Hi IQBAL LATIF; Sorry for going off the handle on you the other day.
Re: "Iraq is no Vietnam"
Yes, Iraq is far worse than Vietnam. Here's the comparison:
(1) South Vietnam had 20 million people in it, Iraq now has 24 million. Therefore, Iraq is about 20% harder to police.
(2) In South Vietnam, we had the assistance of their army, which took 5x as many combat deaths as we did. In Iraq, we have no assistance from anyone except the British. And the Brits are going to leave it up to us to run the troop levels up, so this will eventually become an almost entirely US operation. The Kuwaits, for example, are providing us with zero combat assistance.
(3) The enemy population in Vietnam was Buddhist, a population known for its aversion to violence (our side was Catholic), while the enemy population in Iraq is Moslem Arab, a population known for its love of violence.
(4) The civilian population in Vietnam was extraordinarily poor and had to rely on the Communists to supply it with the meagre weapons they had. But every Iraqi past the age of 12 owns a rifle.
(5) South Vietnam was connected to the rest of the Vietnam ethnic nation (their natural ally against a foreign invader) by a very small piece of land (the DMZ). By comparison, Iraq has incredibly long borders with the Arab nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, as well as an impossible to govern border with Iran. We're going to see every weapon produced on the planet smuggled across those borders.
(6) The total Arab population of the world is around 100 million people. As this fight drags on (and it will), the arab countries will begin supporting the Iraqis against us, just like the English speaking nations supported each other, and were eventually dragged into WW1 and WW2. Compare this to the situation in Vietnam, where the total world ethnic community of the Vietnamese was only around 40 million or so.
Iraq is a far worse problem than Vietnam. The only advantage Iraq has over Vietnam is that there is no jungle, but the built up cities are as good as jungle.
Instead of hiding in the jungle, our enemy will instead hide in a sympathetic civilian population. Not only that, but this is an enemy that doesn't a good goddamn about the Geneva convention. We should have invaded the French instead.
Look, your expertise is in Pakistan. It was already showing signs of destabilization (Islamic parties picking up votes, etc.) even before this war. Now that the war is on, what is the local feeling there? I can't imagine that this is doing anything positive for the war on terrorism.
-- Carl |
