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.
ISIS may be more ruthless, but I wouldn't say they're better fighters than the VC. The VC was pretty intelligent and had good leaders. ISIS has beaten a bunch of half assed soldiers, who obviously didn't want to fight in the first place, in places that they have at least a modicum of popular support because of a braindead Iraqi president.
Unfortunately what this is is the Iraq War all over again, which did have obvious similarities to the Vietnam war in terms of the type of war as opposed to the level of opponent. A prolonged engagement against a hidden enemy blending with the populace basically turning into guerilla warfare/an insurgency.
ISIS may be more ruthless, but I wouldn't say they're better fighters than the VC. The VC was pretty intelligent and had good leaders. ISIS has beaten a bunch of half assed soldiers, who obviously didn't want to fight in the first place, in places that they have at least a modicum of popular support because of a braindead Iraqi president.
Unfortunately what this is is the Iraq War all over again, which did have obvious similarities to the Vietnam war in terms of the type of war as opposed to the level of opponent. A prolonged engagement against a hidden enemy blending with the populace basically turning into guerilla warfare/an insurgency.
I wouldn't overrate ISIS militarily.
Yeah, I wasn't wanting to denigrate the Viet Cong as fighters. The difference is the blood thirstiness of ISIS and their plans to expand. The VC were just fighting for re-unification and independence of their country.
Here's more about my second point about just letting them form their own country.
Yeah, I wasn't wanting to denigrate the Viet Cong as fighters. The difference is the blood thirstiness of ISIS and their plans to expand. The VC were just fighting for re-unification and independence of their country.
Here's more about my second point about just letting them form their own country.
[YOUTUBE]
The difference between the VC and ISIS is that ISIS is has a desire for a new world order, a new vision of society - aka a third reich. It is what sets ISIS apart from anything we've seen since Hitler.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
The Viet Cong were brutal but exceptionally gutsy light fighters, they would carry very little in terms of food and ammunition, but were the definable insurgent fighters. And as time fades people forget that they were fairly brutal in their dealings with civilians and prisoners. They didn't rely on transportation or heavy weapons and exposed the American fascination with firepower as a flawed strategy when it isn't paired with good leadership and strong field craft.
I would argue that the average ISIS soldier is a different kind of animal. They are like a modern day equivalent of the middle ages crusader type army combined with a willingness to die to achieve their groups goals. But for the most part I would argue that their training is rudimentary at best, I don't know if they're ably lead beyond some schmuck pointing at a map and sending as many of his men running at it as possible.
While airpower is easy to overcome when your an army that doesn't rely on tanks and AFC's and things like overfire and heavy artillary, an army like this probably wouldn't do well against a modern and well trained military.
Remember that ISIS isn't like an insurgency army, they are an army of conquest who uses absolute terror to cow their conquests.
And not to take anything away from the Kurds and others fighting ISIS but they aren't exactly a lavishly trained and specifically recruited military formation.
The difficulty in waiting for ISIS to take territory and dig in is that digging it out would be similar to what we saw in Iraq after America rolled over the army there and then fought an insurgency that was very much like thousands of nests of vipers.
The only way to beat ISIS is to catch them in the middle of an offensive, find a way to take the initiative and force them into the open.
But at this point we're almost past that phase in ISIS' offensive.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Went to the Cu Chi Tunnels earlier this year in Vietnam. The brutality of that dense, jungle warfare and the traps they set for American and ARVN troops were about as hideous as they come. They definitely wanted to suck the South forces into their defense labyrinth, and it had a pretty high degree of success. They were also remarkably resilient in providing food, healthcare and supply support. It was the kind of war the VC wanted, ultimately sucking in enemy troops, picking and choosing the battles they wanted, and costing the Americans supplies, resources and casualties.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
One of the things that handicapped the Americans in Viet Nam was they were fighting a defensive war and not fighting to win. The American bombing of Isis reminds me of the same strategy that just leads down the slippery slope of a little more involvement day by day but no real plan to defeat the enemy.
If it was up to me, I'd do what the Young Turks suggest and give them enough rope to hang themselves.
One of the things that handicapped the Americans in Viet Nam was they were fighting a defensive war and not fighting to win. The American bombing of Isis reminds me of the same strategy that just leads down the slippery slope of a little more involvement day by day but no real plan to defeat the enemy.
If it was up to me, I'd do what the Young Turks suggest and give them enough rope to hang themselves.
I would restfully disagree.
the thing that handicapped the Americans were that the war was run and planned by the politicians who decided that they wanted to fight a limited engagement war. There were never clear objectives, this wasn't a war about gaining and holding grounds, but built around body counts and no inherent military objectives.
The American Military Leadership was shockingly weak considering that a lot of their senior officers were built in the forges of WW2 and Korea.
On top of that the American's didn't have a professional army, Vietnam was the end of the conscript or drafted military, because of that the NCO core which is the heart of any army was weak.
The Americans fought the wrong type of war, and flailed around uselessly. If you look at the individual battles there weren't a lot of them that were lost. but when you look at the cohesive picture on a map you'd ask yourself the question "What were they thinking".
The other thing was that the whole strategy of winning the hearts and minds was a abject failure and again a strategy that was created in the State Department and in the offices of the President and Vice President.
You would hope in this current situation that ISIS who are incredible butchers aren't winning the hearts and minds and forces on the ground could exploit that, but the best way to achieve that is if the forces on the ground were from the Middle East Nations. But unfortunately the Middle Eastern militaries aren't exactly professional or known for their gentle treatment of the civilian populations.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
the thing that handicapped the Americans were that the war was run and planned by the politicians who decided that they wanted to fight a limited engagement war. There were never clear objectives, this wasn't a war about gaining and holding grounds, but built around body counts and no inherent military objectives.
The American Military Leadership was shockingly weak considering that a lot of their senior officers were built in the forges of WW2 and Korea.
On top of that the American's didn't have a professional army, Vietnam was the end of the conscript or drafted military, because of that the NCO core which is the heart of any army was weak.
The Americans fought the wrong type of war, and flailed around uselessly. If you look at the individual battles there weren't a lot of them that were lost. but when you look at the cohesive picture on a map you'd ask yourself the question "What were they thinking".
The other thing was that the whole strategy of winning the hearts and minds was a abject failure and again a strategy that was created in the State Department and in the offices of the President and Vice President.
You would hope in this current situation that ISIS who are incredible butchers aren't winning the hearts and minds and forces on the ground could exploit that, but the best way to achieve that is if the forces on the ground were from the Middle East Nations. But unfortunately the Middle Eastern militaries aren't exactly professional or known for their gentle treatment of the civilian populations.
I don't know what you're disagreeing about. My "no real plan to defeat the enemy" gibes with your "never clear objectives" as far as I'm concerned. I pretty much know what was going on in Viet Nam as I was protesting the war at the time.
Yeah, the West would be happy if they could get enough locals (Arabs) to fight Isis as they did in Afghanistan, first against the USSR and later the Taliban. Of course that didn't work out perfectly either. Maybe just leave them to sort out their own problems. Our interference always seems to backfire.
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.
The Americans involvement with the Viet Nam war began with just advisers and airstrikes and than gradually grew more involved. Escalation is just another step away when the President has a blank cheque.
Quote:
She says the earlier request was “an overly broad authorization which I could not vote for because it was a blank check for perpetual war.”
She was right. That authorization is still on the books, and the Obama Administration still cites it (along with the AUMF 2002), 13 years later, as sufficient authority for further escalation in Syria and Iraq. Lee says it should be repealed.
Quote:
A. There are countless parallels. As in Vietnam, the U.S. is heading towards an American ground combat war under a president who assures us — before an election — that it isn’t going to happen. And as in Vietnam, his generals claim he can’t achieve his goal without boots on the ground.
Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, says you can’t defeat ISIS without ground troops. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified he will recommend U.S. ground forces in Iraq if and when air power alone is not sufficient. That day is certain to come, sooner than later, although not before the November elections.
In fact, I doubt there’s a single person in the Pentagon or the CIA who believes Obama can achieve his goals to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria with air strikes and advisers alone.
High-level officers can’t contradict the President publicly, without resigning or being fired. But retired officials can, and have. A former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James Conway, put it succinctly: The President’s current strategy “doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell” of succeeding. I’m sure Odierno and Dempsey give it the same odds.
Quote:
To bring us to the present, instead of saying “relying mainly on the South Vietnamese,” insert Syrians, Iraqis and Kurds. When those first steps are taken towards making this mainly an American war – steps Obama and his generals and Gates already hint at – should we expect to hear about that from the White House? Why? Because Obama is more transparent, less secretive than Johnson, Nixon or George W. Bush? He isn’t.
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.
I believe you're fear mongering. As far as I know Isis hasn't made any attempt to move into Turkey or Egypt. Yeah they talk big but that's just to suck us in.
It's important to remember that ISIS itself is not a single entity, it is made up of several distinct parts, the reason they have proved effective so far is that they have recruited Sunni ex Iraqi army, particularly in their officer cadre, they have also gained massive support from Sunni tribes in Iraq who have spent the last few years being treated like dirt by the idiot Shia 'we' left in charge in Iraq.
The extreme Islamic part of ISIS is the Syrian foreign part, run by the religious and political leadership, the ex Baathist officers and Iraqi tribes basically want to win Iraq back, or at least the Sunni areas, and you can't really blame them as they have been treated abysmally by Malki and the Shia, but they arnt historically particularly Islamic, this likely just a convenient flag to achieve their more limited aims under.
The real parallel with Vietnam is not US strategy but the US's utter misunderstanding of the country, history and culture of the people they are trying to 'help', along with their inability to believe that not everyone in the world wants to live like them.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I believe you're fear mongering. As far as I know Isis hasn't made any attempt to move into Turkey or Egypt. Yeah they talk big but that's just to suck us in.
ISIS is right on the Turkish border. Do I think they will be able to successfully invade Turkey? No. However, if we were in the shoes of the Turks, I would expect other NATO members to back us up.
I think without any kind of Western intervention, Turkey would have been, at the very least, attacked. That would create an obligation for NATO members to intervene. As far as optics go, it makes more sense for nations to be seen to be sticking up for a NATO ally than to only respond once they are forced to.
I don't think it's overly far fetched that ISIS could like up with these groups in Egypt.
The overall strategy at this point seems to be one of containment: using air strikes to bolster already existing front lines being held up by local groups. The conflict spreading into neighbouring countries is most certainly on the minds of the people making the decisions to send in troops.
The real parallel with Vietnam is not US strategy but the US's utter misunderstanding of the country, history and culture of the people they are trying to 'help', along with their inability to believe that not everyone in the world wants to live like them.
Well , i am not sure that understanding a country, history, or culture is always a decider. The French preceded the American effort, had a very good understanding of all that, and absolutely got their butts kicked by the Vietnamese.
The Vietnamese were stronger and more determined to stay the course, thats why they won. The US effort was limited by congress and had nothing to show but small tactical victories. In addition from a Vietnamese perspective the NVA was a highly motivated military force among the top 6 or 7 armies in the world and had the latest Russian planes, trainers, pilots and SAMs available to them. The Vietnamese went on to what is called at worst a stalemate against the Chinese army in 1979. None of these middle east regimes or even the current threat is even remotely in the same league of opposition.
To me the similarity to the Vietnam war was a total waste of American resources and I wonder if this is another repeat of that, if its not in the best interest of the US they will soon tire of it and pull out before the job is done.
Last edited by Flamenspiel; 10-26-2014 at 04:32 PM.
Well , i am not sure that understanding a country, history, or culture is always a decider. The French preceded the American effort, had a very good understanding of all that, and absolutely got their butts kicked by the Vietnamese.
The Vietnamese were stronger and more determined to stay the course, thats why they won. The US effort was limited by congress and had nothing to show but small tactical victories. In addition from a Vietnamese perspective the NVA was a highly motivated military force among the top 6 or 7 armies in the world and had the latest Russian planes, trainers, pilots and SAMs available to them. The Vietnamese went on to what is called at worst a stalemate against the Chinese army in 1979. None of these middle east regimes or even the current threat is even remotely in the same league of opposition.
To me the similarity to the Vietnam war was a total waste of American resources and I wonder if this is another repeat of that, if its not in the best interest of the US they will soon tire of it and pull out before the job is done.
The French were broke, reeling from the war that had decimated their population and economy, they ended up hiring thousands of ex waffen SS to fight under their flag but were never going to be able to sustain any kind of effort.
The US were deluded into thinking that the country they had created in '54 would really fight against the man who had delivered the Vietnamese from their colonial oppressors, it was tantamount to thinking you could split S Africa and find blacks to fight against Nelson Mandela.
The Viet Cong, while not loved by all, were by no means hated by any, the south was at best neutral about becoming a communist country, which is why they never fought effectively and were run by brutally corrupt puppets who were only concerned about lining their own pockets.
Unfortunately the yanks were caught up in their own propaganda, better dead than red etc but, to this day, don't seem to understand no one else is that bothered by socialism. They did exactly what they screwed up in Iraq, assumed they were liberators when in reality it was just a colonial invasion hated by everyone in the country even if they were nominal allies.
ISIS is right on the Turkish border. Do I think they will be able to successfully invade Turkey? No. However, if we were in the shoes of the Turks, I would expect other NATO members to back us up.
I think without any kind of Western intervention, Turkey would have been, at the very least, attacked. That would create an obligation for NATO members to intervene. As far as optics go, it makes more sense for nations to be seen to be sticking up for a NATO ally than to only respond once they are forced to.
I don't think it's overly far fetched that ISIS could like up with these groups in Egypt.
The overall strategy at this point seems to be one of containment: using air strikes to bolster already existing front lines being held up by local groups. The conflict spreading into neighbouring countries is most certainly on the minds of the people making the decisions to send in troops.
Sure if ISIS invades Turkey, we need to help if needed. I don't see them attacking Turkey though as they aren't wanted there. The same can't be said about Syria and Iraq though where the Sunni are happy to have them at the moment.
Egypt can probably handle it's own problems. If not that may be a different story but for now I'd let Isis hang themselves.
