Guerilla Actions in Irak

While I am not aware of any major American newspapers I would call "anti-US", there are definitely some which are "anti-war in Iraq" and/or "anti-George Bush".

Curiously, I'm not aware of any media I would call "anti-British", though there is no shortage of "anti-foreigner" sentiment among people generally. Unlike France, China, and al-Qaeda, Britain does not get its own hate section.

In the interests of completeness, I should say I have never seen any "anti-Romanian" media either. It would be like being opposed to the Moon, or Mars -- they are far away and don't cause any trouble.

Iraqi insurgents also don't have the benefit of a North Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos to equip, train, and supply their units (relatively) unmolested by the US. Any sanctuary they may find in Syria is minor in comparison.

The US is certainly more robust than it was during Vietnam, but I am not so certain the pain threshold is higher. The extensive use of the Reserves spreads the pain around the country in a way that is much like conscription. Towns notice that their favorite policeman/ postal carrier/ teacher has been gone for a year. Also, despite the best efforts of the Bush administration to link it to the "global war on terror", I don't think the average man in the street feels he would personally be more at risk if the US pulled out of Iraq. The "domino theory" argument persuaded many Americans, at least until Tet.

Yes, but the Vietnam War was not fought only with NVA Main Force Units.
In the South the guerillas were predominant before the NVA MFU could launch large scale conventional attacks over the border.
And in Vietnam IED tactics currently employed in Irak were highly "popular" too.

Nobody would want to replicate the results of a war fought in completely different circumstances. The overall principles of that war yes, but the exact tactics and casualties, no.

---

I recently saw a movie made by the famous mercenary Blackwater Company involved in Irak. In it 2 americans snipe from a building. One of them says "green flag is the Mahdi Army, they are to be engaged at any opportunity". They are in Najaf.
Mahdi Army is shia.


take care

Hi Imperialst,

Yes, the Viet Cong, (South Vietnamese communist guerrillas) were more comparable with the Iraqi insurgents, although even they fielded far more men than the 20,000 Iraqi insurgents and hangers-on currently supposed to be active.

Secondly, the North Vietnamese Main Force Units intervened because the Viet Cong were being gradually defeated. It is the intervention of the NVA that marks the upturn in US casualties in Vietnam and created the character of the war as we now know it. No such equivalent outside force exists in the Iraq conflict, as Jeff-S points out.

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Jeff-S,

There are some interesting indirect effects on the US and British forces as a result of Iraq.

Apparently recruitment for the National Guard has been hit, due to the requirement to spend so much time in Iraq. A similar problem of recruitment for the US Army earlier in the year seems to have been overcome and targets were met last month.

In the UK our Territorial Army (roughly equivalent of the National Guard) has also dropped slightly because some employers are not honouring their obligations not to take seniority off employees who are called out by the TA. Again this is being addressed.

Worst hit has been the SAS. Apparently a quarter of its manpower has resigned becaused they can get enormous amounts of money working for private security companies in Iraq, which the Army cannot match.

These are all useful lessons for the future learned at little cost and will strengthen both our armed forces.

I think the domino theory proved justified in the 1960s. Even with the US making a stand in South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos still tumbled into Communist hands. However, the cost of the Vietnam War probably made the North Vietnamese far less likely to put pressure on Thailand, Malaysia, etc., and may well have saved them.

Cheers,

Sid.

I can verify this personally. I was in the US Army Reserve until 2004, and was mobilized in 2003 for the Iraq invasion (no, I never left the States). I worked with many different Guard and Reserve units. My personal feelings about why Reserve and Guard recruiting have been hit are this:

(1) young people who want to be on active duty can just join the active component. Why join the reserve component if you are just going to be mobilized unpredictably anyway? You still need to get a civilian job to survive -- you just won't be around enough to make a stable career out of it.

(2) too much of the reserve recruiting advertising was built around it being a part time job, "1 weekend each month and 2 weeks each year". Even before the war this had been strained. Units expected their troops to go to their military schools, conference, and meetings in addition to the time with the unit. Much of this time was unpaid. The war made the claim a complete farce. Personally, I've always preferred the military recruiting built around challenge and patriotism, but that only attracts a certain % of society.

The US does not have this problem so much. I worry more about the impact of the war on the demographics of the reserves. What about soldiers who run a small family business? There is no legal protection that will keep their customers coming while they are away. One of the soldiers in my battalion was a self-employed electrician with a good business. It was almost destroyed while he was away. Lawyers, consultants... anybody whose professional success depends on their reputation... while they are away, somebody else is doing their work, and that is who the customers will go back to.

I don't think the US SOF have had this problem so much, but I could be wrong.

I agree completely. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I just would have made my stand someplace more stable than South Vietnam. When Ho Chi Minh said he was a patriot and freedom fighter in Vietnam, there was considerable truth to it. A "Thai Ho Chi Minh" would not have been able to make the same claim, and the US would have been backing up a much more stable regime (ultimately, the domino which did not fall).

They afforded to field more men as the terrain provided cover for them and their movements. Also the terrain offered them the capability to live off the land in a certain measure so that they werent dependent on an urban environment like those in Irak are. Leaving a bag of rice on a secret jungle path was not as conspicuos as giving shelter to 1, 2 or a dozen armed men in Baghdad.
Neither is firing an RPG from a street corner as a column passes.
Which brings us to the "popular uprising" issue. If there wasnt a popular uprising against the occupation large numbers of insurgents would be snitched in a matter of months.
The popular uprising is not visible. It takes place inside the cities which shelter insurgents. What would you expect, a popular uprising and men marching out of the cities in the desert to fight a guerilla war? They stay in the cities and prosper. They could very well have jobs and at night they're there, planting IEDs. Some get caught, most make it back. Why would they throw that away? They keep on living, and they could do this as long as they have ammunition for it.
The US had 800 and something fatalities in 2004, in a full year. The only question is for how long the US can sustain an ~ amount of casualties, for how many years. Thats the only thing. 10 years? Well, no matter. The soviets were in Afghanistan 10 years and they lost about 12,000 men. Was there the need to replicate the 60,000 dead of the US in Vietnam for Afghanistan to be termed USSR's Vietnam? Ofcourse not!

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=5811

"Out of the Superpower Orbit "
by Tom Engelhardt

Hi Imperialist,

A popular uprising that is "not visible" is not a popular uprising.

What you are talking about is widespread popular support for the insurgents in Sunni areas which gives them a permissive environment locally. This is neither national nor an uprising.

You continue to pretend that Sunni Iraq is the same as Iraq. It isn't so. Sunni Iraq is about 20% of the population.

The Vietcong were a very similar local threat to the Iraqi insurgents. Indeed, at their peak in the early-mid 1960s they were rather more of a threat. If you think they spent all their time sneaking around singly to pick up bags of rice on jungle paths, you are much mistaken.

And while we are at it, where is your NVA equivalent in Iraq? Where is it going to come from?

Nope, Iraq is no Vietnam and at the moment doesn't look like becoming one. For that to happen you firstly need Shiite participation in your invisible uprising. That may come, but it isn't here yet.

Cheers,

Sid.

Well, maybe you should say what you understand by popular uprising. What is that supposed to do in Irak?

I never heard of Sunni Irak. Is that a new state or something?

I never said "they spent all their time"...

Yes Sid, Irak is no Vietnam, Irak is obviously Irak...

And this is probably the type of weapon used by the iraqi sniper hero of the day...




Zastava M76 sniper rifle (Yugoslavia)

Source: http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn65-e.htm

Iama



This post has been edited by Iamandi on August 17, 2005 06:57 am

From today issue of Curentul...

Well, this give us a good ideea about what happens there, and how brave an honests are the US soldiers... five kids under the age of 10... Shame!

Shame, again!

Iama

Please don't judge or generalize an army of 150,000 because of the actions from a few troops.

Too bad Iamandi doesn't bring up the kids killed by the insurgents and starts to shame them too. Btw, those kids are dead, those taken by the US soldiers aren't.

Both examples are bad and ugly. If local fighters are called terrorists, or whatever other words are used to define them, US soldiers represents the democracy! No? So, what type of civilized eliberators are them? (this wa the motivation from my post, Victor)

Iama