Creating a Tet Offensive in Iraq
- Thread starter stratego
- Start date
Even so...it will give them some kind of moral and religious victory that will galvanize them further. We cannot risk that. Besides, I would not expect them to come out in open combat, even with greater support. I WOULD expect more guerilla warfare attacks that were seen as successful spread into other places.
I've always wondered what might happen if Iraq just had its ethnic/religios groups go their separate ways. It seems that Turkey has been taking a somewhat kinder stance to the Iraqi Kurds because Turkey might see them as the only evidence of stability in the neighboring nation. However, a Kurdish state may quickly reverse that. Hell, the Kurds are saying that they could accept the offer of 10,000 Turkish soldiers in Iraq because the country is almost shot to hell now.
The problem with dividing along these lines is that the Sunnis would wind up with next to no oil. Yet more conflict could come from this.
There are no easy solutions to this. Any possible solution may take many years and even then, we may not know if we are right until we see the results a couple decades down the line. Simply hoping to draw out these guerillas into open warfare (as pretty much every government that faced guerilla rebels has tried to do) will not solve the situation and it will not solve the problem of foreign guerillas and terrorists flooding the country after the temporary (and in some places, continuing) power vacuum after Baghdad fell.
Comparisons to the Tet Offensive so far have been pretty far off.
ONE
Direct comparison is virtually pointless. The Vietnam conflict, and guerilla forces were the evolution of many decades of direct warfare. The guerilla forces and organisations had decades of fighting against Japanese, and French rule, by which time of the US intervention, they were well versed and possessed of mature systems from which to adapt and offend.
By comparison, even if real widespread and coordinated resistance exists in Iraq, it certainly hasn't had the comparable time period, and outside support - from China and the Soviet Union - for arms and food.
There is also the point that the region lacks the depth of cover and rough terrain that make infantry forces dominant - though this is not true in the cities, these cities can be isolated more completely than their Vietnam equivalent ever could - this providing a limit to the possible degree of coordination that was simply not possible to eliminate in Vietnam.
TWO
With regard to statements, such as, 'The Viet Cong ceased to exist after this offensive and the North suffered extensive losses' as evidence of failure on the revolutionary forces' part.
In reality, the Viet Cong did not cease to exist - though casualty has been widely estimated at around 2/3-3/4 and the more regular forces approximately 1/2, such losses were still far less than inflicted. Revolutionary forces spent the next 2 years recruiting and, in greater part, rearming for more modern warfare - as during this period the first armoured units entered from North Vietnam to conduct extended operations. The Vietcong itself went on to make up its number and enlarge, though it's operations were now directed predominantly toward political warfare. Casualties also served to eliminate larger portions of the existing and longstanding revolutionary powerstructure, increasing the degree of control the part thereby exerted in the south. Losses to allied forces were numerically higher than that of the revolutionary.
The offensive gained massive political victory, especially locally, showing that the ARVN was almost completely incapable of protecting it's territory, and saw revolutionary control of rural areas almost complete, especially due to the removal of SV and US forces to defend the cities.
Political ramifications as to the USA itself were obvious, as this was a point seeing dramatic increase in unrest over the war and subsequently increasing desperation to withdraw from it.
The only aspect of defeat that could be the case is in the lack of popular uprising from the cities. Though virtually all revolution assets in urban areas were killed/eliminated, popular uprising was not the dominant goal of the offensive, but, rather, one of a number.
It is certainly not the case that the offensive was a complete success, but to call it defeat is quite incorrect.
TET OFFENSIVE IN IRAQ
I think would be unlikely, very difficult, and virtually impossible.
1. The nature of the terrain is different between cities, and allows greater isolation, therefore making coordination more problematic.
2. Resistance completely lacks the degree of experience.
3. Lacks mass support from outside - from nations of similar resource to the USSR and China.
ONE
Direct comparison is virtually pointless. The Vietnam conflict, and guerilla forces were the evolution of many decades of direct warfare. The guerilla forces and organisations had decades of fighting against Japanese, and French rule, by which time of the US intervention, they were well versed and possessed of mature systems from which to adapt and offend.
By comparison, even if real widespread and coordinated resistance exists in Iraq, it certainly hasn't had the comparable time period, and outside support - from China and the Soviet Union - for arms and food.
There is also the point that the region lacks the depth of cover and rough terrain that make infantry forces dominant - though this is not true in the cities, these cities can be isolated more completely than their Vietnam equivalent ever could - this providing a limit to the possible degree of coordination that was simply not possible to eliminate in Vietnam.
TWO
With regard to statements, such as, 'The Viet Cong ceased to exist after this offensive and the North suffered extensive losses' as evidence of failure on the revolutionary forces' part.
In reality, the Viet Cong did not cease to exist - though casualty has been widely estimated at around 2/3-3/4 and the more regular forces approximately 1/2, such losses were still far less than inflicted. Revolutionary forces spent the next 2 years recruiting and, in greater part, rearming for more modern warfare - as during this period the first armoured units entered from North Vietnam to conduct extended operations. The Vietcong itself went on to make up its number and enlarge, though it's operations were now directed predominantly toward political warfare. Casualties also served to eliminate larger portions of the existing and longstanding revolutionary powerstructure, increasing the degree of control the part thereby exerted in the south. Losses to allied forces were numerically higher than that of the revolutionary.
The offensive gained massive political victory, especially locally, showing that the ARVN was almost completely incapable of protecting it's territory, and saw revolutionary control of rural areas almost complete, especially due to the removal of SV and US forces to defend the cities.
Political ramifications as to the USA itself were obvious, as this was a point seeing dramatic increase in unrest over the war and subsequently increasing desperation to withdraw from it.
The only aspect of defeat that could be the case is in the lack of popular uprising from the cities. Though virtually all revolution assets in urban areas were killed/eliminated, popular uprising was not the dominant goal of the offensive, but, rather, one of a number.
It is certainly not the case that the offensive was a complete success, but to call it defeat is quite incorrect.
TET OFFENSIVE IN IRAQ
I think would be unlikely, very difficult, and virtually impossible.
1. The nature of the terrain is different between cities, and allows greater isolation, therefore making coordination more problematic.
2. Resistance completely lacks the degree of experience.
3. Lacks mass support from outside - from nations of similar resource to the USSR and China.
GUERILLA WARFARE
Such tactics as 'drawing out' have been attempted many times - and even, occasionally, succesful. But never as a solution, or more than occasional excuse for a pat on the back.
The only way to combat guerilla warfare is to isolate the guerillas from their source of supply, ground of combat, and, ultimately, source of motivation. As this might appear a virtually impossible task, I don't think it has EVER been accomplished, though wide opinion considers the only avenue as a battle for 'hearts and minds' - thus, actual combat operations maybe a means to and end, they cannot bring the end of themselves.
Such tactics as 'drawing out' have been attempted many times - and even, occasionally, succesful. But never as a solution, or more than occasional excuse for a pat on the back.
The only way to combat guerilla warfare is to isolate the guerillas from their source of supply, ground of combat, and, ultimately, source of motivation. As this might appear a virtually impossible task, I don't think it has EVER been accomplished, though wide opinion considers the only avenue as a battle for 'hearts and minds' - thus, actual combat operations maybe a means to and end, they cannot bring the end of themselves.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
The turning point came a long time ago, shortly after the war was 'over'. Whats happening now is just a continuation of that.
stratego
Trying to be good.
China didn't support North Vietnam in the Vietnam war. Actually they attacked Vietnam shortly before the US entered, and was defeated. This was a major shock to the believers of an International Communist Conspiracy.
What does it matter what we want?
Maybe we are just happier rubbing it in the face of the war lovers at how wrong their predictions, and how far from humanity they have strayed.
Whether I want the US to lose or not will have no bearing on what actually happens in Iraq.
I love, and have invested my money in the good of this country. I am just very upset that the foundation of ideals we were found on is being squandered on aggressive war.
But back on topic:
The "tet offensive" will not occur in Iraq. The resulting shock will have the same effect, a deep disheartening of the American people.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
its ugly business, Welcome to the 2nd Vietnam people.
allhailIndia
Deity
The "Vietnam" in this case may come in the form of densely packed slums from where all the terrorists are bred and the American troops dare not gon in anything less than a 1000 troops.
THe nightmare for the Americans may be a Stalingrad type situation, caught on the lens of the world press, somewhat akin to what is happening in Palestine, where daily attacks, cause the slow, but steady bleeding of the American and coalition troops and coalition action only creating more enemies than friends.
This resistance's best chance is in it being disorganized and limited to the cities of a few areas. It is also the weakest point of this resistance and the US must ensure that it does not spread ( "please", not "pacify" ) and get the rest of the Shia clerics on its side. Gradually, when the resisters and rebels realize they can achieve little, they will be a little more willing to come with their hands up, esp if their own countrymen are unwilling to help them.
THe nightmare for the Americans may be a Stalingrad type situation, caught on the lens of the world press, somewhat akin to what is happening in Palestine, where daily attacks, cause the slow, but steady bleeding of the American and coalition troops and coalition action only creating more enemies than friends.
This resistance's best chance is in it being disorganized and limited to the cities of a few areas. It is also the weakest point of this resistance and the US must ensure that it does not spread ( "please", not "pacify" ) and get the rest of the Shia clerics on its side. Gradually, when the resisters and rebels realize they can achieve little, they will be a little more willing to come with their hands up, esp if their own countrymen are unwilling to help them.
It would be impossible for them to do a Tet offensive in Iraq because:
- They don't have the numbers.
- They don't have tunnels that can go right up to every city without detection.
- The country is much larger than Vietnam. Even if they had numbers, they would be spread out very quickly.
- They don't have the numbers.
- They don't have tunnels that can go right up to every city without detection.
- The country is much larger than Vietnam. Even if they had numbers, they would be spread out very quickly.
"China didn't support North Vietnam in the Vietnam war."
You need to read some more - China did provide support to the DRV - not least in the form of approximately 300,000 'volunteers', as well as armaments and transport for additional Soviet aid.
The situation in Iraq bares a striking resemblance to events and conditions as in Vietnam. Bit it is different. The USA CAN be succesful, while many of us still wonder how said success is defined - as in many cases, and I refer to both Iraqi residents and US policy, we humans are often our own worst enemy.
You need to read some more - China did provide support to the DRV - not least in the form of approximately 300,000 'volunteers', as well as armaments and transport for additional Soviet aid.
The situation in Iraq bares a striking resemblance to events and conditions as in Vietnam. Bit it is different. The USA CAN be succesful, while many of us still wonder how said success is defined - as in many cases, and I refer to both Iraqi residents and US policy, we humans are often our own worst enemy.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
While arrogance, foolishness and greed is ruling the show - there can be no victory.
Meanwhile the real enemy are plotting attacks day by day...
Does the West ever learn?
Meanwhile the real enemy are plotting attacks day by day...
Does the West ever learn?
Similar threads
