Author Topic: Iraqization (Read 559 times)

Hangtime · « **on:** June 28, 2005, 07:33:32 PM »

Kinda gives me the willies..

anybody remember 'Vietnamization'?

Hope it works this time.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #1 on:** June 28, 2005, 08:39:36 PM »

we're in a quagmire. Just ask the troops on the ground.

Hangtime · « **Reply #2 on:** June 28, 2005, 09:00:36 PM »

I ain't got an answer.. I just know how ugly it was in South Vietnam in the months following our handover of defense to ARVN forces.

It would appear that pulling out before the insurgent situation is capped would lead to chaos, just like it did in Vietnam.

Like it or not, seems we gotta stick it out.. however long it takes.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #3 on:** June 28, 2005, 11:36:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
I ain't got an answer.. I just know how ugly it was in South Vietnam in the months following our handover of defense to ARVN forces.

It would appear that pulling out before the insurgent situation is capped would lead to chaos, just like it did in Vietnam.

Like it or not, seems we gotta stick it out.. however long it takes.

I totally agree. I find it disgusting when I see political opponents (and i'm not naming names) of the current administration call for a pull out for no other reason than their own political gain

Seen it on the news tonite. I hope we stick it out and at the same time I really hope it works. I am one of the growing number of Americans that feels like we arent getting a good enough return on what we've spent in Iraq in human lives and money.

Nash · « **Reply #4 on:** June 28, 2005, 11:48:36 PM »

Of course the ramifications of pulling out of Vietnam are storied.

Now this is odd, but.... I don't think I've ever heard anyone discuss the ramifications had they stayed in Vietnam, for better or for worse.

It's a weird sort of blame game.

It seems to be just "This is why we pulled out." or... "That is why we pulled out."

It is never "Had we stayed in, we could have....."

It's striking. Why is there all sorts of blame for pulling out, when it's never followed by the good of staying in? As if not pulling out in itself is the best ya could have really hoped for.

Really.. really strange.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #5 on:** June 29, 2005, 12:04:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Of course the ramifications of pulling out of Vietnam are storied.

Now this is odd, but.... I don't think I've ever heard anyone discuss the ramifications had they stayed in Vietnam, for better or for worse.

It's a weird sort of blame game.

It seems to be just "This is why we pulled out." or... "That is why we pulled out."

It is never "Had we stayed in, we could have....."

It's striking. Why is there all sorts of blame for pulling out, when it's never followed by the good of staying in? As if not pulling out in itself is the best ya could have really hoped for.

Really.. really strange.

I wasn't alive during the time but I've heard the stories that we could have won if faught differently, not by staying though. I've never ever heard anyone say we could have won had we not pulled out.

Nash · « **Reply #6 on:** June 29, 2005, 12:17:09 AM »

Yet here we are 35 years later, in another war being compared to Vietnam, and there are no Jane Fonda's. Nobody is asking that the war be fought with Nerf balls. Yet it is complete suckage over there and all ya gots ta fall back on are some impotent attacks on the war that are having no discernable effect on it.

Know what? If you support this war and if you support this administration..... Ya got nobody else to blame for it.

Hangtime · « **Reply #7 on:** June 29, 2005, 12:42:14 AM »

Not much of a parallel as far as warfighting goes... in retrospect, I guess I'm jumping the gun as as far as Iraqization goes too.

Vietnam was being invaded by the North, openly supplied by China nad The USSR. We didn't go after the supply chain (Haiphong Harbor and the Rail Line from China) till the war was all but over, and then only to force the North to the Treaty Table. The North had big support from several other sources as well.. all of them openly shipping arms and material... their ships steaming happily past the Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club toting SAMS and Tanks to Uncle Ho.

When we pulled out, we left several NVA divisons in place in the south, per treaty. Although we promised renewed military support and air cover if the North broke the treaty and renewed it's attacks, we broke the deal and abandoned the south completely to it's own devices when the NVA struck in force. The North rolled into the cities in the south with armor and artillery, the ARVN officers melted into the population leaving the troops leaderless. Although there were pockets of ARVN resistance, the North had a pretty easy cakewalk.. once they got rolling, it was over in about a month. The VC didn't take South Vietnam, the NVA did.

In Iraq, it seems we've got a Insurgency ala the VC.. no NVA regulars with artillery, tanks and anti-air nets waiting in the wings to mow down the local security troops with better firepower and modern artillery. As long as we keep the security troops better armed and supported than we did the ARVN troops, as long as we keep the supply lines for the insurgents shut down (from Syria & Iran and their heavy weapons/ammo supplies & material) maybe the Iraqi security troops can keep control.

Maybe.

I'd be happier with Iraqi security forces handling the house to house stuff and US Troops handling the hammers and anvils. The 'patrols' have gotta stop.. non indiginous walk-a-bout troops are just targets over there.. just like they were in Vietnam.

Either way.. I'm watching this all unfold with not just a little bit of angst.. cripes; I hope our kids get outta it soon. Would be par for the course to have the new Iraqi governmnet sell us out up the road.. gawd whotta mess this turned out to be.

oboe · « **Reply #8 on:** June 29, 2005, 08:12:18 AM »

Why not pullback, instead of pullout? Give the IA a section of Iraq to control all by themselves and see how it goes. I've read the presence of foreign troops is part of the problem, so give the Iraqis a section of the country to handle all by themselves and let them show us they can do it.

lazs2 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 29, 2005, 08:19:36 AM »

exactly hang.. We had the vietmam war won... no major offensive by the north for 2 years... the south was trained and had won engagements on it's own.. over ninety percent of the south was secure... All we had to do was continue to support the south with money and arms... Even when we left them flat... they fought on and defeated the north till they were down to one bullet per day per man in some cases.

We are doing iraq like Abrams won vietnam... Abrams work was undone by politicians pulling the plug on support... That could happen here... I think that we need more time to get more iraqis trained and armed before we pull out our troops and simply support them with money/arms.

lazs

slimm50 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 29, 2005, 09:21:48 AM »

Gunslinger, man you gotta change that avatard. It's just....disturbing.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #11 on:** June 29, 2005, 10:19:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by slimm50
Gunslinger, man you gotta change that avatard. It's just....disturbing.

yup....it has been done.

Torque · « **Reply #12 on:** June 29, 2005, 10:22:45 AM »

between iraq and a hard place

Charon · « **Reply #13 on:** June 29, 2005, 10:54:19 AM »

I think we could have won a military victory in Vietnam as in Iraq. But without providing the conquered people of the North a better alternative than the corrupt S. Vietnamese puppet government, you would not have seen any peace from it IMO. Just more VC, more outposts, control of the urban areas and the daylight and the continual, incremental KIAs among US occupation forces. There was a strong and willing support of the communist regime (even if we would consider it misguided) so the people would not have felt liberated. And regardless of the press releases calling S. Vietnam a democracy, it was obviously a corrupt puppet dictatorship to those in both the North and the South. So to actually win the hearts and minds, get the locals invested in the system and come home easily, you have to prove to the masses that they control their destinies in a system that is superior to what some opposing charismatic leader can sell to the masses. While the opposition among Iraqi’s seems less firm, there does appear to be a dangerous level of mistrust and uncertainty of us and our motivations that has to be quickly overcome, IMO.

The problem is -- you set up a true democratic process in Vietnam or Iraq, and they don't have to listen to Uncle Sam at some point. Maybe they vote into power communism or radical Islam, or they nationalize industries or develop unacceptable trade relations, etc. We were pretty mild on the true colonial empire, but our version of colonialism based on puppet dictatorships throughout the world has had no more ultimate success than the European version. The locals can see through the BS too easily.

Charon

slimm50 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 29, 2005, 10:55:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FaliFan
Let's assume that everything goes well and Iraq becomes a free albeit struggling democracy, and that the US forces manages to withdraw within a couple of years.

What did you get for your "investment" in blood and resources? Was it worth it?

slimm breaks out the lawn chair, loads ice chest with ice and favorite bevs, waits patiently for teh fun to start.