If every army officer had Col McMaster's attitude this war would be over already.  My unit is sending a company over to iraq this spring and I still can't get them to understand.  It's not just about kicking ass and taking names.  It's about getting the locals to find and kick the right ass.  

Quoted: There is a Brigade Commander in Tal Afar, who has a Phd in history and really made some changes in the way his brigade fights.  No huge FOB's, instead 29 patrol bases scattered thoughout the city.  Soldiers have the population under  observation 24/7, hard to plant an IED that way. He made 1 of 10 soldiers attend an arabic language course and his troops work closely with the Iraqi army forces,who understand the people and culture in a way we never can. That would be COL H.R. McMaster-you may remember him from asswhoopings such as the battle of 73 Easting.  He was also in the Frontline documentary about the Iraqi insurgency that aired last week.

Is he the McMaster who wrote the book, "Dereliction of Duty", about the Viet Nam war?

Quoted: With the way some people here over-react to everything, is it any wonder that there are so many divorced people on this board?

The percentage of divorced people here is just on par with the national average,no more ,no less!

So whats your point?

Bob

you guys gotta remember how much more dramatic the damned media is going to make things seem.. I'm in the region and it hasent been any worse for us, nor has anything changed on base.. they were bombing the shit out of eachother ::shrug:: keeps them busy, they leave us alone... they'll work their shit out.

  One thing that is like Vietnam is the liberal press reports that condemn US and sympathize with the enemy...they also exaggerate the expense and losses and downplay any signs of victory or achievement...
  The liberal press is still anti-American and  anti-truth...they still have an agenda filled with hate against this country and any God fearing citizens that live here...

Yes this might compare with Viet-Nam if after we lose many American Fighting men,just to get a country able to fight!   Then leave and two or three years later they cave and are over run by massive forces!!

But WE did not lose,We will have given them every chance to determine there own win or lose senerio!!

If they choose to lose,then it is because they gave up the hope for Freedom,cause  every man will choose to die for Freedom!!!

Bob

Quoted: - U.S. MILITARY CASUALTIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA - - DEATHS BY CALENDAR YEAR - - Year of death may either be actual or based on a presumptive finding of death - - (originally declared missing and later declared dead). - - AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 - Since 1997 71 names have been added to the memorial that are not show in the stats below. YEAR  USA     USN   USAF   USMC   USCG   TOTAL   1957       1        0        0         0          0         1 1958       0        0        0         0          0         0 1959       2        0        0         0          0         2 1960       0        4        1         0          0         5 1961       7        1        8         0          0       16 1962     27        3       18        5         0       53 1963     73        4       31      10         0     118 1964  147      15       39        5          0      206 1965 1,079   114   162    508         0   1,863 1966 3,755   279   246 1,862         2   6,144 1967 6,467   583   317 3,786         0 11,153 1968 10,596 598   345 5,048         2 16,589 1969 8,186   426   305  2,694         3 11,614 1970 4,972   219   201      691        0    6,083 1971 2,131     55     90         81        0    2,357 1972    373     77   172        18         0       640 1973      34      52     75          7         0       168 1974      49      23     80        26         0       178 1975      23      22     83        32         0       160 1976      29        6     29        13          0        77 1977      29      24     39          4          0         96 1978    158      42   219       28          0       447 1979      38        3    101        6           0       148 1980 - 1995   25  5   22      14           0         66 TOTAL DEATHS 38,196 2,555 2,583 14,837 7 58,178 As of today we're coming up on ~ 4 years for Iraq 2003-2006 and we've got 2,287 killed. It took ~ 8 years 1957-1965 for 2,264 killed in Vietnam. So historically speaking, from a KIA calendar year perspective VN & Iraq are not similar; Iraq unfortunately has a greater initial rate of death.   (Column spacing does not line up in the post) US in VN Link - Scroll down to 2nd last chart US Casualties By Year in Iraq Year US Deaths US Wounded 2003 486 2409 2004 848 7989 2005 846 5944 2006 107 311 Total 2287 16653 ETA: US in Iraq casualties by year chart.

Your conclusion is flawed.  Many of the early years you are refering too we only had advisors in country.  The actual combat operation are easy to track just look at when the KIA`s and WIA`s jumped. About 1965 to the best of my memory.  I was there starting in April 1968 till August 1969.  I like it so well I extended.  I Volunteered to go after helping to bury my cousin who was killed there.  

wahhh something is hard, I am American I cant do hard things, I give up! wahhhhhh.


Also I would like to take any chance I get to compare any war to nam.





People have been crying nam since the first week of the war, get over it, its not nam.

The only thing in this war that parrellels Vietnam is allot of people who aren't here fighting don't have the will to continue to fight.  

The only way we can loose, is if the American people quite.  Unfortuantly most Americans don't understand counter-insurgency operation, nor do they have the patients for it.

Quoted: The only thing in this war that parrellels Vietnam is allot of people who aren't here fighting don't have the will to continue to fight.   The only way we can loose, is if the American people quite.  Unfortuantly most Americans don't understand counter-insurgency operation, nor do they have the patients for it.

You said it sir!

ROFL.... too funny RustedAce.

Point taken. I just am very concerned for our brothers and sisters getting stuck in another BS quagmire with crap like what went down in the 60s. I mean... we already have equipment supply issues... reeks of Macnamara's ammo rationing.

It's like... here's this pile of wood we want you guys to cut. We bought you this nice circular saw. But you can't plug it in. You have to saw at the wood, hoping the circular blade eventually cuts through.

Get my drift? I don't want another drop of American blood spilled in that toilet as the conflict shifts to that of something between tribal factions. Those cockroaches grandchildren will still be fighting each other. If we invested 200 billion in alternative fuel research, we'd cut the nuts off the imams anyway and send them back to the stone age economically. Hard to build nukes and such when you don't have any western $$ from your oil.

RustedAce, that's pretty funny...

Quoted: Quoted: The only thing in this war that parrellels Vietnam is allot of people who aren't here fighting don't have the will to continue to fight.   The only way we can loose, is if the American people quite.  Unfortuantly most Americans don't understand counter-insurgency operation, nor do they have the patients for it. You said it sir!

Were behind you 100% and if needed this old man can be in front of you.  Just walk slower I use a cane.

Quoted: And yet Afghanistan is swiftly moving towards a stable, representative government...

Oh really? Is that what FOX news makes you believe?
Afghanistan's "stable, representative government" rules Kabul- but that is it. Karzai
has as much real power as the last president who was backed by Russia.
The rest is divided between tribes- just as it was in the old days. Elections don't
make a stable government. Without international forces protecting it, it would be
completely helpless.  
Try watching a bit more BBC- there are real journalists at work who can differ
between patriotism and rational thought. Journalists who are not afraid to ask,
why the hell a "war president" would ignore that most of the 9-11 terrorists
were Saudis and attack a country where a mass murderer ruled - but without
any ties to AQ.
Well I guess if you are afraid to take on the biggest bully, you have to pick the
weakest one? Is that what you would define as great strategy?

The "war on terror" and Vietnam have one thing in common- politicians without
a clue, who put pressure on the system to deliver them "facts" which support their
opinion. And a public, which denies any troubles, doesn't want to see the very complex
world, hangs onto their illusions and sacrifices its sons and daughters for the "greater
cause"- until its too late. Remember the hasty evacuation of the US embassy in
Saigon? Typical delusional thinking up to the last minute....Little hint: in the
1 billion+ muslim world, terrorist masses grow faster than US elite troops.
Its great that many fanatics are killed in Iraq. But I certainly don't see Iraq as the
battleground where you can eliminate the terrorist thinkers, ideologists and pros.
And while the US forces are bound in Iraq, these guys hide in Saudi-Arabia and
continue to sponsor worldwide terror.

Quoted: The only thing in this war that parrellels Vietnam is allot of people who aren't here fighting don't have the will to continue to fight.   The only way we can loose, is if the American people quite.  Unfortuantly most Americans don't understand counter-insurgency operation, nor do they have the patients for it.

Yeah but as you can see the insurgents are starting to get desperate. The destruction of that religious site just last week proved that and if they are sucessful this won't be anything like Vietnam, it will be one big clusterfuck. Let's hope that some sort of rationality takes over and the Iraqi's blame the insurgents for what's happening, not each other or us.

Quoted: With the country now at the brink of total civil war, I suppose that our exit strategy is FUBAR'd and we're in for another 7 years?

Another seven..... We'll be lucky to get out in 25.... IMHO

Quoted: Quoted: And yet Afghanistan is swiftly moving towards a stable, representative government... Oh really? Is that what FOX news makes you believe? Afghanistan's "stable, representative government" rules Kabul- but that is it. Karzai has as much real power as the last president who was backed by Russia. The rest is divided between tribes- just as it was in the old days. Elections don't make a stable government. Without international forces protecting it, it would be completely helpless.   Try watching a bit more BBC- there are real journalists at work who can differ between patriotism and rational thought. Journalists who are not afraid to ask, why the hell a "war president" would ignore that most of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis and attack a country where a mass murderer ruled - but without any ties to AQ. Well I guess if you are afraid to take on the biggest bully, you have to pick the weakest one? Is that what you would define as great strategy? The "war on terror" and Vietnam have one thing in common- politicians without a clue, who put pressure on the system to deliver them "facts" which support their opinion. And a public, which denies any troubles, doesn't want to see the very complex world, hangs onto their illusions and sacrifices its sons and daughters for the "greater cause"- until its too late. Remember the hasty evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon? Typical delusional thinking up to the last minute....Little hint: in the 1 billion+ muslim world, terrorist masses grow faster than US elite troops. Its great that many fanatics are killed in Iraq. But I certainly don't see Iraq as the battleground where you can eliminate the terrorist thinkers, ideologists and pros. And while the US forces are bound in Iraq, these guys hide in Saudi-Arabia and continue to sponsor worldwide terror.

News flash,  no one beieves the press anymore they are sensationalist.  Trying to make a big story out of nothing for there 24 hour news channel.  Oh and let a member of the press get hurt in Iraq and wow, get back.  What the hell do they expect its a combat zone.

I had a lot  to say ,but desided I was drunk,but what I was going to post was I have enormas pride in the Viet-people ,and none for the ropers!!

Bob

Your conclusion is flawed.

I know the early VN years were advisory & low-intensity. The data and conclusion is still the same. "Iraq unfortunately has a greater initial rate of death." and I hope the US sacrifice in Iraq never gets like VN 67-69 .  No disrespect intended. I had 3 family members come back, sorry for your cousin.

Quoted: With the country now at the brink of total civil war, I suppose that our exit strategy is FUBAR'd and we're in for another 7 years?

How does a civil war equate to Vietnam?  Regardless of what some think, 'nam was not about a civil war.

Quoted: America has always been a terrible imperial country.  We simply have always lacked the resolve and are handicapped by our standards of human rights and fair play. We will leave Iraq.  Its just a matter of when.   To me that has never been in question.  The real question is if the Iraqi's are capable of living a civilized lifestyle without a strong arm tolitarian government? It sure would be a first in Islamic countries.

Ever heard of Turkey?

Quoted: Quoted: As usual, denial and blame from the coolaid conservatives here.  It wasn't the media that botched this, it was the GW and Rummy and their simplistic understanding of things.  The real military experts from Powell to Shinseki warned against their strategies, saying we need a larger occupying force, but GW in all his wisdom thinks the people would throw flowers at our feets and praise America the beautiful if we just removed Hussein.  But go ahead and blame the media and the liberals, I'm sure Dan Rather is building IEDs in his garage right now. +1 (to a certain extent), and this is another place where the analogy to Vietnam is correct.  The US left Vietnam under heavy pressure from the left, but the reason that the left was able to mount that pressure was that the commanders fighting the war chose strategies that didn't allow us to finish the war quicly enough.   Twenty years from now, we'll have a lot of people claiming "We never lost in Iraq!  The libs made us pull out to early, then it was the Iraqi government that screwed up and let the caliphate take over!"  I don't care how blindly supportive of this administration you are, I don't think anyonoe would argue that there haven't been some serious mistakes in the execution of the war in Iraq.

Oh, listen to the two experts............how the fuck would you know about so-called "serious mistakes"?  Talk about kool-aid drinkers, you two are slurping up the media's bullshit, hook, line, and sinker.

And no, we did not lose in 'nam, hell you probably weren't even alive then.

As long as it is only the Army and Marines (and a few others) sacrificing America isn't going to pay much attention. The sacrifice most Americans are making won't be realized until later when the bill comes due.

We'll be there until the Hitlery or McCain Admin is over with nothing to show for it.

Quoted: Your conclusion is flawed. I know the early VN years were advisory & low-intensity. The data and conclusion is still the same. "Iraq unfortunately has a greater initial rate of death." and I hope the US sacrifice in Iraq never gets like VN 67-69 .  No disrespect intended. I had 3 family members come back, sorry for your cousin.

My heart and soul will aways be with the troops first.   I know you did not mean any disrespect and neither do I to those who have served, are serving and will serve in Iraq.  Come home safe your country needs you and so does your familys and friends.

Give the insurgents every opportunity to give theirs lifes for their cause.  Never fight fair.  If you find youself in a fair fight you did something wrong.

Quoted: Quoted: And yet Afghanistan is swiftly moving towards a stable, representative government... Oh really? Is that what FOX news makes you believe? Afghanistan's "stable, representative government" rules Kabul- but that is it. Karzai has as much real power as the last president who was backed by Russia. The rest is divided between tribes- just as it was in the old days. Elections don't make a stable government. Without international forces protecting it, it would be completely helpless.   Try watching a bit more BBC- there are real journalists at work who can differ between patriotism and rational thought. Journalists who are not afraid to ask, why the hell a "war president" would ignore that most of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis and attack a country where a mass murderer ruled - but without any ties to AQ. Well I guess if you are afraid to take on the biggest bully, you have to pick the weakest one? Is that what you would define as great strategy? The "war on terror" and Vietnam have one thing in common- politicians without a clue, who put pressure on the system to deliver them "facts" which support their opinion. And a public, which denies any troubles, doesn't want to see the very complex world, hangs onto their illusions and sacrifices its sons and daughters for the "greater cause"- until its too late. Remember the hasty evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon? Typical delusional thinking up to the last minute....Little hint: in the 1 billion+ muslim world, terrorist masses grow faster than US elite troops. Its great that many fanatics are killed in Iraq. But I certainly don't see Iraq as the battleground where you can eliminate the terrorist thinkers, ideologists and pros. And while the US forces are bound in Iraq, these guys hide in Saudi-Arabia and continue to sponsor worldwide terror.

BBC????????  You think they are objective?????????  That's all anyone needs to hear.