Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan
It's getting to read like the Viet Nam war all over again, with the gradual western involvement leading up to war. The difference is the Viet Cong look like ##### cats in comparison. I'm not saying it's going to result in the same way but we can't go in with one arm tied behind our backs. It needs to be all out or don't bother.
The other option is to let them establish their blood thirsty state which over time may come to terms with the rest of the world like Viet Nam.
|
I just don't see the comparison. The Western nations are not sending in millions of ground troops. They are letting the locals do the vast majority of the fighting and giving them air support.
The fact of the matter is that the USA has no choice but to act now. If the violence spreads further into Turkey's borders, their (and our) NATO commitments will force them in. If the violence somehow gets entangled with what is going on in Egypt, you're looking at a total disaster. If ISIS were ever able to get a foothold in Egypt and ally with already existing militant groups, you'd see their ranks swell from 10s of thousands to millions. The USA also has an obligation to the Iraqi people to help them, as they, with their last war, are significantly (not entirely) responsible for the present situation in Iraq.
Vietnam was the USA going headstrong into a war that didn't concern them and they couldn't win. The present conflict with ISIS represents them reluctantly and cautiously taking part in a war they are already involved in.
It's also arguable that the current conflict in Syria/Iraq has much more in common with the post-Yugoslavia conflict than it does with Vietnam. In that conflict NATO air strikes were extremely effective and brought the conflict to a standstill.
I'm not saying that US military intervention will be effective here, but I just don't see a single parallel between this and Vietnam.