Iraq war is now similar to the Vietnam war?

[Stevious]

Do you agree with Sen. Hagel that the Iraq war is now similar to the Vietnam war?

* 6767 responses

Yes 74%
No 26%


http://question.msnbc.com/

[whistle]

1. Very good....

Do you agree with Sen. Hagel that the Iraq war is now similar to the Vietnam war? * 6930 responses


Yes 74% No 26%

[maddezmom]

2. same % with more votes

Do you agree with Sen. Hagel that the Iraq war is now similar to the Vietnam war? * 6930 responses


Yes
74% No
26% Yes

[Shoeempress]

3. done

[Imagevision]

4. I totally agree with Senator Hagel

[BlueJac]

5. Done

Yes

[arcane1]

6. from Gulf of Tonkin to "stay the course"

different landscape, different racial epithets, but otherwise the same old shit

the whole "empire" thing is SO 16th century

[number6]

7. yes

ee-rack-nam

[Toots]

8. I wonder in what way it is similar

I don't see any similarity at all. Most GIs killed in Vietnam were killed while engaging a Conventional army that at the time was considered the third largest standing army in the world and with modern weaponry. The only similarity I can see is the US has complete air control.

[BillZBubb]

9. How about these:

1. US troops huddled in bases, go out on search and destroy missions, then return to bases.
2. No ground is every really fully controlled.
3. The insurgents blend in with the local population and have local support.
4. There are no large scale military encounters.
5. There is saboutage of infrastructure.
6. We don't have an exit strategy.
7. There is no unifying Iraqi leader.
8. The insurgency keeps growing in spite of supposed defeats.
9. US politicians lie about progress in the face of a quagmire.
etc.

[Toots]

10. None of them are really true of Vietnam

1. US troops were in every hill in Vietnam and not just huddled in bases. They "humped the boonies" constantly. There were firebases on almost every hill and there was never a time you could not see helecopters in the air.
2. I hitchedhiked to quite a few villages and never was overly concerned about attack.
3. There were VC and they did intermix with the Vietnamese civilians but mostly in very outlying villages. In most major cities they were not very welcome.
4. Ever hear of Khe Sahn or Ashaw Valley or Hamburger Hill or La Drang Valley or An Khe or the Tet Offensive. I was in three of those places during the battles
5. There was saboutage on both sides of the battle
6. You got me on this one
7. South Vietnam had a President and a military along with a quite functional government.
8. The VC shrank while I was there and I have no clue about the NVA. It did seem to get bigger and bigger.
9. You got me again.

[BillZBubb]

11. Naturally I totally disagree on all your response points.

The South Vietnamese government was a corrupt, ineffective mess. No leader emerged who really united the South. Maybe you believe "President" Thieu was a real leader?????? ARVN was a friggin' useless joke--just like the Iraqi "security forces". Instead of arms we should have given them track shoes to help them run from the sound of gunfire. If you believe otherwise, well, no need for further discussion.

The US did control a lot of the strategic highpoints, but most of the countryside was not "pacified". Your anecdotal comment is, frankly, worthless. In almost every village it was impossible to tell friend from foe.

VC cadres were incorporated into NVA units. They had no shortage of manpower except briefly after screwups like Tet. Most of the war was small scale engagements. There were a few battles where Giap had delusions of a second Dienbienphu. But small engagements were the rule.

The US doctrine was to try to engage the enemy is large scale battles where maneuver could be decisive. The few major engagements that occured were on NVA terms. A similar scenario could unfold in Iraq as the insurgency grows.

[Mr Rabble]

12. done. nt