Iraq is NOT Vietnam - Russian Analyst says

[Maj C]

Good article from a Russian analyst...people forget that the USMC and coalition forces are holding cities with just a few battalions...

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/04/13/009.html

Tuesday, Apr. 13, 2004. Page 11

Senator, Iraq Is No Vietnam

By Pavel Felgenhauer

The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush has plenty of enemies both at home and abroad. A lot of people would love to see Bush get a bloody nose in Iraq, or anywhere else. Last week the critics had a field day: With heavy fighting in Fallujah and sporadic clashes breaking out elsewhere, Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy said that Iraq had become "George Bush's Vietnam," and declared that the United States needs a new leader.

It was Kennedy's older brother, John F. Kennedy, who dragged the United States into the Vietnam quagmire, and the senator should know better than to compare Vietnam and Iraq.

The Vietnam War was a battlefield in the global Cold War that pitted the United States against the Soviet Union and its allies. The Soviet defense industry supplied the North Vietnamese with the latest weapons. In 1975 North Vietnamese regulars, armed and trained by the Soviets, took Saigon. "Winning" the war in Vietnam was impossible without first winning the Cold War. So long as the Soviets were able to maintain a global balance of power, any local war -- in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Nicaragua -- tended to develop into a quagmire.

Today the world is a very different place, and the scope of the fighting in Iraq cannot be compared to Vietnam. The United States lost more than 60,000 soldiers and 8,000 aircraft in Vietnam. U.S. casualties in Iraq number fewer than 500. The nature of combat of Iraq, as demonstrated in Fallujah last week, is also different. Four U.S. civilian contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated by local residents. Less than 2,000 Marines moved in to find and punish the perpetrators.

Under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni Muslims of Fallujah, a city of some 400,000 inhabitants, were regularly recruited to serve as officers in the armed forces and the security services. When Baghdad fell, these loyalists found themselves out of a job and returned home. In Fallujah, they formed underground armed groups and waited for the Marines to attack. It is possible that the killing of the four contractors was a deliberate provocation intended to lure U.S. forces into the streets of Fallujah, where local armed bands lay in wait. In Vietnam, and more recently in Somalia in 1993, U.S. losses during street fighting led to outcry back home and the unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah outnumbered the Marines and were armed with Kalashnikov automatic rifles, RPG-7 antitank grenade launchers and mortars. Chechen fighters used the same weapons in Grozny in 1995, 1996 and 2000, killing thousands of Russian soldiers and destroying hundreds of armored vehicles.

Just like the Russians in Grozny, the Marines last week were supported by tanks and attack helicopters, but the end result was entirely different. U.S. forces did not bomb the city indiscriminately. The Iraqis fought well but were massacred. According to the latest body count, some 600 Iraqis died and another 1,000 were wounded. The Marines lost some 20 men.

The Marines are far better trained, of course, but the Iraqis were fighting in their hometown. The decisive difference between the two sides was the extensive use of a computerized command, control and targeting system by the U.S. military. Satellites, manned and unmanned aircraft collected precise information on enemy and friendly movements on the battlefield night and day.

Modern U.S. field commanders have real-time access to this system, allowing them to monitor the changing situation on the battlefield as no commander in the history of war has been able to do. This technology has greatly enhanced the effectiveness of aerial bombardments in the last decade. And now the nature of house-to-house combat has changed as well.

The more accurate historical analogy to the current war in Iraq is not Vietnam but, say, the battle at Omdurman, Sudan, in 1898, when Horatio Herbert Kitchener, a British field marshal, crushed the Sudanese forces of al-Mahdi by bringing machine guns to bear against the enemy's muskets and spears. Today the United States has the capability and the technical superiority to fight and win colonial wars against numerically superior enemies.

But military superiority is not enough. Will the Bush administration -- or the Democrats, should they win the White House in November -- prove better, kinder rulers of the world than the British Liberals and Tories of a century ago?


Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.

[Russian Texan]

Content of the article aside, which I am not going to read - Pavel Felengauer is not an analyst, he is a bitter person with hurt feelings. He self proclaimed himself an "analyst" and writes things that are popular/accepted by the western public, on top of that he also holds a grudge against anything and everything Russian.

In short he is a looser wannabe...

[White_Bear]

all it's true.there is no country like china or CCCP to help insurgents.All analogies to vietnam are stupid and have no sense.After all we have to remeber that Russians should know what does vietnam (Afghanistan) mean.They lost in chechenya more troops then they lost in lost war with afghan mujahedins.

[Sergei]

Pavel Felgengauer is a military analyst? Give me a break. More like another Suvorov in the making.
He will write you for cash anything, even that White Bears inhabit Poland. rofl

[Kingpin]

all it's true.


This Felhenauer is not "Russian" analyst. He's just making good bussiness selling his columns on the west. Really involved people like 16 OBr SpN who was in both Chechnya and Afganistan laughing at him.


there is no country like china or CCCP to help insurgents.All analogies to vietnam are stupid and have no sense.


First of all not too much time passed since occupation started. In both Afganistan and Vietnam there wasn't much blood in the ferst year. You forgot about arabs when talking about help. You forgot that it takes 12 years for UK to achieve something in Iraq in beginning of XX century and it costed many lives for them.



They lost in chechenya more troops then they lost in lost war with afghan mujahedins.

No. But amount KIA per year in Chechnya was higher in 1994-1995 and in 1999-2000. Now it is much lower.

[Maj C]

hey whatever...it's the Moscow Times so as far as I know he's Russian. I don't know why the Russians on this board seem so Anti-American...I think we'll have a lot more in common now that we're both fighting Muslim extremists and you're free to be Christians again etc...

[White_Bear]

First of all not too much time passed since occupation started. In both Afganistan and Vietnam there wasn't much blood in the ferst year. You forgot about arabs when talking about help. You forgot that it takes 12 years for UK to achieve something in Iraq in beginning of XX century and it costed many lives for them.


yes,but arabs can't send them military equipment and anything like that.And after all they aren't so strong as CCCP and China were.Even Iran can't bulid camps to train insurgents or send military advisiors.so they can help in a very limited way.

And in Chechenya Russia is still suffering big loses.It doesn't mean that I'm sympathising with Chechens but only in recent weeks they lost above 20-30 men (or maybe more).So Russians shouldn't ironically say anything about Vietnam.That's my point of view.

[Loco]

I think it would be fair discussing better about Felgenhauer argument´s than about Felgenhaur himself. What do you think about Felgenhauer´s conclusions in his article? You aren´t saying that Felgenhauer is wrong, you´re saying he is not valid, a very biased opinion too. What you´re doing is critizeing the job of being analyst. I wonder how a russian could write about Napoleon and Borodino battle 70 years later when he obvioulsly even wasn´t born, and many people said he wrote a realistic master piece.
Talking about the war, I find amazing that few americans troops, with fewer casualties, are controlling Fallujah. Were the northvietnamesse better soldiers? I don´t know, but it looks like if marines now aren´t facing so many enemies in Fallujah like their fathers did in Hue in 1968, which were an organized army.
But what I don´t like of what I´m seeing is that I didn´t expect to happen an urban battle(many urbans battles: Karbala, Nayaf last week, Nasiriya...) 1 year after the "end" of the Irak war, it doesn´t matter if the fight in Fallujah is bigger or smaller than in Hue: there shouldn´t be any battle just now in Irak, that´s what we were said.
And if the price of regaining control of Irak is a war like Afghanistan suffered with soviets or Vietnam with USA, then for sure this is another wrong war too, but it´s not the fault of marines, which it´s clear they are doing their job better than well. But I finish, because this topic is going to the politic side. I think the substance of Felhgenhauer´s article is right.

[ExtraT]

His "analysis" of Marines's superiority is at the very least, naive. But he is right in one thing - it's is sompletely impossible to compare Iraq to Vietnam. The situation is completely different from absoultely all points of view.

[Kingpin]

in recent weeks they lost above 20-30 men (or maybe more).So Russians shouldn't ironically say anything about Vietnam.That's my point of view.

:) Give me calculation please :) And sources

[Russian Texan]

I find this source and the article much more credible
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Newsweek/Photos/mag/040419_Issue/nw_300_magcover_040410.jpg

Here you can also find an interview Evan Thomas
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4711882/

[White_Bear]

:) Give me calculation please :) And sources

AFP - there were some big ambushes (about 3-4) when russians lost about 15-20 soldiers (I'm not saying about local pro-russian forces).I don't know how many times chechen rebels killed 1 or 2 soldiers and AFP or other sources didn't say anything about that.And after all I'm saying just about soldiers who were killed in action because there were many other accidents-for example 31 III captain Czeredniczenko got crazy and killed 10 soldiers.And that was winter so chechen rebels were very quiet.Now when spring come mountains and forrests can give them great combat bonus.

ps-yesterday chechen sources said that they destroyed some russian vehicles - about 23 russians were killed.there is no confirmation from russian sources.

[GazB]

So Russians shouldn't ironically say anything about Vietnam.


Perhaps you should read more carefully...


With heavy fighting in Fallujah and sporadic clashes breaking out elsewhere, Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy said that Iraq had become "George Bush's Vietnam," and declared that the United States needs a new leader.


What part of Russia was Senator Kennedy born in?

[Haiw]

Communist state of California!
;)

Sorry... Sixgun must be contagious. :(

[Spearin]

What the hell is this guy talking about?

1. He failed to mention the motives for the Vietnamese in the war - to oust the French (occupiers) and then to oust the Americans and unite North and South into one Vietnam. America got involved to prevent a 'domino effect' in South-East Asia with Communism (gov't they didn't like).

What are the Iraqi Insurgents' motives in Iraq? Oust the Americans (occupiers at the moment). America got involved in this war to get rid of Saddam Hussein's regime (gov't they didn't like).

2. He compares casualties... Which he cannot do at the moment since it has only been a year in Iraq compared to however many years in Vietnam...

[ogukuo72]

Iraq is not Vietnam. It's worse. Much worse. It's Beirut.

[American Patriot]

Iraq is not Vietnam. It's worse. Much worse. It's Beirut.

You're a funny guy.

[Kingpin]

:) Give me calculation please :) And sources

AFP - there were some big ambushes (about 3-4) when russians lost about 15-20 soldiers (I'm not saying about local pro-russian forces).I don't know how many times chechen rebels killed 1 or 2 soldiers and AFP or other sources didn't say anything about that.And after all I'm saying just about soldiers who were killed in action because there were many other accidents-for example 31 III captain Czeredniczenko got crazy and killed 10 soldiers.And that was winter so chechen rebels were very quiet.Now when spring come mountains and forrests can give them great combat bonus.

ps-yesterday chechen sources said that they destroyed some russian vehicles - about 23 russians were killed.there is no confirmation from russian sources.

Ha ha ha. AFP! Ha ha ha. This source already lost its credibility.

[Sergei]

:) Give me calculation please :) And sources

AFP - there were some big ambushes (about 3-4) when russians lost about 15-20 soldiers (I'm not saying about local pro-russian forces).I don't know how many times chechen rebels killed 1 or 2 soldiers and AFP or other sources didn't say anything about that.And after all I'm saying just about soldiers who were killed in action because there were many other accidents-for example 31 III captain Czeredniczenko got crazy and killed 10 soldiers.And that was winter so chechen rebels were very quiet.Now when spring come mountains and forrests can give them great combat bonus.

ps-yesterday chechen sources said that they destroyed some russian vehicles - about 23 russians were killed.there is no confirmation from russian sources.

Ha ha ha. AFP! Ha ha ha. This source already lost its credibility.

The guy is reading too much of www.kavkaz.morgue rofl

[16 OBr SpN]

Iraq is NOT Vietnam! But my thoughts about it are completely different than those of "the expert" Felgengauer, and I won't go into that.

Comparing these two operations is stupid. Besides, its too early to make any assessments about current affairs and their future effects on Iraqi situation.

On a side note, that Felgengauer prick is total ****head! How the fock does someone become a "military analyst" when the guy hadn't even served in the Armed forces!!! It would be like me commenting on neuro-surgery! :lol:
That idiot doesn't even know what it takes to wear a uniform and the smell of gunpowder, leave alone tactical planning!!

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[White_Bear]

So Russians shouldn't ironically say anything about Vietnam.


Perhaps you should read more carefully...


With heavy fighting in Fallujah and sporadic clashes breaking out elsewhere, Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy said that Iraq had become "George Bush's Vietnam," and declared that the United States needs a new leader.


What part of Russia was Senator Kennedy born in?

It was about people who said that all what he had said was a bulll****.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kingpin wrote:
White_Bear wrote:
Quote:
Give me calculation please And sources


AFP - there were some big ambushes (about 3-4) when russians lost about 15-20 soldiers (I'm not saying about local pro-russian forces).I don't know how many times chechen rebels killed 1 or 2 soldiers and AFP or other sources didn't say anything about that.And after all I'm saying just about soldiers who were killed in action because there were many other accidents-for example 31 III captain Czeredniczenko got crazy and killed 10 soldiers.And that was winter so chechen rebels were very quiet.Now when spring come mountains and forrests can give them great combat bonus.

ps-yesterday chechen sources said that they destroyed some russian vehicles - about 23 russians were killed.there is no confirmation from russian sources.


Ha ha ha. AFP! Ha ha ha. This source already lost its credibility.


I said that last info was from chechen sources.So I'm sure that there was a heavy fight and some soldiers were killed.I'm not sure how many.But probably above 10.AFP and chechen sources lie???And russian didn't suffer any loses in Chechenya??

And who remember that day when streets of Grozny were full of burning tanks and killed russian soldiers??That case can show us that chechen rebels are good fighters and they know how to fight with russians.After winter they will get another bonus.Russia lost more soldiers in chechenya then in Afghnistan.And it's not the end.They (chechens) have nothing to loose so they can fight many years.

[Kingpin]

Let's ask man who can give you first hand info - should we beleive in this **** or not?

[Zmey]

White Bear, you sound pretty pro-chechen to me... Citing kavkaz.org and AFP and making out-of-the-ass comments like" i dont know how many soldiers were killed, but probably 10" makes you sound like severely retarded victim of late-term abortion. If anyone here start quoting Al-Jazeera or other obviously pro-arab sources in regard to american losses, they'd be hung by the balls off Statue of Liberty's tourch.

If you think that Russians are allies - act like it. It just may end up being self-fulfilling prophecy. Until then... consider suicide.

Z.S.

[White_Bear]

White Bear, you sound pretty pro-chechen to me... Citing kavkaz.org and AFP and making out-of-the-ass comments like" i dont know how many soldiers were killed, but probably 10" makes you sound like severely retarded victim of late-term abortion. If anyone here start quoting Al-Jazeera or other obviously pro-arab sources in regard to american losses, they'd be hung by the balls off Statue of Liberty's tourch.

If you think that Russians are allies - act like it. It just may end up being self-fulfilling prophecy. Until then... consider suicide.

Z.S.

hmmm...you know,it's hard to say.I just wanted to tell that this isn't an easy war.Chechens are good soldiers,they know this contry and they know how to fight in mountains.Russians were probably killed in this accident and this is a credible information because few days ago Russians launched massive operation to destroy chechen rebels.Operation is underway and there are many informations that resistance was very hard.If there was no casualties it's OK but I suppose that it's better to know what people,even from the other side said.Maybe they are right or maybe they are wrong.But after all it's good to know.

[ibstolidude]

Content of the article aside, which I am not going to read - Pavel Felengauer is not an analyst, he is a bitter person with hurt feelings. He self proclaimed himself an "analyst" and writes things that are popular/accepted by the western public, on top of that he also holds a grudge against anything and everything Russian.

In short he is a looser wannabe...
Sounds like over half the things published here by "experts" on the US.

more of the pot and the kettle.

[Trigger]

^Word.

[Russian Texan]

Actually, I don't think that Iraq = Vietnam, if anything - it has more in common with USSR in Afganistan:

- similar missions (to remove potential threat/install puppet government)

- approximatelly same number of forces involved, although different type of terrain

- combining rebuilding/construction of the country while conducting military operations

- training/using local armed forces and police as well as being betrayed by them

- mujahadeen vs infidels



Thoughts, comments?

[Threelions]

The veteran Democratic Senator, Edward Kennedy, has described Iraq as George Bush's Vietnam - the long war that ended in humiliating retreat for the United States in 1975.
How justified is the comparison?

There are obvious differences.

The Vietnam war was fought over 14 years and on a far bigger scale. At its peak, more than half a million American soldiers were deployed there, compared with about a quarter of that number in Iraq.

Nearly 60,000 died in Vietnam, together with perhaps 40 times as many Vietnamese.

Looking at America's allies, the most obvious difference was the absence of Britain, its primary partner in Iraq. In the 1960s, the British government resisted Washington's pressure to send troops to Vietnam.

South Korea fought alongside the United States, together with smaller contingents from Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand.

Ruthless

To help with the Iraqi aftermath, the US has assembled a longer list of allies on the ground, mostly European. But in military terms, only the British contribution is significant.

The US used more ruthless methods in Vietnam - including large-scale bombing, often with incendiary napalm, and the destruction of whole villages suspected of harbouring Vietcong guerrillas.

Such tactics are even harder to justify now. The Americans have far more accurate weapons available.

But they are often irrelevant to the task at hand.

Essentially, the same dilemma faces the Americans in Iraq - how to separate the fighters from bystanders, this time in run-down towns and cities rather than tropical jungle.

A purely military solution was and is impossible. But then, as now, a superpower staked its prestige on victory, so the question became: how to get out?
Vietnam ruined the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. His successor, Richard Nixon, negotiated a peace deal which in fact meant an American withdrawal and the takeover of South Vietnam by the communist North.

Washington's local political instrument, the corrupt South Vietnamese military government, was discredited and collapsed.

In Iraq, the Americans have appointed a Governing Council whose legitimacy is disputed. The difference, they hope, will be the involvement of the United Nations and a handover to a more representative government.

Ideological justification

One striking similarity is Washington's declaration of an ideological, even altruistic motive.

In Vietnam, it was resistance to the spread of communism: the theory was that if it was not stopped there, the rest of south-east Asia would fall like a row of dominos.

The reasons for the invasion of Iraq are more muddled, but the Bush administration has often sought to present it as part of a war against Islamic terrorism - as well as an effort to establish Iraq as a beacon of western-style democracy in the Middle East.

In both cases, the United States said it was defending freedom: but its involvement in Vietnam stimulated a national resistance struggle and a similar phenomenon may be emerging in Iraq.

So far, nothing like the mass protest movement against the Vietnam war has emerged in the US.

But there is another way in which the shadow of Vietnam hangs over President Bush.

His opponent in the November presidential election will be John Kerry, who was decorated for bravery in the Vietnam war - but later campaigned against it.

Mr Bush avoided being drafted to serve in Vietnam.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3608473.stm

An interesting article on the same subject.

Cheers,
Paul