The historical and military ignorance of most of the people comparing the two is enormous. Let's compare.
Vietnam: the population heavily supported the insurgents. Anyone who has studied low-intensity conflict will tell you this is the number one prereq for success.
Iraq: the baseline for support starts at perhaps 20% and then declines from there.
Vietnam: 58,000 dead.
Iraq: About 1/25th that number.
Vietnam: The ARVN troops were for the most part corrupt, unmotivated and ineffectual.
Iraq: The Kurdish Peshmurga are redoubtable fighters. The government troops are becoming more able and independent by the day.
Vietnam: Lush foliage to conceal the enemy.
Iraq: Open desert, friend to air power.
Vietnam: The common people expected to be empowered by a Communist victory.
Iraq: The Kurds and Shias would have only the boot of the Sunnis to expect. They won't give up.
Vietnam: The tech-gap between the two sides was relatively small. The NVA had Soviet aircraft, AA and equipment. US surveillance abilities were small, to the extent that we often dropped our bombs with little more than happy wishes of hitting something.
Iraq: Predator drones, satellites, Ground Surveillance Radars, etc, etc, etc.
Vietnam: The VC weren't fighting alone. The North Vietnamese Army fielded full-on military divisions. In fact, Saigon fell to 4 corps of NVA regulars. From what I remember, no guerrillas in history have won without the help of a regular army.
Iraq: The insurgents rely on homemade IEDs. They have no regular army support.
Vietnam: A country-sized battle zone.
Iraq: A relatively pacified country with a few very hot sections.
Vietnam: The media and liberal Democrats undercut the war effort, sapping public morale and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Well, maybe the two aren't entirely dissimilar.
Tip o the hat to Discoshaman
No comments:
Post a Comment