Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on June 28, 2005, 07:33:32 PM
-
Kinda gives me the willies..
anybody remember 'Vietnamization'?
Hope it works this time.
-
we're in a quagmire. Just ask the troops on the ground.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Gunslinger, man you gotta change that avatard. It's just....disturbing.:(
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Gunslinger, man you gotta change that avatard. It's just....disturbing.:(
yup....it has been done.
-
between iraq and a hard place
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Charon
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
Yah Nailed it Charon. Thanks.
And, yah also clarified in my mind what's wrong now in Iraq.. and what the likely results will be.
It ain't good, is it. Damn.. damn.. damn.. how the hell did we manage to get ourselves into this.. and how do we get out?
-
To add a little more color to the picture, the free but struggling Iraqi democracy will probably be forced to curtail individual liberties to fight the continuing insurgency, and the democratic majority of the population might well be in favor of closer ties to the hardline conservative theocratic pseudo-democracy in Iran.
If the US sees this happening, odds are it will not want to pull troops out and give up control in such a strategically important oil rich country. The presence of US troops will continue to foment the insurrection.
Or maybe the whole country will have a meltdown into 3-way civil war right in front of us anyway, with our troops caught in the middle. That's what Bush Sr was concerned would happen and one of the reasons he chose NOT to go into Baghdad and depose Saddam in the first Gulf War.
Unless we start pumping and selling their oil ourselves, I don't think it will have been worth it economically.
-
It ain't good, is it. Damn.. damn.. damn.. how the hell did we manage to get ourselves into this.. and how do we get out?
That's a good question. So much of what is required is time intensive. I believe Hackworth once commented that it takes at least a decade to build a professional, truly effective military force from scratch. How long does it take to build a stable democracy? Hackworth also called for more boots on the ground, which Bush dismissed as recently as last night -- aparently as much for political reasons as anything elses (can't have the Iraqi's think we're beefing up the occupation force- can's rock the boat at home) and probably some physical limits now at current force levels. Bush did say "They're not asking for more..." but Hack addressed that too in January:
We can still win
By David H. Hackworth
The invasion of Iraq was sledgehammer-simple: Slug in some "shock and awe" and kiss Saddam Hussein goodbye.
But while our troops and generals deserve a big "bravo" for their brilliance and bravery during the initial war-fighting phase, the occupation – which went wrong right from the get-go and has bled along for almost two more terrible years – is going down as one of the biggest snafus in U.S. military history.
If the generals had any kind of plan to stabilize Iraq, it had to have been drawn up and approved by serving officers seriously stoned on LSD. But as there's zip evidence of any high-level pre-invasion planning effort, I suspect that Gen. Tommy Franks bought into all the Pentagon hype about how once the statue of Saddam fell it would be wine, roses and ecstatic dancing in the streets – and then the majority of our soldiers would leave 40,000 peacekeepers behind to assist the appropriately grateful Iraqis in building a booming, oil-rich democracy and return home to confetti and victory parades.
Our troops were truly magnificent in the early days of the fumbled occupation. Their skill, sacrifice and flexibility gave new meaning to "take charge and move out, field expediency and staying loose," and prevented even worse disasters in the chaos that ensued after our forces took down Saddam.
There is no doubt both that our warriors won the battle and that our generals blew the occupation and have been playing catch-up – badly – ever since. And nearly two years later, too many of our senior military geniuses still don't understand that we're fighting insurgents and that they need to get the necessary additional combat power on the ground quicksmart.
Again, the three mistakes that have continued to haunt our forces in Iraq since April '03 are: (1) No initial occupation plan; (2) no acknowledgment at the top that we're fighting an insurgency war; and (3) not enough combat troops to put down the insurgents, who daily become smarter, stronger and better-organized.
Our grunts have been letting me know since the early days of the invasion that there has never been enough people power on deck to do the job. "We're stretched too thin" has been a constant complaint. "Battalions are doing the work of brigades and brigades divisions," snorts an infantry skipper now in the Mosul area of operations.
So far, not one general has had the guts to stand tall and demand more troops from either Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers – who was selected for the job because he's a technical whiz, not a warfighter – or his boss, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. And late last year, when a reporter tore into Rummy on CNN about how our forces were knee-deep in an insurgency war that wasn't going well, Rummy remained in undaunted denial, defending the one-note, high-tech 21st-century force he keeps pushing – in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this war is now all about insurgency.
Meanwhile, our brass hats appear to be suffering from the Shinseki disease they caught bearing witness to then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's being treated as a leper for standing up to Rummy over the number of troops needed for the occupation. The lesson learned from this telling example: Don't cross Rummy. So even though Shinseki was dead-right, the brass went along – to get along – with a shamefully inadequate troop strength.
In my judgment, the war in Iraq against the insurgents is still winnable: if Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran are told to stop supporting the insurgents or else; if we get enough boots on the ground ASAP to saturate and dominate the badlands; and if the brass allow the small-unit leaders to do their thing without the obsessive micromanagement that infects our Army.
The troops should be left alone to build up a solid network of Iraqis who want the war to end. Then together they can put down the spoilers and spread the good life that the majority of the people in Iraq are now starting to enjoy.
Fighting insurgents is relatively simple. You don't need to be the top guy in the class to win the game. But you do need common sense and commanders who aren't afraid to stand up to bum-kissing top brass and dumb policy.
Nobody listened to old Hack the first time around in Vietnam when he was saying as much, and he was certainly Persona non grata this time around. I did see a clear acknowledgement of point no. 2 last night, though Cheny was still spouting the "dead ender - end in sight" spin a couple of weeks ago.
Charon
-
Originally posted by oboe
what Bush Sr was concerned would happen and one of the reasons he chose NOT to go into Baghdad and depose Saddam in the first Gulf War.
Incorrect. Going to Baghdad was never part of the MISSION. One thing they did correctly in the first gulf war was to lay out a set of clearly defined goals. Going to baghdad was NEVER one of them.
-
charon, one of the few treasures the bbs has to offer ( next to hang's tongue and cheek hiliarious posts)
a beacon of common sense shining in the fog of patriotic bias and blinded rhetoric.
-
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
-
charon... you are correct in that their democracy will most likely not be like ours. I seriously doubt that given free elections, we will see them elect a dictator for life or a commie tho.
They may elect someone who then seizes power and takes away the elections... that is something that we would need to intervene in.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Incorrect. Going to Baghdad was never part of the MISSION. One thing they did correctly in the first gulf war was to lay out a set of clearly defined goals. Going to baghdad was NEVER one of them.
True enough, but Bush could have. I think he was right not to.
There's a passage in his book where he talks about how difficult it would be to occupy Iraq.
-
Gunslinger -
I know it wasn't part of the mission, but he still considered it and ultimately decided against it. I remember Powell defending the decision not to go into Baghdad. But that action (and its likely consequences) was definitely being considered at the time, whether it was part of the mission or not. Being offmission was used as the main justification of the decision NOT to go in.