Zofo,
There are similarities and differences in all wars. The common denominator is that military assets are used to achieve political objectives.
I can of course only agree - war is a contiuation of foreign policy by other means...
In the Korean War, the United States and South Korea and the United Nations, were definitely out-done initially, in armaments, equipment, intelligence, training and number of troops. There was no parity with North Korea for a long time and eventually even the Chinese out-numbered us with troops, but never armaments. The Pusan Perimeter was the end result of this and it was only with our superior naval and air forces that we were able to gain sufficient time to reinforce and break out and land troops at Inchon, behind the North Koreans, causing their retreat and the ultimate stalemate.
A good overview of the war - somehow forgotten by many people.
In Vietnam, there was also never parity with our enemies. We always had superior air assets and also our mechanized equipment was vastly superior in numbers and strength. However, at no time, am I aware of, did our actual number of ground combat troops equal or surpass our enemy in numbers. That's right, we had superior technology and the very latest weapons at our disposal but the average grunt humping through the jungle and rice paddies, was always outnumbered.
With a year to serve the experienced would be replaced by the inexperienced I presume. There were folk that re-toured, some of 'em we know well on this board(!!) but I would imagine that in terms of tactics and local knowledge, the NVA / VC would have had the edge over you as well?
There was a finite number of men committed to battle, the majority of people in Vietnam were in some sort of support role. Whether a lawyer or a supply clerk or a military policeman, I believe the support to combat ratio was four or five to one, in 1968, the peak of our manpower in Vietnam. So we had them beat in technology and amount of armaments and firepower and they had us beat in number of combat troops. Their equipment was also modern, especially their SAM sites in North Vietnam, which took a heavy toil on our air assets and I believe through the entire war, North Vietnam had better and more accurate real-time intelligence. The only parity was because we allowed them to dictate the perimeters of this war to us. It was our choice to fight them on a level of combat that they were capable of, far less then what we were capable of.
The main ingredient to our lack of parity with North Vietnam was the many restrictions placed on our military by our political leaders, especially the Secretary of Defense and the President. Because of these restrictive rules of engagement and untimely answers to battlefield considerations, that required instant responses instead of the many, many layers of command, each level passing it up the chain until too late to matter, the advantages that we possessed were rendered ineffective. It is well known and easily proven beyond a doubt that the American military was not allowed to prosecute the war in a manner to win, by either invading North Vietnam with troops or bombing their deep water harbors or by bombing major public works such as dams and hydroelectric facilities.
Do you have an explanation for this? This is not a hardball question, just a query for more information from your viewpoint.
Certain near-by countries were also off-limits for most of the war to American forces
(or most of them?) and provided sanctuary to our enemies. No such restrictions were placed on our enemies, parity... I don't think so, they had advantages.
This is exactly why a super-power like America, was content to withdraw and achieve a semblance of victory, with a negotiated peace with North Vietnam, with guarantees and safe-guards for all parties.
I believe the only thing that Vietnam and Iraq share are the many political considerations taking precedence over military decisions. There is also an obvious comparison made because of the unpopularity of both wars and the power of the media to enfluence and manipulate popular opinion.
More so than in any other war at any other time.
The Iraqi army was soundly and resolutely defeated by the coalition forces, with the least amount of colladeral damage and civilian casualties as possible. These same in-country coalition forces are now the target of "terrorists" from all over the middle east, not only Iraq.
I think we have accomplished our objectives of removing the dangerous leadership of Iraq
I believe the leadership of Iraq were a danger to their population and at worst a major irritation to the West. We know the Brit Govt lied through its back teeth and went along with what GWB wanted. This page is quite interesting...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html in showing just how far the govts thought they could go.
and have verified all weapons of mass destruction are gone
or weren't there in the first place .
I believe it is in our best interests to give the new Iraqi government a short amount of time to get their act togeather, and then to pull our military ground forces out of Iraq and go back to monitoring their actions with both air and satellite assets and ground inspections. If we remove the troops, we remove the opportunity to attack us and the casualties will stop. Semper Fi