Posted on May 19, 2015
Do any Veterans see any similarities between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War?
27.2K
88
42
8
8
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 24
I watched Restrepo and Korengal.
I assume that this was a pretty accurate representation of life out in Indian Country.
Outside of the geography and uniforms it was a total flash-back to '68.
I assume that this was a pretty accurate representation of life out in Indian Country.
Outside of the geography and uniforms it was a total flash-back to '68.
(1)
(0)
That's an interesting question. Over the past few months, I have been re-reading several of the books I read as a young officer and before I deployed overseas. You can definitely see a lot of parallels between Army leadership in Vietnam and in Iraq and Afghanistan. A big difference is the quality of the enlisted Soldiers and the training but there are a lot of similarities. Another parallel that I have seen is between the sides we supported in all three conflicts and the enemy we faced. In Vietnam, the RVN forces had poor, corrupt leadership while the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces were driven to succeed. That is similar to the Afghan Security forces and the Taliban.
(1)
(0)
There are similarities between the guerrilla warfare tactics of Vietnam and many other conflicts to include Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the next country in the middle east to be named. One thing that always stands as a commonality is the valor which all US service members served. Luckily, there are some differences, like not being nearly as political driven as Vietnam. The measure of success has not been the body bag count but the target objective.
A heartfelt thank you to all Vietnam Veterans for showing my generation true sacrifice. I came home whole, 50 years later and it's still evident my dad left a big piece of himself in Vietnam.
A heartfelt thank you to all Vietnam Veterans for showing my generation true sacrifice. I came home whole, 50 years later and it's still evident my dad left a big piece of himself in Vietnam.
(1)
(0)
I can only assume. But, I feel both wars didn't have the support of the American people. Both wars mission was not clear to people at home and the people fighting. Both soldiers suffer extreme PSTD. I could go on. I am assuming mind you. I was in OIF II and never served in Vietnam.
(1)
(0)
Aside from losing popularity among the people and then putting pressure on the government to back out, fighting an unconventional war and not being able to do the job in its entirety..... No I don't see many similarities.
(1)
(0)
Both were fought through unconventional methods.....as well as dealing with insurgency.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) Sir, I disagree -ISIS is most certainly an insurgency. FM 3-24: An insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region. Just because ISIS can mass in force, and has the numbers to use a mixture of conventional and unconventional tactics, does not make preclude it from being an insurgency. I think this is important to note because in order to properly combat the problem we have to properly understand and define the problem.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CW3 (Join to see) The reason why I say that is that are now a country. We don't like to admit that but they have their own government set up. They are no longer trying to challenge political control. The are in control. It would be like saying the Confederacy was a insurgency. ISIS stated as that but once they gained enough power take land they moved up. I wouldn't even call it a civil war as they took areas in two countries.
In addition when they do attack they really don't do single attacks as what was done in the past. They have flagged units that move live a conventional force and attack to seize terrain. Their army is able to defeat another's country army in conventional warfare. At what point do we treat them like a country.
In addition when they do attack they really don't do single attacks as what was done in the past. They have flagged units that move live a conventional force and attack to seize terrain. Their army is able to defeat another's country army in conventional warfare. At what point do we treat them like a country.
(1)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) Sir, I'm going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The same point about a governmnet can be made about the Taliban. The Taliban controls land, has a capital in Quetta, and collects taxes through appointed figures - but there is no Talibanistan. We dont' call southern Lebanon Hezzbollahstan or Columbia Farcville. Insurgents having success and establishing organizations to perform government functions does not make them a country. They do that because they are challenging the current power - as in the definition from 3-24.
I also disagree that the use of conventional military tactics makes ISIS a country. They are also a littany of examples of ISIS using unconventional tactics, more often associated with insurgencies, as well.
Last, ISIS wants to be a country, or more specific a caliphate. I will not capitulate to their desire to be recognized as a county. They control land, for now, in the countries of Iraq and Syria.
Good points and I enjoy the discussion.
I also disagree that the use of conventional military tactics makes ISIS a country. They are also a littany of examples of ISIS using unconventional tactics, more often associated with insurgencies, as well.
Last, ISIS wants to be a country, or more specific a caliphate. I will not capitulate to their desire to be recognized as a county. They control land, for now, in the countries of Iraq and Syria.
Good points and I enjoy the discussion.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CW3 (Join to see) I greatly appreciate the civility of this. I have dealt with far too many here that lack such common courtesy as to respect an opposing point of view.
(2)
(0)
NO. War is war and politics will never change. But, compare the aftermath. Vietnam, we treated veterans like crap. That did not stop that generation on improving the military. Let's see in 40 years.
(0)
(0)
Ok... I'm going to dissent.
We invaded Iraq, defeated the resident standing Army and took out the standing government. We went into South Vietnam as advisors... on behalf of the South Vietnam government. This was of course after the french left. It then escalated from Low intensity to medium intensity conflict. We finally left because its hard to help a government that really doesnt want to govern nor help itself. The last part resonates with Iraq to me as a similarity.
In Iraq we then attempted to execute what we had done with Germany.... A Marshall Type plan if you will... And then it went to hell! No argument from me... That failed. Over the last half dozen years there have been numerous groups that have been insurgent in the country... The latest is ISIS. They are having sucess... But they are not all Iraqi... They are from all over the place.
Our involvement in Vietnam was to help stabilize (bail out\rescue) their government and train the South Vietnamese Army to stop the Communist Norths desire to unite as a one Communist Vietnam. The Truman Doctrine if you will. This was a Vietnamese vs Vietnamese civil war... Lets be honest with this. Yes they were being supplied by communist countries.... But we were doing the same thing all pver the wirld also. We did managed to beat the NVA in almost every engagement; however, when it became a guerilla, or lttle war (termed in the Napolianic War on thr Iberian Penisula.... And actual spanish for "small war") and an insurgency.... It gets really hard to fight that type if war.... Especially when the countries government does little to help... This point is true through history. The Greek City State wars are a great example.
Here is the last point I'll make. In, I believe 1954, GEN Max Taylor said.... Don't become involved in a conflict on the Asian land mass... This was of course after Korea.... Three times since... Probably six if you count some of the insurgents we have helped over the years... We have failed to listen to this advice. On each occasion this has not worked out well. Maybe its time that our Government leaders take heed to that counsel? Before we try to "help"... If we want to destroy and depart.... Cool... The American Military can annilate any force on the planet... There might not be a planet left afterwards... But we could. We are not nation builders on the asian land mass... But then neither was Alexander the Great.
My 2 cents
We invaded Iraq, defeated the resident standing Army and took out the standing government. We went into South Vietnam as advisors... on behalf of the South Vietnam government. This was of course after the french left. It then escalated from Low intensity to medium intensity conflict. We finally left because its hard to help a government that really doesnt want to govern nor help itself. The last part resonates with Iraq to me as a similarity.
In Iraq we then attempted to execute what we had done with Germany.... A Marshall Type plan if you will... And then it went to hell! No argument from me... That failed. Over the last half dozen years there have been numerous groups that have been insurgent in the country... The latest is ISIS. They are having sucess... But they are not all Iraqi... They are from all over the place.
Our involvement in Vietnam was to help stabilize (bail out\rescue) their government and train the South Vietnamese Army to stop the Communist Norths desire to unite as a one Communist Vietnam. The Truman Doctrine if you will. This was a Vietnamese vs Vietnamese civil war... Lets be honest with this. Yes they were being supplied by communist countries.... But we were doing the same thing all pver the wirld also. We did managed to beat the NVA in almost every engagement; however, when it became a guerilla, or lttle war (termed in the Napolianic War on thr Iberian Penisula.... And actual spanish for "small war") and an insurgency.... It gets really hard to fight that type if war.... Especially when the countries government does little to help... This point is true through history. The Greek City State wars are a great example.
Here is the last point I'll make. In, I believe 1954, GEN Max Taylor said.... Don't become involved in a conflict on the Asian land mass... This was of course after Korea.... Three times since... Probably six if you count some of the insurgents we have helped over the years... We have failed to listen to this advice. On each occasion this has not worked out well. Maybe its time that our Government leaders take heed to that counsel? Before we try to "help"... If we want to destroy and depart.... Cool... The American Military can annilate any force on the planet... There might not be a planet left afterwards... But we could. We are not nation builders on the asian land mass... But then neither was Alexander the Great.
My 2 cents
(0)
(0)
More like Germany and Hitler but we where allowed to see it all the way threw
(0)
(0)
Read This Next

Warfare
Vietnam War
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
