Quality of the Opponent

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the troops didnt decide to invade, our government didnt decide to invade. one man did, i do not support him or the assertion anyone but he caused this war. and its repercussions.

You're totally blind, aren't you?

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're totally blind, aren't you?

Nah Rip, He can see. He just can't think.

[Saurdaukar]

MrLars, I cant speak intelligently regarding your question as I wasnt in Vietnam or the Gulf, but its a good thing youre doing, working with these individuals.  

Crabs, Dolf - you should know better than to bring your riot inciting garbage into a thread of this nature... not an ounce of humility in either one of you - both worthless human beings.

[GrimCO]

MrLars,

I was too young at the time to contemplate the war in Vietnam much while it was underway. I just remember seeing it on television, knowing that my uncle was over there fighting, and hearing my dad complain about the way it was being handled. The one thing I remember most is that my uncle was different when he came home. I didn't understand what was different about him at the time, I just knew he wasn't the same uncle I had before he left for Vietnam. I suppose in it's own way, that left an impression on me.

However, Monk made a VERY important point that might be of some help to the Vietnam Vets in your group. I'm not saying this just to try to make you feel better, or dig for some way to look at the bright side of the Vietnam war. But because of the sacrifices you made over there, and the nonsense you had to endure, wars are fought differently today by America. A lesson was learned at your expense, but it paved the way for your children not to have to endure the same things you did if they're called upon to serve their country.

I wouldn't be jealous, I'd be proud.

[MrLars]

Originally posted by GrimCO
MrLars,

A lesson was learned at your expense, but it paved the way for your children not to have to endure the same things you did if they're called upon to serve their country.

This feeling isn't lost to these guys, their extreemly glad that this war was planned and executed by the military and not by the politicians as has been done in the past. The fact that emphasis wasn't placed on bodycount by the military < but IMO was in the media > proves to them that this war was prosecuted properly and with excelent planning.

I wouldn't be jealous, I'd be proud.

We've examined if it realy is jealousy or something else, self pity has been examined too but dismissed. We'll go into this deeper in our next session since most of us feel it's not the proper term to use to describe these feelings.

Regarding your Uncle and how he had changed....damn near everyone of us did change, the feeling of not caring about lifes little problems or the attitude of "it don't mean nothin'" is just a way that they had delt with the fear that today or tomorrow may be the last day of your life, this and availibility was the root cause of most of the drug use in Nam.....some brought that attitude back to the world, the lucky ones got over it quickly.

[MrLars]

Originally posted by Monk


MrLars, tell your Vietnam Vet guys that because of them, alot less soldiers are dying today. I mean that in good way.

Oh ya, Tell them THANKS too.

Roger that Monk, your response and ones like it are what I was fishing for. Some of the guys are in dire need of this kind of feedback...Thanks!

[jonnyb]

One major difference between the war in Vietnam and the more recent wars in Iraq is the quality of equipment.  During Vietnam, our enemy was the USSR in the form of Charlie.  We were fighting an army equipped with weapons very much comparable to our own, if not better.  As an example, the AK47 was far and away a much better suited weapon than the poorly designed M16A1.

Furthermore, the terrain in both scenarios played a very significant role in their outcomes.  In Vietnam, we were trying to establish air superiority and were still relying on tactics that had been effective in World War II.  Think here of Operation Linebacker.  It was our position that we could simply carpet bomb the Vietnamese into submission.  Unfortunately there weren't any real targets of opportunity.  There were no centralized production facilities, no major industry that needed to be shut down.  As stated earlier, the Vietnamese were being supplied by the Soviets, so carpet bombing wasn't the answer (unless of course that bombing had been directed at Soviet resources, but that's a whole different can of worms).

Now take a look at the Iraqi terrain.  Wide open desert and a self-contained infrastructure.  This leads to the perfect use of the type of tactics we attempted in Vietnam.  However, technology has progressed and there is no longer the need to carpet bomb.  We can use satellite guided weapons to accurately pinpoint and destroy targets.  Cruise missiles with ground following systems can fly hundreds of miles and hit a particular point in a castle.  We can surgically remove the enemy's capability to make war.

Our ability to own the skies, and grind the war-making machine to a halt very quickly de-moralizes a fighting force.  The Iraqis are now fighting with sub-standard equipment against an enemy that owns their skies, has destroyed their ability to continue to wage war and has them surrounded.

If we assume that the Iraqis were indeed an effective fighting force, how would we have fared?  Our strategy would have been the same: destroy their ability to wage war.  A fighting force can be the most effective force in the world, however if they cannot wage war they are rendered useless.  Our casualties would have been considerably greater than they were due to the more effective fighting abilities of the Iraqis; however, the outcome would have eventually been the same simply because we could outlast them.

[najdorf]

To the original question, would the public opinion of the war change if the Iraquis were a better opponent, which I take you to mean:
              Would public opinion be as positive towards the war if we took more significant casualties?

My answer would be a definate no.

To see the truth of this, I don't think you have to look any further than North Korea.  While I don't wish to argue the merrits of the most recent Gulf War, the factors that sent us in there are present in NK but in a much more obvious fassion.

You want "weapons of mass destruction" these guys are on the brink of having nuclear capabilities and have stated they are willing to sell it when they get it.

You want oppression and human rights violations, North Korea is #1 at this point for both.

So why don't we hit NK?  WWIII.  China wants to be the main power in South East Asia.  When you're supposed to be the big boy on the block, you don't let someone else pee in your back yard.  Even if China stayed out, which they wouldn't, NK is no pushover.  They have over a million under arms and have good equipment.  We could easily take of 200,000 casualties fighting in a place like North Korea.

Bottom line, you won't see us there.