主播大秀

My father once confided in me that he was a "hapless conscript" in WW2. He was indeed "hopelessly out of his depths" off the sands of Iwo Jima. But who will deny they pulled it off?

Three years into WW2 showed a real change in favor of the U.S. and its Allies. My father's sacrifice came to victory. His cause at that time is one most people felt something in their heart for: self-determination.

But "professionals," in Iraq have fought t heir way to a complete fiasco. It may even prove as damaging as Vietnam. And the cause in Iraq escapes us to this day. Terror? Democracy? Oil?

Iraq is indeed a lot like Vietnam. The soldiers, whether conscripted or voluntary, have taken all the heat. That isn't fair. The President said a mouthful when he said what he said. Bad leadership in a lousy cause. That equals ...what? And who should take the blame?

Mr. Frei, you wrote: "At this stage in the Vietnam war, America had lost about 20,000 men." I understand a "stage" to be one in a series of positions one above the other. In using "stage", are you assuming that the course of the Iraq war is running parallel to the course of the Vietnam war? You seem to contradict yourself.

While I don't think that unqualified comparisons of the Iraq war to Vietnam are helpful, it is worth mentioning that it is somewhat of a misconception to say that 'at a similar point in the vietnam war' so many more American soldiers were killed. The US had casualties even when acting in an 'advisory' capacity in the 4 or 5 years leading up to full engagement in Vietnam. It is distinctly possible, were a full scale civil war to erupt, that violence against American troops would dramatically escalate.

Another level at which Vietnam can relatively aptly be compared to Iraq is in the mismanagement of the war by civilian officials. In both cases civilian elements in the Department of Defense and perhaps also in the White House ignored and overrode suggestions and opinions of how to run operations given by the military and other specialists. The resulting planning (or lack there of) was quite poor and we have since been reaping the consequences.

You should check your sources a bit more. I've seen Bush quoted as saying :
"He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."
(See )
The point being, the Tet offensive was a crushing defeat for the Viet Cong militarily, but a media victory. (See )

Al Qaeda has certainly learned that lesson.

greetings,
As a 'nam vet having spend a total of 2 years in country, i have one comment that people seem to forget; we did not invade Vietnam as we did Iraq.
cheers
B-W
carpe diem

No preparation for WW I, WW II, lost Eastern Europe to USSR, Korean War; plenty of troops for Vietnam due to cold war and draft, but miserable tactics until mid way - then victory stolen by anti-war movement; good fighting forces in Iraq I, short range plan, aborted follow up; Iraq II demanded by Arab sense of honor and to prevent interference in Afghanistan, far too few troops to govern country, too few intelligence personnel and structure after disarmaments by GHW Bush and especially Clinton, poor understanding of the area, anti war movement problems; unable to apply military pressure to N.Korea due to Iraq involvement. Democracy and economic development are the keys to a peaceful and prosperous world.

As a french former Saigon and Washington correspondent I am glad Matt Frei put things back in perspective.

I have never quite understood how such a brilliant mind as the NYT's Frieman whom I knew from Beirut could later loose his way in the sands of the "Greater Middle East" fantasy!

The Washington intellectual spin he put to his lame Vietnam parallel had enormous impact in Europe... not to mention G.W. Bush awkward pick up of it.

The Iraqi issue certainly deserved better!

jean marc illouz, paris.

The comment that Iraq cannot be compared to Vietnam due to casualty rates is misleading. During the Vietnam era combat casualties observed the dead to injured ratio of 1:3. Today the dead to injured ratio is closer to 1:8. A better indication of the casualty rate, therefore, would be the casualty rate, not only counting the dead.
Also, the brunt of the fighting is being taken by the Iraqi civilians and the security forces whilst the US hide in the Green zone and armoured vehicles, occasionally popping out to slaughter a few more civilians. Or to gang-rape and murder 14 year old children (PFC Stephen Green of the 101st Airborne and his friends).
So pretty similar to US atrocities from Vietnam, then. After all who has forgotten the murder of 500+ innocents at My Lai. Or the use of US Army field radios as instruments of electrical torture during the "Bell Telephone Hour".
The use of chemical weapons (napalm, Agents Orange, White and Blue, White Phosphorous etc.) was banned after Vietnam but still liberally used on civilians in Fallujah.
And still the US are losing.

It seems as though you are missing the point Matt.Your story is of little use.

"At this stage in the Vietnam war, America had lost about 20,000 men. Iraq has cost the US 2,772 troops at the last count."

How about wounded? We've made strides in protective gear.. helmets, flack jackets, hummers instead of jeeps- not to mention advances in the medicine-

I read an article that there were soldiers surviving bomb attacks that they wouldn't have survived in previous wars-- however, we've got a higher wounded rate- (may be escaping death, but not broken limbs, back damage, etc)

I think just looking at the KIA numbers isn't enough when comparing casualties of previous wars with the current one.

It is interesting that the photograph you used was that of Rick Rescorla a 7th Air Cavalry officer involved in the battle of Ia Drang Valley in 1965.

Mr.Rescorla was also the hero who was responsible for the evacuation of many people from Morgan Stanley whose offices were in the WTC on 9/11.

Mr. Rescorla gave his life while helping to save the lives of many others.

The Iraq and Vietnam War really should not be compared. The use of the word Vietnam in American society carries way too much weight. There is so little comprehension of the complete picture from the Vietnam War that by using it to compare leads one much further away from any understanding of the current situation. About all one could say about both wars is that neither was a war of liberation.

If I were to make a comparison between Vietnam and Iraq, it would be on the simularities we see in the Left's behavior towards our military and our motives...

WWII was handled entirely differently by the media "Loose Lips Sink Ships" and it would be hard to imagine Hitler, hunkered down in his bunker, rooting for one party or another in regard to OUR elections...

Not so since Vietnam...

It's very easy to see who our enemy is rooting for in our upcoming election cycle...

Which begs the question of "WHY..?"

On the first day of the Normandy Invasion during WWII we had over 8,000 allied casualties... and we had some battles in which we lost over 2,000 men/day, for months at a time... But somehow, we never confused the difference between a battle, and the War itself...

We were able to see the honor in our soldiers, even while there existed the few bad apples that you find in ANY group of human beings...

Since Vietnam, we RARELY see stories regarding the heroics of our soldiers, but the bad apples are front page news... For weeks on end...

Who does this serve better..?
Us, or the enemy..?

Hitler had an incredibly fine tuned propaganda machine, but never in his dreams did he imagine the power of the liberal media as it exists today...

Comparisons...?

Oh yes, there are comparisons...

In both Vietnam, and Iraq, we have a media, and a liberal political party, that are dead set against a victory by the US and that actively help, whether intentionally or not, our enemies...

Matt says,

"The key equation is the sacrifice of casualties measured against the perceived benefits of the conflict. Is it worth it?"

but focuses solely on US casualties. Even if those in power do not focus much Iraqi deaths, surely a reporter can at least mention them?

The number of Iraqi deaths that resulted from the invasion is still small compared to the Vietnamese casualties but the fraction is becoming increasingly significant. I would say that this should be weighted rather heavily in an answer to "is it worth it".

Following the lead of HistoryteacherUK, I find it curious that the term 'casulty' was used to speak only of the death count, instead of acknowledging the injured (as is the norm in most media offerings). The casulty count of injured and dead for US troops would have brought those numbers to more than 23,000, not nearly as distant from Vietnam's statistics as originally presented. This speaks only to the advances in the technology of warfare and makes for a poor argument in this article.
Do those returning injured, more than 2% of whom are amputees, count for less simply because they had the good fortune to live in the twenty-first century? To live at all?

America's invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a catastrophe on every level. After years of incompetence and slaughter, the conditions in that country have continued to deteriorate, with no end in sight. With this record, it is delusional for anyone to believe that anything positive could ever come from Bush's imperial adventure. The victims in Iraq, American, Iraqi, British, and others, are dying so that certain right wing political interests in the U.S. can avoid facing the legal and electoral consequences of their war crimes. It's really that simple.

In Iraq the choice is simple...either leave or send in enough troups to do the job and establish semi-permanent/permanent bases like we have in South Korea. Unfortunately the "send more troops"/Senator McCain option will require a military draft. If a draft is implemented then you will see the Washington Mall fill rather quickly. Many of us who were there the first time still have our peace signs at the ready. I am growing my hair long in anticipation.

Vietnam was a full out and out war, Iraq is not, its an occupation.All out war will always create higher casualties whether the soldiers are conscripts or not.

Asking whether or not we should compare Iraq to Vietnam is to direct our focus away from the pertinent issues. Perhaps you meant instead to ask whether it is accurate to compare the two?

If so, I believe it most certainly is. For example, both were internationally illegal, undeclared wars where the true objectives of the invading superpower went unreported in the mainstream media. During both, the true number of military and civilian deaths were suppressed. In both, illegal weaponry was used (agent orange in Vietnam, Depleted Uranium in Iraq. And in both, the war criminals in charge were never brought to task (so far).

hopelessly out of our depth?.....as a combat veteran of the vietnam war I must take exception to your comment.As in most things that relate to vietnam, you are dead wrong. We won every single major engagement in the intire war....every battle.....the war was lost here in america when the people lost their will to go on .....exactly like what is now happening in Iraq......I suggest a tour , or two, over to the war zone so that you may get your facts straight.By the way, be careful, I guy could get killed.

Interesting comparison the one with the Tet offensive.

What the Vietnamese admitted years later was that this offensive nearly crippled the Viet-Cong militarily - they lost large numbers of key people.

Their "victory" was purely political.
It turned the tide of American opinion because the US military claimed that the Viet-Cong were beaten and the latter showed they were clearly not.
This in the run up to Presidential elections.

The point is the VC deliberately made the sacrifice in the hope of influencing these elections.

I suspect the Iraqi insurgents are doing the same.

I don't believe the Iraq-Viet Nam comparison is valid. A better comparison might be with the German occupation of France in WWII. We weren't invited into Iraq- we invaded a sovereign nation using a 'Blitzkrieg'-type attack. We set up a puppet government which shares many similarities with France's Vichy government. The insurgency we face is much more similar to France's resistance than it is to the Viet Cong and the NVA that we fought in ZViet Nam. What may be the most important difference is the Administrations involved. In Viet Nam, America's foreign policy was misguided- we believed that if we were not successful in in defeating North Viet Nam, the rest of Southeast Asia would 'fall like dominoes.' America's current leader is interested in establishing a 'new world order' outlined in the 'Bush Doctrine'. Any opposing views, including those of some of our most experienced generals, are suppressed or ignored. Fortunately for the World, Hitler also ignored or suppressed the advice of some of his military advisors. It appears that the Democrats are going to regain control of at least the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate as well. Karl Rove, the most effective propagandist since Joseph Goebbels, seems to finally be losing his sway over America. With Congress finally in a position to rein Bush in to some extent, we may finally have some sanity restored to our foreign policy.

I think the view that the American and British public oppose this war because of the mounting civilian casualties is a cynical one.

I would like to think that opposition to this war is generated by people considering the total cost of all human life, not solely that of American and British service personnel. When my father opposed the Vietnam war in the 1960s it was because he felt appalled at the suffering endured by Vietnamese civilians and the poor "grunts" who were sent there to carry out the dirty work of the then American administration.

I am British and I would hope that decent minded people on both sides of the Atlantic are against this war not just because we are loosing significant numbers of our own people but because our governments have brought suffering on untold thousands of innocent people.

I think the view that Iraq cannot be compared Vietnam because of the difference in the numbers of military casualties is a cynical one.

I would like to think that opposition to this war is generated by people considering the total cost of all human life, not solely that of American and British service personnel.

When my father opposed the Vietnam war in the 1960s it was because he felt appalled at the suffering endured by Vietnamese civilians and the poor "grunts" who were sent there to carry out the dirty work of the then American administration.

I am British and I would hope that decent minded people on both sides of the Atlantic are against this war not just because we are loosing significant numbers of our own people but because by invading Iraq our governments have brought suffering on untold thousands of innocent people in the Middle East.

Surely the best comparison with the Vietnam war is how the media have misrepresented the facts. The Tet offensive was a military disaster for the N-Vietnamese yet the media reported it as a victory which bolstered their will to fight on. We see just the same situation now, with a relentless series of anti-war 鈥榥ews鈥� proper gander pieces from the left-wing media typified by the 主播大秀.

If Frei is silly enough to support the Iraq war, as he seems to, then he hardly deserves to work for a respectable outfit like 主播大秀. Vietnam is an excellent paradigm for Iraq. The fact that more were killed in Vietnam is irrelevant. Both are wars started with lies, visited on a weak and helpless nation, by the warmongering, imperialist USA that finally discovers it cannot win vs. a proud and determined people. Like Vietnam this war is falling apart and losing support from a disgusted public. The US never seems to learn not to try to revive western colonialism.

Historyteacher UK serves up the same farrago of half truths about US soldiers in Iraq and Vietnam that we are so used to seeing in the media. There were atrocities committed by US soldiers in Vietnam, as ther have been in Iraq, (and also by British soldiers.) What is always ignored is that such incidents are few and far between, and are in no way representative of military or political policy. By contrast, the comunists in Vietnam and the insurgents in Iraq commit atrocities every day and target non-combatants as a matter of policy.

Further to other comments currently in the media, it should be pointed out that the Tet offensive was a resounding military defeat for the North Vietnamese Army, as was the 1972 Easter invasion - fought off by the ARVN with massive US logistic and air support. The fall of Saigon came after the withdrawal of such support for the ARVN, while the NVA's losses were made good by the USSR. Historyteacher uk, you are not going to take my word for this, so read the memoirs of General Giap! It is pointless and invidious to compare the current situatioin in Iraq with what happened in Vietnam.

I can't really agree with your claim that comparisons with Vietnam have only arisen from Tom Friedman's column last week. There were dire predictions being voiced (in the UK at least) that Iraq would become another Vietnam even before the invasion. In fact I can recall Bush and Rumsfeld rubbishing such claims before or shortly after the invasion as well so it must have been mentioned in the US long ago as well.

However what has been interesting in the latest furore is that it has brought out the fact that a U turn is now taking place in the US and UK policies on Iraq, and that the Bush administration is now planning to cut and run as soon as it can get away with.

As bush said we should have continued after the tet offensive and wiped outh them darn natzis

Sir,
Comparing the number of dead soldiers in Iraq and Vietnam is misleading to readers. In vietnam, 1 in every 3 hit soldiers died, while the ratio is 1 in every 8 in Iraq. This is due to improvement in the survival of wounded soldiers between the mid-sixties and now.
With a simple calculation, at this stage in Vietnam war, about 80麓000 soldiers were wounded and killed and in Iraq so far they would be about 25'000. This is just under a third rather that the 10% your calculation implies.
Thinking of it this way, Iraq war that is not being fought against a regular army as the north vietnamese army and Vietkong but against insurgents with no bases is not that much easier to tolerate and accept in terms of human losses if you think of wounded, traumatised and disabled soldiers in addition to dead ones.

Matt,

Your are right to note the absence of a protest movement comparable to the one against the Vietnam war.

The Iraq war protest movement is desperate for the Iraq war to be compared to Vietnam in order to gain some kudos - while I believe that protesters are genuine in their opposition to the Iraq war, I have a sneaking suspicion that this generation of protesters is also concerned with establishing an iconic legacy comparable of that of the 1960s.

Iraq, however bad, is no Vietnam - just because the Iraq misadventure has not been successful it does not rank on a par with examples such as the Tet Offensive - to suggest otherwise is bad history. I suggest that the anti-war movement keeps it's eyes on continuing to oppose Iraq in a meaningful way rather than being concerned about it's own cultural legacy.

P.S. WW2 may be handsdown-acknowledged as being worthwhile - but why is WW2 worthwhile and Iraq not? Don't get me wrong - I support the assertion that WW2 was worthwhile - I feel that it would be worthwhile to explore the reasons why there is such a gap between the validity of both wars. Iraq has been a mess - but there was originally a valid concern for the Iraqi people being persecuted by a dictator (aside from the bogus WMD case) - should we have done nothing? Why - was it because the persecution wasn't on Hitler's level? What is an 'intolerable' level of persecution - a population of 500,000 or a population of 17mil? Or does it only count when there is a population of more than one country being persecuted? The case for 'humanitarian intervention', although tarnished through a lack of planning for post-war Iraq (and the lies told to start the war), still has merits worth considering.

I too noticed Lt. Rick Rescorla in the photograph.

He was a true hero, and he was from Cornwall, England.

Yes, we could look at the stats and compare Iraq to anything we like.

However there's a bunch of people doing an incredibly difficult job; and they're not taking their lunch 'al desko' or a one hour lunch break at Starbucks.

The 主播大秀 is great for showing the human triumph for every event; except Iraq.

Rest in peace, Rick.

Both WWI and WWII showed that the best troops were the conscripts, civilian soldiers. In the Great War the professionals and the territorials were practically wiped out in the first two years, the volunteer army that followed was wiped out in 1916. Both professionalism and zeal failed in France, but it was the 'get-the-job-done-and-get-home' philosphy of the conscripts that won the day. They weren't best soldiers, they knew that, but their own personal exit strategy saw them through.

I also think Matt Frei is wrong to state that with Iraq, American responsibility can be summed up as - "we broke it, we own it!" More like, "we owned it and ended up breaking it!"

"millions have not poured into the Mall to demand that the troops come home"?
The 'Stop the War' coalition organised the biggest demonstration in British history on the streets of London. One million people assembled in Hyde Park. So the pain threshold isn't as high as you seem to think Matt.

When Matt Frei says "we are fighting a global war on terror", who on earth does he mean? The 主播大秀? The US & British Army? The people of America and Britain? Yet another dubious alignment with political circles by the 主播大秀.

I cant see any comparison between vietnam and Iraq. Vietnam was a war, Iraq is plain old imperial murder of people. USA lost vietnam due to bad planning of fight, they are losing Iraq because it is a bad fight in itself. When USA went into Vietnam it had some sympathy from rest of the nations. But not so for Iraq. We are just returning to Imperialism.

The only valid comparison between the Vietnam war and the war in Iraq is this. John Paul Vann said of Vietnam that winning "the hearts and minds of the people" was the most important excercise. In Vietnam they spectacularly failed to do this by supporting diems corrupt regime.
In Iraq we see the same problem. The routine humiliation of large parts of the Iraqi population on a daily basis. therein lies the comparision. The americans more so than the British it must be added, have lost the hearts and minds of the people and are fighting a war in a country where there are not welcome.

Heard it. Heard it before. Heard it during Vietnam. Knowing almost nothing about the local situation, we put a government in power and then declared they were a free nation who had begged us to help them out, that we would train their troops to replace ours step by step. Our soldiers on site complained that the locals didn't seem enthusiastic about their (our) cause. We tossed out one bunch of puppets and replaced them with another. (We did the same in Cambodia next door, which led very soon to one of the supreme massacres of the century -- and then we defended the murderers in the U.N.!) And none of our puppets had any local backing, and we could never understand why they never took over, and at last we left and a fierce dictatorship -- none the happier that we had slain a million of their civilians for no particular reason -- seized power.

So tell me: Is Iraq different? Significantly. But there are significant similarities that no one seems willing to mention: We've put puppet governments in place and then we wonder why they have no local support, hundreds of thousands of civilians are dying, and no one wants us around.

Is there a dependable U.S. ally there, with support from the people, to whom we can hand it over? There is not. Can we maintain our control there? Not with a volunteer army. Will we re-start the draft? Not if any president knows what's good for him. We're going to pull out and leave the situation worse than when we arrived eventually -- that's all too clear. A pity, but clear. Why not do it now, when we've only murdered half a million Iraqi civilians and at least the Kurds still like us? Why wait till we've killed a full million and they all detest us?

Broke it, we've bought it? We should have checked our credit limit first: we can't afford it and we never could.

Actually I think the comparison to Vietnam is wrong, I think the current situation has more in common with WWI. In WWI we saw a situation were the nature of war changed and millions died while the necessary adjustments were made.

In essence we have a similar situation today, with the politcal leadership struggling to adjust to a new situation. We are attempting to kill a fly with a flamethrower, and in so doing stand every chance of not only killing the fly but also burning the house down.

The US/coalition actions in Iraq have proved beneficial for other countries in the region like Iran, but this strategy of forced conversion to democracy has failed to benefit the west. We are today at more risk than at any time in our history.

The question is whether our leaders will be able to undo the damage that has been done and adjust to the new face of war.

I find it mildly ironic that the U.S. claims to be fighting a war on terror when U.S. citizens are too terrified to protest or speak up or that its corporate media outlets are too terrified to give them a forum from which to speak. If Americans want to fight the war on terror, they have to begin at the spot where terror breeds: within themselves. Outside of that, believing whatever their TVs and computer screens tell them will ensure their inability to combat anything out of paralysis, surrendering their will to those whom they look up to to solve the problem. And where has that gotten them?

The Tet offensive, and later incidents like Mogadishu and (possibly) Iraq show that the US can not be defeated militarily, but only politically.

Tet, as a previous commentator points out, was a military disaster for the VC, but a PR disaster for the US.

Mogadishu, where the kill rate was 50:1 in the US favour (militarily a mess, but a successful one) was a PR disaster.

It does seem as if reporters are following a template laid down in the 60s, where they try to be the Kronkite for a new millenium and be the first to "call" defeat.

We saw this in Afghanistan, where during the invasion the stories were more often of troubles, and there was much speculation that the Taliban could not be defeated, up until the point at which they were.

We saw this in the Iraq invasion, where the stories were of American problems in battle, up until the point where the tanks drove through Baghdad.

We are still seeing this in Afghanistan, where the kill rate is (by some estimates) an astounding 1:100 in favour of NATO, but the reports are still hinting at defeat.

I just don't understand how modern war reporting can be at such variance with what is happening on the ground. Now you might well disagree with Iraq or even Afghanistan, but it seems a desertion of professional responsibility to allow that opinion to sway your choice of what is newsworthy.

How can we compare Iraq to Vietnam? Perhaps the question should be, 鈥榃hy aren鈥檛 we allowed to compare Iraq to Vietnam?鈥� We can only judge the conduct of this war by the environment in which the media are allowed to operate and, by default, the propaganda that filters through to us. The news coverage from Vietnam was, by and large, uncensored. Iraq coverage seems to be in the exclusive domain of 'embedded' correspondents. The perception of the Vietnam war as a war against civilians was the driving force of the anti-war movement and was instrumental in that war鈥檚 demise. Interestingly, despite the tight grip exerted over the media in Iraq, the war there is still perceived by many as a war against civilians too. People won't drive in fog: it鈥檚 unsafe. Neither will they accept the 'official' line, surrounded in the fog of rhetoric. That's unsafe too. Hence the conclusions based on scepticism and cynicism. Forming a judgement on the basis of a playground rumour makes the world an extremely dangerous place. Can a journalist really ask for a considered response when the system he works for won鈥檛 or can鈥檛 report freely? Or should I say, how dare he?

Very nice article. True I don't think this will exactly be comparable to the Vietnam War until there is a draft and Americans start dying by the hundreds a day. I feel like a lot of Vietnam comparisons arise because it seems like the closest thing in memory to what we experience now. I think the general population, and the tactics used by our president and government for propoganda are frightening. At least in Vietnam you saw the pictures and film of dying Americans, now there is no American broadcasting company that would air such things.
Vietnam and 1984 references aside, it's going to continue getting a lot worse before it gets better (if it does at all).

There is an issue with portraying the soldiers in Iraq as "volunteers" seeing as how many of the soldiers joined the military pre-911, as a way to pay for a college education. Like the rest of the U.S. at the time these people had no idea that they were signing up for war, and it is very inaccurate to group all of the soldiers as knowing "volunteers" when it simply is not true.

Frei says "Vietnam rhetoric is not helpful in the weeks before the mid-term elections." Not helpful to whom? Clearly, to George Bush, for whom Frei is a dedicated propagandist. One key similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that foreign, chiefly US invaders have caused huge numbers of deaths, are ignorant and contemptuous of the local culture, and are widely hated. The other is that such imperialist wars cannot be won once the population of the imperial nation has ceased to support them - as the USSR, too, found in Afghanistan.

The analogy with Tet is a good one, despite Matt Frei's failure to grasp it. It was the point in the war when it became overwhelmingly obvious that it could not be won, and that the previous claims made by the White House and the military were mere propoganda.

The key difference between Iraq 2006 and Vietnam 1968 is that in vietnam there was a popular and legitimate opposition which the vast majority of vietnamese supported.

In Iraq there is no such thing: we are faced with the choice of anarchy and humiliation or pinning our hopes with an unpopular, illegitimate government who will at least provide us with cheap oil and keep the battered narrative of progress in the region alive.

That is why the comparison between the two conflicts is flawed. It is nothing to do with the changed circumstances relating to the so called 'war on terror'. As for the applicability of the 'vietnam syndrome' on modern american politics we'll have to wait for the 2008 election to see if that is the case.

Mr. Frei claims comparing Iraq to Vietnam is incorrect then he promptly compares Iraq to the fight against terrorism an even less meaningful comparison since the failure in Iraq is, in large part, due to the fact it had nothing to do with terrorism.

The comparison to Vietnam is valid in several important ways, most important being US government created fictional threats (Vietnam - Gulf of Tonkin) and Iraq (WMD and 911 connection) to justify invasions which had other agendas.

Once that trust between government and people is broken to justify a war, the outcomes become very similar. Not the least of which is the failure of the war itself since it was never based on a real threat, which is why the governments lied to mislead the nation into the war in the first place.

iraq is not the mess VietNam was, and Viet Nam was not an allout war, no
invasion of North, no going into Cambodia. The number 1 priority of
the Bush Inc agenda is serving the
superwealthy who invested in him.
Iraq has served very well to reward
their investment in Bush. Those who
are dead and wounded, it is a messy
return on investment, but the rich,
and few Americans overall, are affected
by the war, it is a small number making
the big sacrifice. I am also a Freidman
fan, but it takes alot to say "I was
wrong" Bush Inc, is too stubborn and
willfully ignorant (a really bad combo)
to admit they're wrong. Brave soldiers will continue to die, as in
VietNam, long after the issue is
settled, for the face of gutless
politicians.

There are similarities and significant differences. The similarities:

1. Our entery into each was based on a fabrication (in VN, a non-existent attack on a US destoryer; in Iraq, non-existent weapons of mass destruction)

2. We went into both without a cogent plan to win and deficient in our knowledge of the region

3. We tried to do it on the cheap, and hide the truth from the American public

The differences:

1. Vietnam was a country with a lenghty history of defending itself from foreign invaders (the Chinese, the French, the Japanese, us). "Iraq" is a fabrication invented by the US, England and France at the end of WWI.

2. The Vietnamese (North and South) saw themselves as one people, never did we have to deal with inter-tribal warfare.

3. Arguably, the US, Europe and Japan have a strong economic interest (oil) in the stability of the Middle East. No such economic interest existed in Vietnam

4. Through the draft, Vietnam touched far more Americans and engaged them in active debate. Iraq is largely fought by professional soldiers and (unfortunately) reserve and National Guard units. The awful cost of this war is being borne by a very small portion of the population.

Vic Bary
11th Combat Aviation Battalion
Vietnam 1967

A very interesting article Matt.

Firstly to compare any conflict with another conflict in my mind is intellectally lazy at best (apart from a media reference point) as every conflict has its own "charecter".

The one area that has not been examined is the media's role in reporting and analysing conflict.

As in Veitnam,the media is increasingly playing an active role in policy making, reporting on issues such as the use of White Phosphate (WP-not illegal to use by the way) through to the prison scandel.

All to often (as seen recently in the Lebanon) journalists with no area experience or understanding of conflict are often lead to "conclusions" which suite the propaganda of the combatants.Mix that in with the very partisan atmosphere, both in Europe and the US, and you have a distorted picture on what is going on.

The David Kelly saga,the inital reports of the US army being held up in the invasion,the glossing over the Iraqi Survey groups findings,casualty figures, and the "fake" photo's of abuse by UK servicemen not only endanger coallition servicemen,but also make many question the political motivations of journalists in furthing a certain editorial thinking and bias.

Seymour Hersh's book "Chain of Command" is full of "unnamed sources" yet this in itself gives an impression of somebody trying to restate his reputation (afterall the man is famous for "exposing" Mi Lai) or is himslf being lead up the garden path,or both.

All too often soundbites are treated as "fact" without looking at the context in which the report is based.The recent British chief of staff comments,Bush's interview or Kofi Annan saying that the war was "illegal" are good examples of this practice.

If the public, both in the US and Europe is to make informed judgements regarding war and peace, then every effort should be made to provide a fair and balenced picture.Without this political honesty we will be endangering our own democracy.

I note that in comparing the "causualties" of Iraq to those of Vietnam Mr Frei doesn't complicate the issue with the numbers of Vietnamese or Iraquis killed.

These numbers - 1 to 2 million Vietnamese, 655,000 (and counting) Iraquis are of course of no possible relevance.

Shame on you, Mr Frei. Really. Shame on you.

There is one comparison worth noting: the US got into Vietnam when the political aims of its leaders caused them to ignore the more informed counsel of military and intelligence professionals. The result was a catastrophe. The current leaders in the US did exactly the same thing with Iraq (ignoring the strong warnings of military and intelligence professionals such as Gen. Anthony Zinni and Gen. Wesley Clark), and the result is an ongoing bloodbath.

Is history now repeating itself? Sure looks that way.

I'm appalled that Frei's article mentions only American casualties when comparing Iraq with Vietnam, without also mentioning the tens of thousands of civilian casualties that has incurred in both wars. Do they matter in our determination about "casualties of war"?

Less soldiers are dying in Iraq compared to Vietnam, because they have better body armour, and better protected vehicles.

While this armour stops them being killed in great numbers, there are a significant amount of sever injuries. But who wants to talk about that...

While I can see many parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, I can also see one with Cambodia. Here, after a bombing campaign which killed half a million neutral Cambodians, they helped overthrow a despotic leader (of course, this might have happened anyway) and install democracy. This resulted ultimately in the death of a quarter of the population. Let's hope my parallel is wrong.

Of course there are similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, although they are not identical wars. Yes, the US military boasted they had defeated the VC only to be badly surprised during Tet. And yes, the VC were all but destroyed making their point during Tet that the war was not over.
Echoes of Bush's early boast in Iraq of 'mission accomplished'.
Of course the US would win most of the major set-piece battles in Vietnam but guerilla war is not made up of set-piece European war style battles between organised armies whether volunteers or conscripts.
The similarities with Iraq was the US being drawn into a distant war (or starting it) in a country it did not understand, becoming internationally and regionally isolated and not knowing how to get out. It is very easy for us now sitting behind our desks in comfortable surroundings to heavily criticise the troops who commit atrocities (and I am one of those). But in more thoughtful moments it may be better to ask how many of us know for certain we could not commit these crimes if we faced a daily diet of attacks and the maiming and killing of those next to us.
Let's not condone these crimes, but perhaps consider them with a little less smugness.

While there may be cogent political similarities to highlight between Iraq and Vietnam, surely there is no military comparison?

In Vietnam the Americans were fighting something close to a regularised army, there was territorial advance and gain - the communists held territory in the north. They were politically organised and in the end there was a conventional military advance to seize Saigon and power of the whole of Vietnam.

The insurgency shows little of those characteristics. If it can be described as an organisation conducting a campaign it is about the destruction of a state and descent into chaos, rather than the imposition a new state based on Communist doctrine.

The insurgency is not the Vietnam War - its the pretext to the main event - a civil war which will see the partition of the country and the increase of Iranian interest in the eastern part of the country.

The Americans are desperate to avoid this and hope the concept of a federated Iraq will appeal to each of the minorit.ies enough for them to exit without the absolute guarantee the country will fall apart.

As a history student the first thing you are taught is that it is a dangerous undertaking indeed to make parallels between similar events occuring in different eras. Of course Vietnam cannot be directly compared to the war in Iraq, with numbers, political effects , troops, casualties, etc etc.
These things will never be directly comparable. Vietnam and Iraq are directly comparable in that the beginnings of both wars were (arguably) unjustified. The moment President Bush announced the Iraq war, the first words out of my mouth was "this will be Vietnam II". In Vietnam the US were breaking through 'the iron curtain'. Protecting America from the 'red scare'. The spread of evil. I doubt very much government officials sacrificed 20 000 soldiers for the 'freedom' of the Vietnamese people. In the 21st century, America is fighting again against evil. The evil has grown to consist of an entire 'Axis of evil' in fact. Meanwhile military actions are hidden behind claims that the Iraqi people are being 'liberated'. John McHale posted that the Americans "have lost the hearts and minds of the people and are fighting a war in a country where there are not welcome." Indeed, only I would go further to say that they never had the hearts and minds of these people in the first place. In Iraq, like Vietnam, the actions of the US have nothing to do with the good or protection of the people being 'liberated'. It has to do with the good of America, its own financial and political gains. It always has been about that and it always will be. And if America and the world can't see past rhetorical bull like axis of evil then this cycle of unjust wars will continue and God knows who will be next.

I refer your readers to a speech by Dr. Martin Luther King (A Time to Break the Silence, April 4, 1967, New York City)on the role of the USA in Vietnam and its consequences for the long-suffering citizens there in their own struggle to achieve what they themselves determined to be a decent standard of living. The comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq are startling. The question is "Is it a just war?" Recently Colin Powell raised the question too and met with a similar response from the powers that be.

A more telling comparison is with the US abandonment of Cambodia. South Vietnam was over run by an established stable government in the North, albeit with a political hue and a view on human rights understandably not championed in Washington. Cambodia, a country the US did invade, and certainly 'broke and owned', was abandoned to the Khmer Rouge and genocide of a scale and ferocity to rival the worst of 20th Century followed by 20 years of bloody civil war.

The consequences of the US abandoning Iraq are likely to be very similar. Current Muslim disaffection with the US will look mild in years to come if they leave Iraq to its fate. Given the history of the Iraq War the moral obligation on US & UK is huge. The situation requires an unprecedented UN stablisation force, funded and manned by those that created the problem to fill the vacuum, with soldiers answerable for their actions to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, not whitewash in the Pentagon. This will be wholly unpalatable in Washington but in the longer term far better for all, including the US, than creating another Cambodian nightmare in the heart of the Arab world.

Before the Bush team started the war in Iraq there was a lot of discussion at our office about the value of the war, and comparisons to Vietnam. I was in the minority being opposed to the war. I asked several pro war people if it was worth the life of their son. Not one answered "yes" to that question. Who's sons life is, has it been, worth? Bush's American body count is approaching the toll on 9-11. War is never a good solution, but if it is worth the life of "your son" then it must be done. Like Vietnam, this war will also divide us, not bring us together.

Iraq is not Vietnam - it is Soviet Afghanistan.

John McHale got it: Vietnam and Iraq are very much comparable in their failures to attain the true war objective: winning the hearts and minds of the local people. These wars are similar - and strikingly different from WWI & II, in that they cannot be won militarily - as the war against terror cannot be won militarily - but only on the front (under the protection of initial fire power, yes) through persuasion and conviction that the has a philosophy, and values, that merit attention and fighting for.
Neither in Vietnam, nor in Iraq, let alone in the war against terrorism, has any sizable effort been invested into this crucial front.
A deadly mistake.

Comparisons are aways there for propaganda purpurses. So who takes the place of China and the former Soviet Union the powerful backers of the Vietcong in this war in Iraq? Sure the Iranians have a great to to answer for also with regard to instigating some Sunni groups to go to civil war, as their strategy is similar to Al-Qaeda,errm their Saudi(Wahab) Billionaire backers. But Vietnam war: Nope. The US can any day get the perpetrators in Teheran into shackles, and believe me, the Iranians differ substantially from their Arab Iraqi neighbours in that they are more organised and do not put the dagger into your back,... as also during these suicide missions during the Iran-Iraq war they might have used brainwashed kids as human bombs, but not in the way the Al-Qaeda would have done. Different people, different mentality.

What an absolute analysis of crap. We must do an entire social make-over, beginning with total withdrawal from Iraq/Afghan.; re-instatement of Saddam; total withdrawal from the 1000 freakin military bases around the world; criminal arrest of every single politician that promoted this rape of Iraq and Afghan.; immediate legislation to dismember and totally control all international corporatons, beginning first and foremost with the private corp commonly referred to as the US Federal Reserve; the dissolution of the IRS, and, finally, immediate legal directives to tightly control all immigration in the US.

Will any of the above happen? No, but I can wish, can't I?

There are some small similarities between Iraq and Vietnam however the two conflicts are by no means comparable. The politicians cost the US the Vietnam War and the enemy was a large fighting force while the enemy in Iraq consists of small bands of separate insurgent groups who use terrorist tactics, they are not a fighting army. Also, you do have to take into account the number killed, over 54,000 in Vietnam and nearly 2,800 in Iraq. Some may disagree and argue that the casualty rate is not relevant, but wasn鈥檛 the number of US soldiers killed in Vietnam one of the main focal points when discussing the failure of that War? I personally would not even call Iraq a 鈥榳ar鈥� any longer; I don鈥檛 know why people still refer to our involvement as being in a war. We conduct operations from time to time but a war is more defined as day-to-day fighting, a war is the battle of Iwo Jima or the Tet Offensive. The US soldiers in Iraq are more involved in rebuilding and training than they are in fighting, only a small number of the 150,000 troop there are actually involved in any fighting. The only way Iraq will ever be like Vietnam is if the politicians repeat the mistakes they made in the late 60鈥檚 and early 70鈥檚.

Matt Frei is in error as to the make-up of our troops who were involved in the Viet-Nam War. Over 85% of the troops who actually served in Viet-Nam were not conscripts, but volunteers. Most of the draftees were assigned to bases to replace the professional troops who actually went in-country. Also, as a former Marine who saw combat in Viet-Nam, I take exception & umbrage to your comment that we were "in over our heads". We were well-trained, professional and carried out our mission well. We never suffered a single defeat to our enemies, and always bested them when we met them head-to-head. We were "defeated" by our own politicians lack of will & interference in running the war, as well as, and more importantly, the news media which deliberately lied & distorted the facts about the war as is being done again today concerning Iraq & Afghanistan.

As a student of the Vietnam War, the huge difference with Iraq is that in Vietnam the insurgents were backed by formidable regular and guerilla forces from their powerful neighbour in North Vietnam, who in turn received formidable support (at varying times) from China and the USSR. That was epitomised by the Ho Chi Min Trail.

In Iraq, the bloody nose being inflicted on Iraqi Governement, US and allied forces is largely by a group of insurgents operating alone inside the country. There is no Ho Chi Min Trail equivalent in Iraq.

So, on the basis of casulty figures which include injured as well as fatal casulties, the US is receiving a similarly bloody nose in Iraq from a far inferior enemy than they faced in Vietnam.

If you pursue the historical comparison there is room for optimism. As General Giap himself later admitted in his memoirs, the Tet Offensive of 1968 in Vietnam allowed the US to effectively annailate the insurgents in South Vietnam (the North Vietnam guerillas and regular army subsequently won the military war some 7 years later). In Iraq, at the moment, the insurgents don't have a "second force" to back them up if they over-extend themselves.

So if the insurgents over-extend themselves..........

While I understand the need for some to compare the Iraq War to other wars through numbers of casualties and wounded in order to gain a sense of perspective, I believe there is a distinct difference that has not been addressed: the visibility of the Iraq war to the public is different than Vietnam. Although we hear news about Iraq everyday, it doesn鈥檛 take much to bump it out of the spotlight for something else. The unwillingness by the administration and the main stream media to show the true tragedies of the American military, our allies鈥� forces, and more importantly, the Iraq people has led to a sense of indifference on the part of the American public, something that does not appear to have happened during Vietnam.

The author is correct that the tragedies of the Iraq War are felt by a relatively small portion of the population (military community, spouses and families). The public does not see the true, unedited images of the death and destruction and heartache that come from it all. Instead we live in a sound bite world where cleaned up images flash on a TV or computer screen allowing no emotional involvement, and the public is okay with not having the war disrupt their daily lives.

Regardless of the rhetoric that goes on for support or non support of the war, a magnetic 鈥渟upport the troops鈥� sign on that back of a car is meaningless; it only makes the American public feel better. The military oath asks that members defend our constitution, not a particular ideology of leadership. To truly support the troops, the American people need to step up and demand answers and accountability from their leadership and their country, just as they did in Vietnam.

Is't that Rick Rescorla, the Cornishman and 9-11 Hero, in the top Photo?

For a start can anyone actually believe that there's only 2,772 US casualties? This bunch of thieves cooked the books in the 2000, 2002, 2004 elections & are now doing their utmost to do the same again in 2006 mid terms.

They cherry picked inteligence regarding Iraq & when even that wasn't enough they simply lied. Has ANYONE done ANY investigative journalism to find out if this is the REAL number.

Some how I doubt it is. Some how I doubt it isn't being over stated. Some how I susect, given this adminstrations past record, it is actually MUCH higher.

We betrayed the Vietnamese (not to mention the Hungarians, Cubans, Hmong, Lebanese, and Somalis), and now we are heading towards betraying the Iraqis. That is the parallel.

Well, the casualties for Iraq should be considered more carefully. First there were more deaths in Vietnam, certainly, but medical care has improved to the point where, many of those severely injured today would have died thirty years ago. The total number of wounded is 44,779; the total seriously wounded (requiring medical air transport) is 12,500. That's a significant number. Instead of considering only the dead, consider the seriously injured in these figures, and you get a better perspective. This can be read any number of ways - deaths and injuries in war are certainly no reason to pull out, especially when a professional (as opposed to conscript) army is involved. Again, improved medical care has saved lives that previously would have been lost.

I think another big difference is the US populations鈥� attitude toward the men fighting. Where as in Vietnam they were called 鈥渂aby killers鈥�, here I think that we understand that they are doing their job and respect them for it. A friend of mine was there for two years. He said one of the oddest things was that people kept asking him questions of 鈥淒o you think we should be there鈥� and 鈥淒o you think we are making a difference鈥�. He indicated that it seemed that people trusted his opinion about the situation more than the politicians.

In 1984 the US State Department released figures for the number of Vietnamese killed by the US in Vietnam, it was 3.8 million. Additionally the US had killed around 1.6 million Laotians and Cambodians reaching a total of 5.4 million.

Firstly to see Iraq on the same scale as Vietnam is an insult to the slaughter - now so often called `genocide` these days - committed by the US and secondly it is sad to see that US casualties get a mention in your piece but Vietnamese casualties do not.

Clifford Fons, UK in France.

Make whatever parallels you like. It was a different war with totally different technology. Had we had the right guidance from the military/government during the Vietnam CONFLICT things may have differerent.
Iraq is a different kettle of fish...there are too many tribes wanting to rule the country and they will continue to fight until they get their way.
Islams are in dire need of control and will do whatever they have to to acheive their goal.

In comment 33 Nick said there was originally a valid concern for the Iraqi people being persecuted by a dictator ... - should we have done nothing?

I agree.

I supported the decision to go in to Iraq on the basis that should learn our lesson from the "peace in our time" situation; apeasing evil dictators.

If this was Bush's thinking too, then when Is he going to invade Zimbabwe? I'll support him in that too.

Good article from Matt but I'd suggest many ways in which Vietnam and Iraq are similar but in a different context.

Firstly public opinion waned slower with Vietnam because of the change in the media environment. While many Americans are not too clued up about the Middle East, the pictures speak for themselves.

We live in an era where human life is deemed of upmost importance. One death is multiplied by many compared to the past. Also in modern warfare, 2,200 deaths is a lot.

America is also highly politicised at the moment with the war on terror and the contraversial elections of Bush.

America was pulled out into the real world by the war on terror and has got burned. The faith in government was shot post-Vietnam. Bush has returned the US to direct offensve action for the first time in 40 years, in an era of propserity interrupted by fear.

Naturally Americans have become fearful and cynical and the Vietnam War, as a sign of failing US foriegn policy against an unclear enemy, is always at the back of minds.

This is yet another instance of 'is there blood worth more than ours' feelings of the victims.

Matt Frei only talks about the American invaders casualties, but what about the innocent civilians that have been killed by the occupying forces?

I think perhaps the 主播大秀 should be a little more independent and neutral rather than the usual 'poor Americans' who have died. What about the 600,000 Iraqis that have died, the abuse at Abu Grahiab, and the merciless killings of women and children not to speak of the rapes committed by the US.

Absolutley appalling that my licence fee is here to pay for US propoganda. Clearly its not just our prime minister who is the poddle.

Similarities and differences bewteen Vietnam and Iraq ( e.g. invited vs invading)are obvious but there are never any complete analogies in history.The only similarity which is significant is that in both wars the US (and their coalition partners)did not or are not suceed(ing) in their objectives.The legacy of Vietnam was supposed to have reduced the tolerance level of the American people to support foreign wars whose aims were not achievable nor necessary for the defense of America .More foresight/less hindsight. Let's hope that the only criteria for support for wars is not the willingness to sustain casualties.

In Bob woodward's third book on Bush at War he comments on "micromanagement" of the Iraq problem from washington and "bodycounts" to justify success.
didn't Robert McNamara in LBJohnsons regime do exactly the same to run and justify US activity in Vietnam?

One cannot avoid seeing a similarity.

I am waiting for the third phrase... "mission creep"

"global war on terror"

Can you, or anyone define what that is and what the victory point is? Who defines terror and from who's perceptive? If we win the war on terror, does another act of terror mean a new war or a reopening of the original war?

The Vietnam war became unpopular not only because of the dead, but because it was felt back home. The media were still true to their profession.. and American's were prepared to get out on to the streets and protest.

1. Look what we have today!.. a President telling everyone to continue on happily with their lives and continue to purchase their cheap Asian goods.

2. A media so corrupt by corporations and in the hands of the government that any straying from the government line is avoided at all costs.

3. A population that is hardly effected by the war and were given tax breaks to make them feel even wealthier.

The media practically caused the Spanish/American war. They have been accused of being the cause of the US losing the Vietnam war and they could have STOP the Iraq war before it even started. The US media, today, is so weak and the people so ignorant that the administration can get away with anything.

The PEOPLE could have thrown out Bush in 2004 if they had cared or known about the lies and deceit that started the conflict. 鈥楾here was no other choice鈥� I hear when they bring up Kerry.. 鈥楽o what about the Libs, Greens or Independents I ask?鈥� why do people naturally assume that these people will do a worse job than the crap we have in Congress today??

Lets face it, the generation of today would only rise up in revolt if you took their video games away or banned PDA鈥檚.

Those casualty figures are misleading. There has been precious little success in Iraq to be proud of, but the superb emergency medical treatment provided to the combat troops is one of them. Multiply that casualty figure by 10 and you'll have the number of disabled - sometimes horribly disfigured - veterans of the Iraq war. Take out the incredible life-saving response of the Medical Corps, and the fatalities might be uncomfortably close the Vietname figures.

You say participation in the war in Iraq is voluntary. Then why are people being arrested for not wanting to head over? Sounds really voluntary to me.

Perhaps we should take the comparisson to the end stage.

I remember the day when we saw on our TVs US lackeys fighting for the final seats on helecopters out of Vietnam.

I see now Vietnam at peace with itself and compare that with C.Rice visiting S.Korea to urge it to continue the generations of struggle that keep a country divided.

I remember the FUD disseminated during the Vietnam war. Would it be the 'Reds' or the 'Chinks' under my bed if the brave US didn't hold the line? Something about dominoes.

Where have the US been forced to retreat from and left world chaos behind them? Why would Iraq be any different?

The only excuse we now seem to be being offered is that saying the non-emperor is naked gives succor to the enemies of freedom.

Please give the correct figures for the Vietnamese deaths.

The US state department in 1984 said 3.8 million Vietnamese plus 1.6 million Laotians and Cambodians were killed, making a total of 5.4 million.

The US supported a military junta in the south, stopped elections in 1954 as the Communists would have won, forced the French to stay in the country and then committed a terrible slaughter on the civilian population.

Even Robert McNamara acceptd the figures "it would be like Vietnam killing 28 million Americans" he said.

You (and most US politicians) say we have been fighting a "war on terror" since 9/11, but I don't think this is true. The "war on terror" has been fought since the months following the Iraq invasion.

Before that there was not a terrorist problem. Sure some freaks bombed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, but it was a one off event by an organisation which at the time was waining into history.

Since the Iraq invasion however, islamic extremism has become a big thing and only after this event does it pose an ongoing security problem which warrants the term "war".

Continuing Tom's point about the medical treatment.. something to be considered is the access to the injuried. In Vietnam many of the injuried were in the jungle and under fire. More often than not, the medical personel were under direct fire. I imagine that thousands of troops were killed whilst trying to rescue injuried people.

With Iraq being so open, no terrorist can stay and fight, they bomb and run. The medical vehicles come in and remove the wounded immediately. It is hard to compare dead in the 2 countries.

What is clear though, is that had Vietnam been as flat and open as Iraq, the war would have been over within a short time.

The question is whether or not the press can reproduce it's same success as with the War in Vietnam.

You said: We are fighting a "global war on terror".

ACCORDING TO WHO? Not all Americans think in Bushisms. Let's see poll results on who wants global war. No one wants world war but a small number of warmongering extremists - who happen to be in positions of power.... at the moment....

"Polls show that most Americans believe the stakes of abandoning Iraq are too high,

WHICH POLLS ? link please?

" that the US has a responsibility to try to fix the problem -"we broke it, we own it!" '

Who is "WE" ? There are many who from day one never agreed to this war - and our taxes are being used without our agreement.

Fascinating how profoundly uninformed some readers are on the nature of contemporary war. I'd like to refer those readers to a book by retired USMC Colonel Thomas Hammes entitled "The Sling and the Stone." Hammes discusses Fourth-generation warfare (4GW), which is the type of insurgent war the United States fought in Vietnam and is currently fighting in Iraq. It's also the same basic type of war that General Washington fought in the early stages of the American Revolution. The key to victory for the insurgent is NOT to win individual battles... it is simply to remain on the battlefield and 鈥渁ttrit鈥� the traditional power, thereby eroding the political will of the traditional power to continue the war. As such, no number of Tet victories for the Americans could have defeated the Vietnamese communists, because in Vietnam, like in Iraq today, there was practically zero dedication to a program of politico-economic development to parallel the military campaign. Put another way, traditional powers like the United States cannot--repeat, cannot--win 4GW militarily.

Moreover, the parameters for victory in both Vietnam and Iraq were either ill defined or nonexistent. What does victory in Iraq look like? I bet it doesn't involve insurgents signing a surrender document at a press conference. Much as many right-leaning Americans hate to hear it, only robust political, economic, diplomatic, and social initiatives, applied in tandem with limited and surgical military and police operations, can remove insurgents from the battlefield permanently.

Unless, that is, we鈥檙e willing to play by the rules of Saddam Hussein or Hafiz al-Assad, but I'm hoping that no American wants to go there.

-a nebulus, stealthy and resourceful adversary
-US leadership in a state of denial
-dubious reasons for being there
-young people dying while corporations grow fat on war business
-American coffers straining to cope with the costs while schools fall apart back home

sounds all too familiar to me

Conservatives dream that what they have coined the "vietnam syndrome" is over-- we can proceed with willful ignorance into the next great failure.

They believe we lost the war in Vietnam because of the media -- hence, we have a tightly controlled media in Iraq (and more journalists have been killed in Iraq already than were killed in the American Vietnam conflict). We also have a huge propaganda machine twirling out of Karl Rove's butt.

In fact, they like to pretend we didnt really lose in Vietnam because Hawks can not admit that losing is really possible in war. We didnt lose. We were winning and we were forced to give up.

But the truth is that Americans did learn something in Vietnam. You are wrong about protests. Protests began before the war even started, and have continued. This war was never a popular war, though for awhile, the majority of Americans had been convinced this war had something to do with terrorism and 9/11.

By now Bush has had to admit there was no connection to 9/11. He also had to admit there were no weapons of mass destruction, and plenty of evidence points to the fact that the Bush/Cheney team manipulated "intelligence" to support their cause, which was invade Iraq.

No we don't have Jane Fonda and there arent thousands of hippies trying to levitate the pentagon,
instead we have generals speaking out, and high level officials blowing whistles left and right. Even the conservative appointed supreme court has ruled that George overstepped his boundaries.

Like in Vietnam no one wants to lose a war, or to admit they were wrong-- but how many innocent people have to die as a result? At any point, the US could have admitted they made a mistake in Vietnam; they underestimated the enemy, they didnt realize how much support the Viet Cong had. Nor did they realize what the people wanted most of all was to be free of foreign occupation. How many lives would have been spared if they had changed course early on? The results would have been the same; Vietnam became communist. Big deal.

Iraq is a mess. I agree. We did break it. We should fix it, but that's not what we're over there doing. We need a change of leadership.

"HistoryteacherUK wrote:
.. popping out to slaughter a few more civilians. Or to gang-rape and murder 14 year old children..
So pretty similar to US atrocities from Vietnam, then. After all who has forgotten the murder of 500+ innocents at My Lai. Or the use of US Army field radios as instruments of electrical torture during the "Bell Telephone Hour".
The use of chemical weapons (napalm, Agents Orange, White and Blue, White Phosphorous etc.) was banned after Vietnam but still liberally used on civilians in Fallujah.

If this is what the poor students are taught in UK schools I pity them. Don't you have any commitment to the truth?

Regards,
Richard.

I think you are missing the point about correlations with Vietnam. In both cases we totally missed the hearts and mind issue.

Of course, the men who create wars are not interested in hearts and minds, only power. That is the problem and why both of these wars turned into such disasters.

With a high emotional IQ it is easy to forsee such disasters, and many predicted such outcomes in both wars. The thoughtfull are always ignored by those who have and crave power.

You state " Polls show that most Americans believe the stakes of abandoning Iraq are too high"

The latest (october) OpinionDynamics/FoxNews poll reports that 73% want US troops out of Iraq in the next 12 months (up from 58%--august 5th poll).
CNN reported August 9th that 60% of respondents wanted US troops out within 12 months.
USAT/Gallup 9/15/06: 48% want immediate or 12-month withdrawal ( 42% said take as long as needed).
Pew 9/21/06--53% say a timetable for withdrawal should be set.

So Mr Frei, there are four polls that refute you assertion so could you kindly provide your sources? You know, it's just one of those things reporters are supposed to do.

Maybe there aren鈥檛 a lot of protestors surrounding the Mall in Washington, but every flag-draped coffin that returns from halfway around the world is its own protest.

As a child, I grew up watching the soldiers of Vietnam return home to Fort Campbell, Kentucky. My Dad tallied 5 tours in Vietnam, I always said that I hope no other kid (whichever side of the world they lived on) had to watch those soldiers come home from war or endure the images of kids my age with their clothing burned off scorched bodies!

I think Congress should pass a law that every politician who sends troops to war have a simple sign above desks, 鈥楾he children are watching us!鈥� I often think of the irony of seeing President Bush鈥檚 face when he first learned of 9/11, as he sat at the front of a classroom of children.

When I left high school in 1978, I wanted to do my best to make the world a better place to live, to make a real difference so no other kid would have to endure what I and every other Army brat of Vietnam endured. It seems I failed. All these years later, we hear on the news of the body counts 鈥� the only thing missing is Walter Cronkite telling us!

Dr. Martin Luther King once said, 鈥榃e must live together as brothers, or perish together as fools.鈥�

You can no longer watch the flag-draped coffins arriving. The pentagon banned the filming of them!!

The main reason we don't see protestors, in addition to not having a draft, is our poor educational system in this country. Most of our criminal politicians spend there time figuring out how to rip off our money and don't care about education. England has thousands in the street every weekend. Our media, owned by GE, Disney & Fox are not allowed to show them.

Something else to consider about the protests. Depending on the protest and where it is to be held, you need a apply for permission. Also, if you plan to protest anywhere near the president, you are generally allocated a position 5 miles away inside a caged area. This is why you rarely see protestors in the US in the same film frame as the president.

Mr. Frei does not appear to be accounting for what may be the most important comparison between Vietnam and Iraq...the failure of the American government to provide a set of objectives,strategies,and tactics that the American people could accept and balance against their casualities. Yes the American army is more volunteer oriented than ever it was in Nam. At the same time it is augmented by reservists and National Guardsmen whose semi-rural roots and casualities have increasingly brought the realities of bad planning, inept execution and down right corruption to an ever growing percentage of our country.

"Vietnam is still with us. It has created doubts about American judgment, about American credibility, about American power--not only at home, but throughout the world. It has poisoned our domestic debate. So we paid an exorbitant price for the decisions that were made in good faith and for good purpose."
--Henry Kissinger

As a Vietnam-era Marine, a police officer, and the father of a son who has been in Iraq, I'd like to add a few observations.

1) This war was started and ruined by chicken-hawks with a large dose of hubris. That is common to most wars and is true of both Vietnam and Iraq. People start wars in the mistaken notion that they can win them. One should only go to war when there is no alternative.

2) Iraq has been mis-managed even worse than the disaster that was Vietnam.

3) The US can't "win". The real task is for the Iraqi people to find a way to govern-good luck with that.

4) The answer is not simply more force. The more force, the greater the resistance.

5) Before some of our British cousins get too smug in their wisdom-please remember that it was the UK government that set up the countries of the modern middle-east, that (after 1,000 years) is still working out a solution in Ireland, and that signed up for the Bush plan as a major partner.

The Second Iraq War is not another Vietnam. It has the makings of something much more damaging.

We in the US may well have created our own version of the Irish Problem.

Unlike Southeast Asia, we can't just declare vistory and go home.

Wouldn't a better way of combating terror simply consist of refusing to be terrified?

Before those who think they know about the why's of VietNam would do well to read 1) "Why Viet Nam?" Prelude to America's Albatross by Archimedes Patti, head of the OSS in southeast Asia during the conflict of World War II
2) "Viet Nam at War" The History 1946 to 1975 by Phillip B Davidson, retired Lt General, Intelligence officer to Gen. Westmorland and Abrams, Assistant professor of Military History at West Point(read especially chapters 24 and 27.)
How many Americans know the Allies at the end of WW II rearmed the Japanese soldiers in Viet Nam to keep the Viet Minh under control in their (V M) attacks on the Frence, who wanted to make Viet Nam a colony again. How would react if your friends rearmed your enemy especially if they had "done" much of the "dirty work" during the war in Southeast Asia. Roosevelt desired the French to leave Viet Nam. (Brought out in Patti's Why Viet Nam? also found on the Net)book but the rightwing doom sayers, conservatives, and domino theorists gave it back to France and the rest is History.
I'm a Viet Nam vet and served under Hal Moore Lt Gen. 1st Air Cav Division

Choose not to be terrified? I think we were doing that on 11 Sept look what that did for us.