Fears of a 'Tet offensive' in Iraq grow

You may define it as terrorism, but they are blowing up our military - that sounds a lot like they still have the ability to wage war. Casualty rates are really irrelevant. Our military objective was destroying the enemy to provide security for the country and enable the formation of a functioning democracy. The enemy is not destroyed to the point where there is security in the country. Thus, the military objective hasn't been achieved and the war is not "won".

The military won't be defeated either - it's just a matter of it being a stalemate. But the US started a war and didn't (or hasn't) achieve its objective. By that standard, it's pretty much a failure thus far. For the other side, the goal was simply to prevent the US from achieving its objective. By that standard, they can consider their position a success.

 

the military is just a tool that politicians use to achieve political objectives. what is the whole point of fighting if you're not gaining anything politically? this is the question that w. bush is facing right now. it is irrelevant whether the u.s has the best army in the world, whether we have a 10,000 to 1 kill ratio in Irag, if we dont have a democratic government that is friendly to us at the end of the day, then we will have lost the war.

being a college student, i cant help but imagine what happens if those hundred of billions of dollars actually went into health-care and college tuition. Thanks a lot w.bush.

 

The bombings happened 3 days before the national elections, and the government's reaction was to blame the ETA, although the bombings didn't fit what the ETA typically did. The ETA operated much like the IRA, which phoned in warnings before very large bombing attacks, and deliberately targeted individual government/military people... not large numbers of innocent civilians. So in that respect, the government was seen as deliberately distorting the truth.

Over 90% of the Spanish people were against Spanish involvement in Iraq at the time, and the government allegedly didn't want the bombings tied to that involvement just before the elections. It all literally blew up in the government's face. A terrible tragedy for the Spanish people. Shortly after the government lost the elections, Spain withdrew it's forces from Iraq.



D&D. Here We Are.

 

Thank you Von Clauswitz..

 

Because the NVA wasn't massed on the border waiting to be crushed, not to mention the fact that the policy makers back home had a bit of an on again off again thing going regarding attacking the north, especially bombing Hanoi. It would be really nice if the enemy lined up to be killed, but it doesn't work that way. You have to go and find them, dig them out of their tunnels, chase down their amazingly effective supply lines, etc. Not an easy thing to do, but certainly not impossible if they choose to do so. Instead they chose to pull up stakes.

The VC pretty much consisted of NVA at that point. The VC as it existed prior to Tet was gone. They were also a more formidable force prior to that debacle than you are giving them credit for, a real military force (primarily infantry of course).

I disagree that Korea could not be used as a model for Vietnam. The US backed government of South Korea was not very popular, eventually being overthrown and replaced with a military dictatorship that would eventually give way to the democracy that we see there now. The UN intervened in Korea after the North attacked the South, and the main goal was to push them out, which was achieved. Only the later adopted goal of reuniting Korea under the leadership of the south failed, and only after the Chinese entered the war. In Vietnam, this second phase could have been avoided altogether.

I would say the war against AIDS has largely been won in the US, yes. Obviously in other parts of the world (most notably much of sub-Saharan Africa) AIDS is still raging on, but in the US it is mostly contained, people are educated on how to avoid it, and transmission through blood transfusion has pretty much been eliminated (I don't remember the last case I heard about). I would say that I would much prefer the current state of AIDS in America to the plague in middle-ages Europe.

Americans and other western countries accepted casualties higher than during the civil war (assuming that you consider the perspective of one side or the other) on two occasions fighting outside of their home countries (thought not higher in WWI counting only Americans).

In WWI we attacked governments that had attacked our allies some time earlier (but never attacked us) and sent men to fight overseas, absorbing over 100,000 KIA. So the American people are (or at least were) willing to fight with tremendous casualties overseas if they believe in the cause. The Iraq war has had fewer KIA than the Philippine war. So, it is not a matter of too many US troops dying that is driving down support. So we come back to what I said to begin with, the only way to lose this war is politically at home. Politically in Iraq, I think we can stay and continue to apply pressure until we get a satisfactory outcome.

Well, that is enough for now, I might try another pass through this thread later to pick up any of the replies I didn't get to.

 

LOL, total r****dation.

you know stupid-m, i've been to Hanoi. It's in fact a beautiful city with many very pretty colonial buildings. But if you think that a strategic bombing of Hanoi, and hte corresponding leveling of such colonial buildings, was the dfiference between winning and losing - you're an even bigger r****d than I thought you were- which was actually pretty big. In fact, your blue print for winning the war in Vietnam reads like something straight out of the Robert MacNamara catalog, just without the local color.


Now, I suppose you will take this as some sort of internal victory, and I applaud you for it. RAPT APPLAUSE.

 

Thank you.

 

No, we should be rooting for the Iraqis to establish strong internal security forces and crack down on elements among there people that are attacking the agents of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi civilian populace, and the American troops that are there to help them. We just shouldn't be too fearful of a Tet offensive like strategy because it would not be very effective, and in fact would only serve to bring more of the enemy under the guns of American soldiers and marines.

Casualty rates are not irrelevant because they speak to the enemy's ability to wage war. When we have 100,000 troops in theater and they can manage to kill two or three per day on average, that is not waging war. At that rate it would take them over a hundred years to kill all the American troops that are there, if the Americans didn't fight back and didn't reinforce.
The war is NOT won, IMO, by my standards, but it can be won. By the definition you provided, I would say it has been won. That is not really very important. What is important is that the war is not lost, and cannot be lost unless we retreat.

I suppose it could be considered a failure thus far, though I would call it a work in progress. Hamlet was not a failure while it was being written, even though it didn't have an ending. It just needed to be finished. The goal of the insurgents is to drive the US out and take control of Iraq. I don't think we should accommodate them. A majority disagree with me. **** happens.

You cannot provide a safe city where the enemy can store there forces and weapons. Attacking supply lines and weapons storage and production are important elements of warfare. It wasn't the colonial buildings that needed bombing, it was the weapons depots, troop barracks, training areas, weapons factories, headquarters buildings, etc. I don't know how you think bombing targets like those would NOT help a war effort. So far we have learned from you on war-fighting that the worst strategies are attacking the enemy troops and the infrastructure that supports the enemy war machine. No wonder you think the best policy is to withdraw, you really haven't left many other options.

 

-- I take it back, you are less than mcnamara era dumb.

Hanoi was neither a "safe city" for arms manufacture or a safe haven for forces. You are in fact dumber than I thought.

 

It was during all of the times when Washington decided that attacking it was off limits.

 

No.

You are dumb.

 

Keep dreaming because that money spent on the War is money we don't really have.

 

I guess so. Maybe you can explain to stupid me how a city that is off limits to all attacks (as Hanoi and some other areas closer to China than South Vietnem were at various times) is not a safe haven.

 

Sure, I will remind you, which I reminded you of a few posts ago.

It was not a safe haven because there was nothing stored there of any consequence to the war effort. Vietnamese soldiers went into the field with a gun, a pouch full of rice, and a pair of flip flops made out of old tires. That was it, now some of them had brown uniforms and and pith helmets, but they were non-essential items. I suppose there was probably a few shacks outside Hanoi where most of the tire-shoes were made. I guess those could have been blowed up an everything would have been better?

 

just because you've been to hanoi, doesn't make you an expert on vietnam, or the war. VC may have been equipped as you suggest, but the NVA was very well shod and armed. perhaps you remember this picture?



and there was plenty of value in hanoi, including american POWs. our restraint in bombing it is precisely why it was a safe haven. we could have turned those lovely old colonials into dresden. we didn't, and the NV took advantage of that fact.

 

Wrong. If you think the vietnam war was lost by failure to destroy north vietnamese tanks, you are a resident of dumbtown. PS that picture was taken in 1975 - well after the US military began to leave.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you think the vietnam war was about a bunch of old buildings in Hanoi remaining standing you are dumber than the dumb, and may in fact be the new mayor of Dumbtown.

I suppose though it is part of the mythology you are building up to explain away the failure in Iraq - to which your message board posting no doubt had significant impact.

It is amazing/amusing how you like to make grandiose boasts about leveling cities (which reminds me of descriptions I have read about Hitler sitting aroudn with his generals back in the "wolf's lair", playing Risk with a bunch of toy tanks), then turn around and scream and whie about perfidy and human rights in Iraq and saving Darfur and blah blah blah.

I am glad that you are in a position of no responsibility or consequence whatsoever.

 

are you saying the NVA had no tanks prior to 1975?

 

So you are saying that the Vietnam war boiled down to a tank battle.

 

You guys keep fishing for answers for things you don't know. Just do a little research before ramble on ...
The NVA first used tanks in 72 and later in 75 after the American had scaled down and then later left. They fought mostly a guerilla war and did not want to expose their heavy stuffs to American's firepower.