Would public reaction have been the same if we had fought an enemy that was coordinated and capable?
Here's a bit of info why I started this thread....
I participate in a therapy group at a nearby VA hospital. The make-up is mostly Vietnam era vets with 2 Korean vets and two Gulf war vets.
The question came up when one related a field report from the recent hostilities where a seasoned soldier stated that if the ambush their convoy encountered was done by an enemy with the skills and tenacity of those encountered in Vietnam they would have been in serious trouble.
So the discussion, which took many different paths, finaly centered on "What would have happened if the Iraqi's had been an effective fighting force"?
The ones that said it would have made no difference in the outcome and public support were the two Gulf war vets. The others strongly dissagreed with them. The part that all were in agreement with was about the outcome, but public support was where they were in total disagreement.
I would like to get some peoples input into this for our next session.
One last thing, some of the guys felt that the reports of a 'stunning victory' should have been a given because of the uncohesive nature of the enemy, the fact that everyones patting themselves on the back totaly dismisses our troops great fortune that the enemy wasn't capable nor had the incentive to fight effectivly...after some discussion the general feeling, which seems to crop up at most of these sessions, was that, from the Viet era vets, of slight jealousy because of the technoligical edge and the vast support that todays US and British troops have.
Please don't let this become more than what it is, a request for some public input to help some Vets who are still adversly affected by their combat experience.
