A couple of points. First off neither Korean War or WWII tactics were used in the Vietnam conflict. The most common tactic used was aggressive patrolling until contact then calling in massive artillery around the contact point - if the contact was large enough. A favourite tactic was very similar to what the French tried at Diem Ben Phu. Go into the middle of Viet Cong territory, set up a firebase, then let the enemy attack. US artillery was so good at that point they could do massive artillery barrages that would hit within 50 yars of the base.
Militarily the US was winning. However like any insurgency there was more than the military dimension which the pentagon forgot about. They were winning the military war, but lost the political war. larry On 8/16/05, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't agree with the Vietnam scenario. We had two big problems in Vietnam- > first, our use of standard (i.e. WWII) military tactics in the face of a > guerilla war. Second, the Communists offered an alternative government that > was very appealing to many Vietnamese. > > In military terms, we are putting the wood to the enemy in Iraq. It's hard to > get enemy casulaty figures, but last I cheked we were taking out the enemy at > a 20:1 ratio, and that ratio is far higher if you throw in people we have > captured. The enemy can't win that kind of war, and they know it, which is > why they have resorted to tactics like killing journalists and other > non-combatants- Iraqi and foreign alike. > > Ultimately, we will win in Iraq if we have the intestinal fortitude as a > nation to continue the fight. I believe we have no choice because the > alternative is untenable. What is amazing is the restraint the Iraqis have > showed in fighting the insurgents. I wonder what might happen if we leave too > early. An all-out civil war would very quickly mean the end of the Sunnis in > Iraq, but I worry that it would drag Syria and Iran into the war on opposite > sides, and no one wants to see a broader regional conflict. > > > >Unfortunately to do that we need to first secure the country and we're > >not doing that. Which means we're half assing the whole thing. Sound > >familiar? So, as with Vietnam, we either have to send in enough > >troops to accomplish that mission or pull out. > > > >The President needs to make a decision what he wants and, as you've > >pointed out, he's not. In a nutshell he fekked up bad and now he has > >to decide if he's going to make it right or walk away. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Flash MX Pro from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=57 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:169525 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
