Nice point! Uh, you neglected to list all the reasons that Iraq is WORSE than Vietnam.
Do you honestly believe that the casualties trends will basically follow the chart you posted (or be even worse)?
(a) We have no equivalent of the South Vietnamese Army taking casualties for us.
(c) There is no Catholic run government in Iraq to sympathize with us.
A decent point. More one point then two but a pretty good one.
I think if we did have a pro-US Iraqi government that had at least as much power and legitimacy as the government of South Vietnam had that we would be on our way to ending the conflict in Iraq on reasonably successful terms. I know the government in the South was not particularly popular but it had at least a bit of legitimacy and armies that where more effective then anything it seems we are likely to get in the near future from Iraqis fighting on our side. The South couldn't fight off the NVA without US support but there is nothing like the NVA in Iraq.
(b) The Moslem religion historically supports martyrdom.
In Vietnam this wasn't the case but they where willing to take an extraordinary number casualties to take over the South. Not an unmatched number there have been other extraordinary cases but I don't think there is any reason to assume that Iraq will be worse then Vietnam in this regard.
(d) We're a sea power. Our logistics in South Vietnam were fairly simple because very little of the country is farther than 50 miles from the ocean. With Iraq, very little is within that distance of the ocean or a navigable river.
A minor point. While our logistical situation is not perfect in Iraq (its never perfect in any conflict) we have no major logistical problems in Iraq.
Also there is geographical advantages. The lack of jungle in Iraq has been mentioned often. Also Vietnam was a long thin country, much of the country was close to the border and the NVA and Viet Cong could usually move through Laos and Cambodia without serious opposition.
Here is an interesting map of the area
nexus.net
also
columbia.edu
We're already having to deal with "volunteers" from other Arab countries. But the other Arab countries amount to something like 150 million people, while North Vietnam was only about 20 or 30 million.
Add up all the "volunteers" in Iraq or on their way, and all the members of any Iraqi group we are fighting plus the individual solo violent hotheads and you get a smaller number then the number of people we fought against in Vietnam and IMO it also seems like they are typically less organized. I'm not saying that you have no point at all here but the issue is not really the raw numbers of the entire Arab population.
There are also other reasons why Iraq is less difficult than Vietnam. For example, in Vietnam, we had another major power directly supporting the other side. So far, we don't have that in Iraq.
True. I didn't mention that because I've already stated it on this thread more then once and I didn't want to be too repetitive. As for "so far", I don't think its likely to happen in the future. I would just say "We don't have that in Iraq."
Re: "Do you seriously think there will be about 30,000 American deaths in Iraq from 2005 to 2007?"
No, I expect us to bug out long before 2007.
If we don't bug out would you expect an addition 30k or so casualties before the end of 2007 or at least something close to that?
The way we got involved in Vietnam was the same way that you boil a live frog.
Which is not the way we got involved in Iraq. The fact that we did get involved in Vietnam that way would tend to lower the initial number of combat deaths in Vietnam. This fact makes it more likely that the chart you posted is misleading.
By the way, do you have any idea what the NVA / VC ratio in Vietnam was?
No. At least no detailed information or good sources that I can share to get the information.
I did a quick google search before my last post but found no information. The only thing I have is memories of non-detailed statements from a couple of people who served as officers in Vietnam. One statement was along the line of the NVA caused most of the combat casualties, the other was a statement about how the Vietcong would normally melt away at the first sign of a serious attack or decently supported defense but that the NVA would at times slug it out and fight very hard. My study of the Vietnamese war seems to support these ideas but unfortunately I have no statistics or detailed specific information.
Generally a competent army that is well armed and capable of fighting a conventional war will inflict more casualties on its enemy then a guerilla force (unless it is swiftly defeated like Saddam's conventional forces where). Usually guerilla forces only inflict a lot of casualties if they can either drag out the conflict for a long time or mature in to a force capable of conventional operations. Guerilla warfare is low (at least lower) intensity warfare. And guerillas facing a powerful conventional force usually can only hope to achieve the combination of being a major annoyance and continuing to survive as an intact force.
In Vietnam the NVA had the advantages of a conventional and a guerilla force. It was well armed (even if not as well armed as the US military). It could occupy territory at times and had the capability of mounting prolonged attacks against the US (Khe Shan for example), but it was also trained in guerilla tactics, and could if need be withdraw to the North (or to Laos and Cambodia) to avoid attack (at least ground attack) which gave it the same advantage that guerilla armies depend on, that of being able to choose when to fight and when not to fight.
Tim |
