Comparing Iraq and Vietnam

As promised last month, I have been thinking about the similarities and differences between the war we fought 40 years ago and the one we are fighting today.

To begin, both were started as the result of faulty intelligence and theories that just didn't pan out. Both were divisive for Americans since there were strong anti-war groups protesting our involvement. Both have stretched much longer than the administration starting them calculated. It is a point for debate if either was necessary for the security of the United States. Neither war attracted the hoped for allies. Finally, neither could be won on the terms that the administration of the time wanted.

Some gross differences were, the draft. Although many of the soldiers serving in Vietnam were volunteers like me. There was conscription at the time. Quite a few men of draftable age agonized over whether they would have to go and fight. Some even fled to other countries to avoid this. Iraq/Afghanistan is strictly volunteer. Every troop fighting there volunteered for duty in the armed services, even if they did not think, at the time, that they would have to go to war. The attitude of the anti-war movement was distinctly different. Most returning from the present conflict have been welcomed whether people agreed with the war or not. Vietnam returnees were greeted with hostility, even violence against them. The wounds caused by that reception have not yet healed for many.

In Vietnam, the US was supporting a government, a corrupt, inefficient government to be sure, but a government. While elections have been held in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the elected governments there are powerless beyond the security of their capitols. Without an effective central government, both countries will either continue in violence or the power will be ceded to local leaders.

Forty years ago, our troops were fighting just two opponents, the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong. In Iraq/Afghanistan, there more factions than I can count fighting each other and the US. It is this high number of combatant groups, with mostly different objectives that makes the job in the mid east very difficult.

The United States is faced with what is called "non-centric" warfare. That is, instead of a capitol like Hanoi or fixed bases, the mid eastern opponents are dispersed through the population. Command and control are accomplished in many cases, without the individual fighters having to actually meet with their commanders. Unfortunately, that makes the common problem that sometimes a soldier doesn't know which of those people out there are friends and which want to kill him/her.

While in both conflicts, the enemy was flexible and could retake areas left by the Army, there is a difference in Iraq. Soldiers and police are being trained to keep the peace in their neighborhoods, Iraqi soldiers and police who can hold their areas and prevent terrorists from returning... for the present.

The major difference is (I think) that it is possible to achieve peace and stability in Iraq where in Vietnam, it could only happen if we had been prepared to completely conquer North Vietnam and protect both the north and south from their neighbors for at least 30 years. The kind of government that develops in the middle east won't be the type President Bush was thinking of when he pushed for elections. Hopefully, it will be something new that fits the region and religion.

There is more. But I'm going to have to ponder some to be able to write it.