Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Which war do you think will be seen by future historians as having been the most disastrous military blunder, with the longest lasting negative repercussions for the US: Vietnam or Iraq?
Vietnam vs Iraq
- Thread starter Bozo Erectus
- Start date
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,756
Iraq is way behind Vietnam - so far...
Xanikk999
History junkie
I think its going to be very similar to vietnam. In the end the insurgents win.
Im not trying to be pessimistic but it is very hard to fight a determined guerrila war using conventional tactics.
Im not trying to be pessimistic but it is very hard to fight a determined guerrila war using conventional tactics.
CartesianFart
Deity
When you say disasterous military blunder,i am not going to be suprised to see people writing and placing Vietnam in that very position.
I don't think Vietnam is a blunder but an experience to know that in these very day an age of information media,war are not going to be painted as popular in any advanced democratic societies by some group of people whatever their argument might be.
Xanikk999
History junkie
Oh and is for the question i think they are both total wastes of lives and money but i think vietnam was worse because thier was more U.S casualties.
Vietnam will be seen as the bigger bluder up this point. However, we are still screwing up in Iraq, so there is still a chance that Iraq will eventually come to be seen as the bigger blunder.
nonconformist
Miserable
Vietnam-Millions of dead Vietnamese, most of which innocent civilians
-Documented warcrimes a plenty
-more bombs dropped on them than in WWII
-50,000 dead Americans-Led to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
-Lasted around ten years
Iraq:
-hundreds of thousands dead, most of which are civilians
-Warcrimes present, not as plentiful as Vietnam but existant
-Controvertial/question able US tactics
-3000 dead Americans, >100 dead Brits
-Everyone else is bailing out
-Around 100 deaths a day through violence attributable to occupation, dozens of kidnappings
-Likely to degrade into civil war/genocide
-Been there 3 years
-Doesn't look like it's gonna end till at least after 2010
The Jury's still out on Iraq.
-Documented warcrimes a plenty
-more bombs dropped on them than in WWII
-50,000 dead Americans-Led to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
-Lasted around ten years
Iraq:
-hundreds of thousands dead, most of which are civilians
-Warcrimes present, not as plentiful as Vietnam but existant
-Controvertial/question able US tactics
-3000 dead Americans, >100 dead Brits
-Everyone else is bailing out
-Around 100 deaths a day through violence attributable to occupation, dozens of kidnappings
-Likely to degrade into civil war/genocide
-Been there 3 years
-Doesn't look like it's gonna end till at least after 2010
The Jury's still out on Iraq.
Masquerouge
Deity
As long as there is no draft in Iraq, Vietnam wins hands down.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Niether one will be seen as military blunders as both were military successes.
nonconformist
Miserable
Military success is nothing when political failure is present.
Xanikk999
History junkie
How was vietnam a success when we withdrew and the communists took over?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I think you are confusing military blunders with political blunders. Bad foreign policy decisions do not a military blunder make.
Masquerouge
Deity
a MILITARY success. North Vietnam were getting their butts kicked and their Tet offensive was not a military success - it was a propaganda sucess.
Xanikk999
History junkie
Ok so then would you call the american revolution a military success for the british?
CartesianFart
Deity
Vietnam is merely a "Buffer State" that was weak enough for World Powers to establish their influence in that very region.I am afraid that is what at stake in Iraq since they were in somewhat far weak than Vietnam was after the French left the area.
mayakovsky
Cosmic Slop
Indeed. I thought we learned our lesson in Vietnam by not letting the politians, media and the rest of the world run the war. Guess not.
I humbly submit that in a President's role as Commander-in-Chief, he can make a both a foreign policy blunder and military blunder with the same decision. In my opinion, decisions made regarding Vietnam and Iraq at the Commander-in-Chief level involved both.
Masquerouge
Deity
Ok so then would you call the american revolution a military success for the british?
I'm not familiar enough with the Revolution wars, but it is entirely likely that the British globally won the war but had to grand the US their independence.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Ok so then would you call the american revolution a military success for the british?
No. Diffrent eras. Diffrent types of war. And the UK was soundly deffeated on the ground. They had a few battles that were suiccesses but not the war nor did they have a millitary success on whole when they came back for more in 1812. In the biggining they ran all over America but lost the war in battle not in politics.
CrazyScientist
Those crazy scientists...
I don't know about that. If the strategic objective of the Tet offensive was to force American withdrawal by influencing politics, then it was a military success, even if they lost every individual battle (which I believe they did).
