To: tejek who wrote (234579 ) 6/3/2005 5:48:35 PM From: TimF Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576053 There is nothing inevitable about guerilla warfare defeating conventional forces, if there was most countries would junk their conventional forces and train bands of guerillas. During Tet we devastated the Vietcong and hit the NVA currently in the south fairly hard. But we didn't do anything about the North, and the communists could always pull back, slow things down for a bit, and then come back for more when they were ready. We would never be directly defeated by anything they could throw at us, but we couldn't defeat them either. If the enemy has a substantial safe haven where they can easily escape to, and where they can be re-supplied its pretty hard to defeat them. When you are strategically on the defense like we were in Vietnam, you can hurt the enemy, and you can keep them from defeating you, and we did both, but you can't eliminate the threat. If the enemy is determined, and you never seek to take out the enemies base, than you don't actually win. We eventually left. The south might have held against the conventional invasion that followed (like they did against the Eastertide offensive after most, but not all of our forces had left) but we stopped sending them more weapons and supplies. That was why we had to attack places like Felujah. If you don't go after them then you can't ever win. Taking them doesn't give you a win, but not taking them guarantees that you won't win. If we fought in Iraq like we did in Vietnam we would have left the insurgents bases unmolested (except sometimes we might bomb them), and than after awhile we would pull out, but would not provide any aid or assistance to the government to help it fight the insurgency. Of course South Vietnam didn't even fall to an insurgency but to a massive conventional invasion. Fortunatly there is no "North Iraq", with a large army poised to invade. Tim