Not Vietnam, but Gaudalcanal

[Sabre]

An analogy I hadn't considered, but one with merit, IMO.

Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal
Friday, September 24, 2004
By Powl Smith


Pundits these days are quick to compare the fighting in Iraq (search) with the American loss in Vietnam (search) 30 years ago. Terms like "quagmire" evoke the Southeast Asian jungle, where America's technological advantages were negated and committed Vietnamese guerrillas wore down the U.S. will to fight.

People love to draw historical analogies because they seem to offer a sort of analytical proof—after all, doesn't history repeat itself? In fact, such comparisons do have value, but like statistics, it's possible to find a historical analogy to suit any argument. And Vietnam's the wrong one for Iraq.

In fact, World War II is a far more accurate comparison for the global war we are waging to defeat terrorism. Both wars began for the United States with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy. We had many faint and not-so-faint warnings of the impending Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor (search), not least the historical precedent of Port Arthur in 1904, when the Japanese launched a preemptive strike against Russia.

We had similar ill-defined warnings and precedents about Al Qaeda (search) and Islamist terrorism (search) (the East Africa embassy bombings (search) in 1998; the USS Cole bombing (search) in 2000), but in 2001 as in 1941, we lacked the "hard" intelligence requisite to convince a country at peace that it was about to pitched into war.


Historical apologists say that the Japanese were "forced" to attack us because we were strangling their trade in Asia. Sound familiar? American foreign policy in the Middle East is responsible for the anger and rage that has stirred up Al Qaeda, right? In fact, there is a crucial similarity between the Japanese imperialism (search) of 50 years ago and Islamic fundamentalism of today: both are totalitarian, anti-Western ideologies that cannot be appeased.

As Japan amassed victory after victory in the early days of the war, America and our allies could see that we had a long, hard slog ahead of us. Americans understood there was no recourse but to win, despite the fearful cost. This was the first and foremost lesson of World War II that applies today: Wars of national survival are not quick, not cheap, and not bloodless.

In one of our first counteroffensives against the Japanese, U.S. troops landed on the island of Guadalcanal (search) in order to capture a key airfield. We surprised the Japanese with our speed and audacity, and with very little fighting seized the airfield. But the Japanese recovered from our initial success, and began a long, brutal campaign to force us off Guadalcanal and recapture it. The Japanese were very clever and absolutely committed to sacrificing everything for their beliefs. (Only three Japanese surrendered after six months of combat—a statistic that should put today's Islamic radicals to shame.) The United States suffered 6,000 casualties during the six-month Guadalcanal campaign; Japan, 24,000. It was a very expensive airfield.

Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission, and the populations that support them have to be convinced they can't win. This is a bloody and difficult business. In the Pacific theater, we eventually learned our enemies' tactics—jungle and amphibious warfare (search), carrier task forces, air power—and far surpassed them. But that victory took four years and cost many hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal—one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.

For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win.

Lieutenant Colonel Powl Smith, U.S. Army, is the former chief of counterterrorism plans at U.S. European Command and is currently in Baghdad with Multi-National Forces-Iraq.

[Rude]

Well said....the problem with most on this board is that they somehow deem the objectives in Iraq as in some way, easy or quick.

Perseverence and resolve along with an iron fist in a velvet glove will win out in Iraq and other middle eastern countries.....the reality of freedom amongst the common man, woman and child will forever change that part of the world....it just won't happen within a single political season and that fact, drives the dribble by many on this board.

[Gunslinger]

wow good read...thanks for the post

I've allways thaught that coparing vietnam was a poor comparison to Iraq.  Type of warfare, insurgency, casualties; to me they are completly diff.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Drivel, drivel.

Dribble is what you do with a basketball.
-SW

[Rude]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Drivel, drivel.

Dribble is what you do with a basketball.
-SW

I hate to disagree, but I refer to the inate ability of all of my children to yes, dribble.

Merriam Webster: to let saliva trickle from the corner of the mouth : DROOL

It is simply the wet substance which leaks from the mouth, usually caused by the opening of one's mouth and uttering sounds rather than coherent speech.

I hear ya though....sorry for the confusion:)

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Well, you were right about dribble though. It's a requirement to have a full frontal lobotamy to post on this board, dribble is usually the primary result of the lobotamy.
-SW

[mars01]

Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal—one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.

Interesting comparison which only holds water if Iraq becomes a jumping point to then take out Syrai, Iran and to some degree Saudi Arabia, et-al, otherwise your whole analogy falls apart and the Iraq comparison to Vietnam is a better fit, with I hope and pray has a better outcome.  

To be honest if your analogy were to be the case then, we would be occupying Iraq and there would be little effort or care to turn Iraq over to it's people.  That is why I think this is more a liberation like Vietnam was supposed to be rather than a stepping point like Guadalcanal.

Also, even though you quote people that say "For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win."  I am sure this was felt by many people during Korea and Vietnam as well.  I would think every war we have entered, this line would fit.  Only problem is that we didn't really win in Korea or Vietnam for many reasons that go beyond this thread.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Well, you were right about dribble though. It's a requirement to have a full frontal lobotamy to post on this board, dribble is usually the primary result of the lobotamy.
-SW

Check 6 kinda slow these days?

[Preon1]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Drivel, drivel.

Dribble is what you do with a basketball.
-SW

in my Marriam Webster's, the word dribble is actually in the definition of drivel.


On point:
Guadacanal seems like a good comparison to take some lessons from.  At the very least, it's as good as Vietnam (it certainly feels better).  The only problem is that LTCOL Smith doesn't take Vietnam into context.

In the 60s, Vietnam was part of the greater struggle against the Soviet Union.  This was a struggle against a fundamentally anti-western culture that lasted for decades (instead of years like the war against Japan) and had its share of victories and losses.

If you're willing to make that strategic concession, then Vietnam looks better and better.  It's tacticly similar because we're fighting a mostly home grown insurgency and we are limiting ourselves to a defined target set with specific munitions.  It's politicly similar because we have a growing anti-war movement and an enemy that's willing to exploit it, and we're worried that moving out will only hand the region over to that enemy.

What's the lesson in this analysis?  In Vietnam we lost, but the USSR was eventually defeated because of efforts elsewhere.  This doesn't mean we should leave Iraq, but in a worldwide effort against a fundamentalist threat, we should have a broad effort to defeat that threat wherever we may find it.  What's different?  The players change.  In the last half of the 20th century, our allies were those threatened by the USSR.  In the 21st century, our allies are those who feel threatened by radical Islamic terrorists.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Following me around now? Maybe I can make one of them cool "Ripsnort has a crush on me" avatards so I can feel importent.
-SW

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

That's odd Preon, a lot of dictionaries appear to have drivel as a definition for dribble and vice versa. My English professor was very vehement about dribble being drool while drivel was inane babble.
-SW

[Preon1]

SW, professors can be extremist too.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131398

P.S.  Sabre, I SWEAR it's not my intention to hijack your thread by following the drivel thing or posting the teacher thing.  Comparing Iraq to historical experience is a very useful exercise.

[Edbert]

To be honest if your analogy were to be the case then, we would be occupying Iraq and there would be little effort or care to turn Iraq over to it's people.  That is why I think this is more a liberation like Vietnam was supposed to be rather than a stepping point like Guadalcanal.

A good point Mars! One thing though; we were not liberating Vietnam, we were trying to prevent the eastern block from 'liberating' it

[mars01]

A good point Mars! One thing though; we were not liberating Vietnam, we were trying to prevent the eastern block from 'liberating' it

LOLH Edbert.  Ok we were trying to reliberate it.

[Sabre]

Some good points, Preon (about the article, not about drivel...or dribble, or whatever).  Either analogy has some aspects that can fit the situation.  The question is which one to follow to best insure defeat of our enemies?  In the case of Vietnam, the public lost sight of what the point of our intervention was.  There is certainly a danger of that happening with Iraq as well, since the constant drumbeat from opponents of the Iraqi war is that it is a distraction from the war on terror (in itself, a poor moniker; a better one would be, “war against radical Islam”).  However, unlike the Vietnam War, we made a conscious decision to take the fight to Saddam, a major sponsor of terrorism, with the clear goal of defeating him and replacing his tyranny with democracy.  And, like the many campaigns of WWII, it is but one campaign along the road to stamping out this evil.  

As for Mars’ comment about occupation and Guadalcanal as a stepping stone, remember this:  The US and the Western Allies liberated huge areas during the campaigns of WWII, turning over to them (including most especially the subjugated peoples of Germany and Japan) full self-governance at the earliest possible time.  This was something on the order of 7-10 years in the case of Germany and Japan.  As far as being a stepping stone, again it is critical to remember why we want democracy in a liberated Iraq.  It is to act as a beacon of hope to other oppressed people in the Middle East, and to show that Islam need not fear freedom, or live in the shadow of the West.  Not all the battles of this new war will be fought with smart bombs and bullets.  Indeed, the turn-around of Libya came about without the use of direct violence against that nation.  Make no mistake, Iraq is a stepping stone to victory.