ........... 1) we're glad Canada doesn't have troops over there and 2) Bush is an idiot. I understand that they want to try and "rebuild" Iraq but it doesn't look like they really had everything planned out. *heavy sigh* day in and day out, more and more bombings, reported Al-Quaida links, people just blowing themselves up to try and make a point. ...

sounds alot like Jr learned from Sr.... or didn't, as the case may be  

Bush wont pull out because he has a Napoleon-complex (in mentality, not necessarily in actual stature) He also has an opportunity to use this as a training ground at the expense of the Iraqi's....

If you honestly believe that, then I suspect that you have no idea on the complexities of foreign relations, and the middle east sphere of politics.

If the US pulls out, the situation becomes 100 fold worse, for the reasons I stated above.

Oh and the Napoleon Complex in actuality simply refers to a small person acting big. It has nothing to do with seeking to expand a nations sphere of influence, or increase its territorial domain.

Yah thanks 50... I never claim to have ANY IDEA WHATSOEVER when it comes to foreign relations, and especially the Middle East... I do understand that if the States were to pull out it would be bedlam, (give me more credit than that) however, if the states were to have ENTERED Iraq under the UN, they wouldn't be in this predicament with having to police it as well, after the fact. Any occupying forces should be somewhat neutral (IMO) not the aggressor (again IMO)

And I know what a Napoleon complex is, I was using it (incorrectly) as a descriptive of how Bush dictates, ahhh, governs. Sorry for being such a plebe.... :?

[interzone]

Technically it doesn't warrant the comparisons to Vietnam, but I think on the homefront the reaction started out the same -- confusion, but I think this one will have a different ending.

However, there is conflicting polls and research that exist. I think the majority of North Americans are confused about the situation Iraq right now, or apathetic. Either way, I think seeing news about American soldiers dying, American flags burning, and Iraqis dying has just become another evening news item. Its revelance is starting to fade in the American consciousness.

[Metalhawk]

Well, for my 2 cents...

There was no way that the US could have entered Iraq unter the UN, and I'll say why in 1 simple word: France. France was gonna Veto ANYTHING put forth, hence blocking any action UN-backed. So the US had to go ahead without the UN. Do I agree with it? Partly. Though I think it would have been better to just try to assassinate Hussein from the start and be done with it.

[thirstymoose_2000]

Though I think it would have been better to just try to assassinate Hussein from the start and be done with it.

They tried. Remember the bombing on a motorcade a few nights before the "shock and awe" campaign started. They had intelligence that he was there.

Technically it doesn't warrant the comparisons to Vietnam

Why not? Again I am speaking about the tactics used  by the opposition. The "out from the shadows" sort of attacks. Like I mentioned most documentaries I have seen have soldiers, officials and historians who state that this was the deciding factor.

It was the attack from the donkey cart that reminded me of it.

Don't forget, in Vietnam, bars that were known to be frequented by US soldiers were bombed, a couple snippers would hide out for days and then start picking-off US soldiers one at a time, a complex series of boobie-traps were set that that could take-out twenty or thirty troups at a time - it is tactics such as this that are said to have really won the war. All-out offensives took their toll as well, but the Vietnamese understood that when these happened the US learned to use air-force to counter such aggression. The geurilla maneouvers of the Vietnamese is what really wore on the soldiers of the US.

Saddam is apparently a real student .... and I don't believe for one second that he didn't plan to scatter his troops and hide out and use such tactics. They say he studied the movie (seriously CNN reported this) Blackhawk Down - and the true events on which it was based - and used it as a model of how to beat the US's technological advantage with low-tech tactics. Hmmmmmm, seems to be a few Blackhawks shot down lately.

So again - I'm not comparing results, circumstances, reason for being, or anything else for that matter to Vietnam - I am comparing TACTICS USED BY THE OPPOSITION - That's it.

[50 Mission Cap]

Though I think it would have been better to just try to assassinate Hussein from the start and be done with it.

They tried. Remember the bombing on a motorcade a few nights before the "shock and awe" campaign started. They had intelligence that he was there.

Technically it doesn't warrant the comparisons to Vietnam

Why not? Again I am speaking about the tactics used  by the opposition. The "out from the shadows" sort of attacks. Like I mentioned most documentaries I have seen have soldiers, officials and historians who state that this was the deciding factor.

It was the attack from the donkey cart that reminded me of it.

Don't forget, in Vietnam, bars that were known to be frequented by US soldiers were bombed, a couple snippers would hide out for days and then start picking-off US soldiers one at a time, a complex series of boobie-traps were set that that could take-out twenty or thirty troups at a time - it is tactics such as this that are said to have really won the war. All-out offensives took their toll as well, but the Vietnamese understood that when these happened the US learned to use air-force to counter such aggression. The geurilla maneouvers of the Vietnamese is what really wore on the soldiers of the US.

Saddam is apparently a real student .... and I don't believe for one second that he didn't plan to scatter his troops and hide out and use such tactics. They say he studied the movie (seriously CNN reported this) Blackhawk Down - and the true events on which it was based - and used it as a model of how to beat the US's technological advantage with low-tech tactics. Hmmmmmm, seems to be a few Blackhawks shot down lately.

So again - I'm not comparing results, circumstances, reason for being, or anything else for that matter to Vietnam - I am comparing TACTICS USED BY THE OPPOSITION - That's it.

By that lofice then, you could say that the American revolution was similar to Vietnam.

The reason the US failed in Vietnam had very little to do with the scenes you see in Good Morning Vietnam. IN fact, the US went into Vietnam expecting to rely on their heavy equipment such as Tanks. However, the thick jungle prevents the use of tanks, and forces you to rely on infantry alone.

[thirstymoose_2000]

However, the thick jungle prevents the use of tanks, and forces you to rely on infantry alone.

Exactly - the thick jungle was a prime area for the VC's run-and-gun type of offensive. Small units with targeted attacks. For a great number of years the VC lead the attack against the US in this type of Guerrilla tactic (although by definition they weren't truly Guerrillas) - later in the war the Vietnamese Army started rolling in with more conventional warfare including the use of tanks. By this time the damage of the Guerrilla tactics had been done. The US morale was at an all-time low and people at home wanted the troops back.

Despite superior U.S. firepower and technology, the North Vietnamese forces were successful in fighting a protracted, guerilla-style conflict. American fortunes changed for the worse with the Tet Offensive in 1968, in which major South Vietnam cities were attacked. Historians disagree on the literal success of the offensive, but it proved to be a huge boost for North Vietnamese morale, and had the opposite effect on the South Vietnamese and U.S. forces - from: http://www.vietnamwar.com

Within the United States, the Vietnam War is commonly thought of as a guerrilla war. However this is a misleading simplification of a much more complex situation which followed the pattern outlined by Maoist theory.

The Viet Cong or "VC" used guerrilla tactics in the early phases of the war. However, by 1965 when American involvement escalated, the Viet Cong were in the process of being supplanted by regular units of the North Vietnamese Army.

The NVA regiments organized along traditional military lines, were supplied via the Ho Chi Minh trail rather than living off the land, and had access to weapons such as tanks and artillery which are not normally used by guerrilla forces.

Over time, more of the fighting was conducted by the North Vietnamese Army and the character of the war become increasingly conventional. The final offensive into South Vietnam in 1975 was a completely conventional military operation with no elements of guerrilla warfare

From:www.internet-encyclopedia.org

Guerrilla Tactics
 In December 1965, Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese leadership ordered a change in a way the war in the South was to be fought. From now on, the Vietcong would avoid pitched battles with the Americans unless the odds were clearly in their favor. There would be more hit and run attacks and ambushes. To counter the American build-up, Vietcong recruitment would be stepped up and more North Vietnamese Army troops would be infiltrated into South Vietnam.
The Vietcong, following the example of Chinese guerillas before them, had always given the highest priority to creating safe base areas. They were training grounds, logistics centers and headquarters. They also offered secure sanctuaries for times when the war might go badly.

Hiding the base areas had always been a high priority for the Vietcong. Now, with American spotter planes everywhere, it was more vital than ever to protect them. In remote swamps or forests, there were few problems, but nearer the capital, it was much more difficult. The answer was to build enormous systems of underground tunnels.

The orders coming from NLF headquarters were absolutely clear. Tunnels were not to be treated as mere shelters. They were fighting bases capable of providing continuous support for troops. Even if a village was in enemy hands, the NLF beneath were still able to conduct offensive operations.

There were complexes big and small scattered across the country. Each villager in a NLF area had to dig three feet of tunnel a day. There was even a standard handbook specifying how tunnels were to be built. The biggest tunnel systems were in the Iron Triangle and the Cu Chi District, only 20 miles from Saigon.
  From: pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/guerrilla/

Also, thanks for your inferance that all I know about the war is from what I saw on Good Morning Vietnam. Where did your knowledge come from - Platoon?


Vietnam - geurilla tactics used.
Iraq - geurilla tactics being used - i.e. donkey cart, car bombs, etc.

That was my point. That was it.

If you would like, I could provide you with a few hunded more references to that effect. Can you provide any saying that geurilla tactics weren't used in Vietnam? No? Then what are you arguing about?

[50 Mission Cap]

I am merely attempting to point out that the comparison to Iraq is faulty.

These are terrorist tactics, not guerilla warfare.

I think the reason that everyone compares every US insurgence to Vietnam is that it is now used as a barometer for every military campaign.

[Metalhawk]

The real US hero of the Vietnam war was Forrest Gump. I mean, he saved almost his whole regiment, including his Lieutenant after a deadly bombing.

[thirstymoose_2000]

I am merely attempting to point out that the comparison to Iraq is faulty.

These are terrorist tactics, not guerilla warfare.

I think the reason that everyone compares every US insurgence to Vietnam is that it is now used as a barometer for every military campaign.

You know the old saying though ... one person's terrorist is another person's guerilla. A car bomb is a car bomb. A rocket propelled grenade is a rocket propelled grenade.

Terrorism

Definition: the use of terror or violence to intimidate and/or subjugate // the attack on an individual to frighten and coerce a large number of others.

Types:

Criminal: i.e.: Mafia
State Terrorism: use of terror by a Gov. to maitain power.
As an instrument of Guerilla warfare
Terrorism by groups attempting to bring about the collapse of a Gov. or trigger revolution.

Facts about Guerilla Warfare:

Used where to engage in conventional warfare would mean defeat.
Developed in rural societies where Marxist style revolution was not possible b/c of the lack of a proletariat.
Guerrilla tactics are the ‘practical methods of achieving the strategic objectives’ (Che Guevara) including mobility, self-sufficiency, sabotage…
Must establish parallel structures of government
Aim must be the changing of an unjust society / shouldn’t be used until all peaceful methods of obtaining change have been exhausted (Che Guevara)
Must have support of people. (Mao’s metaphor of the guerilla fighter being the fish and the people the sea)
Most movements have a middle class leadership.

Ending the State Sponsorship of Terrorism

by James Hall

There are widespread implications to President Bush's war on terrorism that we are only beginning to realize. One is a heightened sense of security that curtails some of our civil liberties. Another is a new awareness of a part of the world--Central and South Asia, that we have had little interest in, in the past. The major implication, however is the war on terrorism itself. For when Mr. Bush argued that there can be no state sponsorship of terrorism anywhere, he was himself abandoning and encouraging the rest of the world to abandon a tool of statecraft used by many nations, including the United States.

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2001/hall/qtr4/1003.htm

[50 Mission Cap]

Actually, the saying is, One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

[JustLearning]

Please keep the sizes of the quotes down to a couple of sentences and use the URL's if possible to show where the rest of the stories are rather than posting the whole article. If the stories get too long I have to edit them.

Thanks a million guys.

[interzone]

So again - I'm not comparing results, circumstances, reason for being, or anything else for that matter to Vietnam - I am comparing TACTICS USED BY THE OPPOSITION - That's it.

Let's compare Vietnam and Iraq, not tactically, but politically.

Vietnam: They went in to fight against Communists, who were portrayed as messengers of Satan, the arrival of the end, etc. By "liberating" Vietnam from the evil grasping hands of Communism, America was doing the world a favour.

Iraq: Replace Communism with terrorism.

Except the ending result is a lot more different, which is why I said technically it doesn't warrant the comparison. Vietnam was not a military success, being that they never got full control of the territory. The first helicopers arrived in late 1961. Nixon withdrew half a million men in 1969 but the ceasefire did not happen until 1973. Twelve years.

How long did it take the United States to "liberate" Iraq? "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was launched on March 19, 2003. An ending to all combat operations was declared on May 1st, 2003. Two months. The war, technically, is over..