ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:24 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: War in Iraq Vs. Vietnam War
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:04 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Sacramento, California
Hey guess what! I have to write a six page compare/contrast essay due Whensday! Fun!!!

So... in an effort to the Debate Club regulars yet another entertaining topic to briefly discuss and also give me all the ideas I could ever need to write an essay, I give you this topic! Huzzah!

Things to consider are:
1. Motive for the War
2. Weaponry
3. Opinions concerning the war

Any ideas I use from this topic will get your name as a reference in my paper!

Enjoy and sorry if this topic has been drilled into the ground... I haven't exactly been on these forums in awhile.

_________________
"Enough chatter, send my regards to oblivion!" - Eternion

"Genius is one of the many forms of insanity" - Cesare L. Lombroso

"You have to swing the bat before anything can happen." - Haruko

~Member of the Cult of Godless Commie Traitors~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 1:56 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
you know i hate you so much right now

I've got work today for prehaps 10 hours, this sucks even more now that i would otherwise be replying to this thread...

i shall tho

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:54 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Veitnam: War that would have been won if fuckwad peaceniks hadn't fagged it up

Iraq: A war that needs to be won, and hopefully peaceniks won't fag it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 8:57 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
God, you can't even spell Wednesday and you have to do a six page essay comparing/contrasting to fairly important events in terms of two different cold wars (sorta)?

You're fucked.

Anyway, quick summary:

I'm gonna let Ollie do this. Grey had a great overview, but it doesn't take into account the fact that the insurgents in Iraq are already fucked up the ass and have no chance of winning whatsoever, no matter how things go politically.

Ollie will elaborate, since we have discussed Vietnam/insurgency at length I don't want to take away from his fun of explaining it all over again.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 9:30 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
The Man In Black wrote:
Ollie will elaborate, since we have discussed Vietnam/insurgency at length I don't want to take away from his fun of explaining it all over again.


Roughly translated into real terms: I'm too lazy.

Anyway, I would love to help but I do not know nearly enough about either subject.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:50 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Roughly translated into real terms: I called it first

ok, rather than link the post I made last time I'll just copy paste the main body here, it's all pretty relevant with a few extra added examples outside of 'Nam/Iraq that I feel help to illustrate the whole thing more effectively, I'll text dump that here then follow it up a little later with a short (ha) post addressing your exact numbered points, k?

(this post was actualyl in response to an idiot saying that all guerrilla wars are automaticly won by the guerrilla forces)

the Recent History of Guerrilla Warfare 101



China: Civil War 1927-49

The civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists took quite some time as you can see, it was interrupted in part by the Japanese invasion of China (1937-45) but took up where it left off afterwards. This was a very real civil war fought between 2 regular armies, both only marginally supported by outside agencies, the Soviets were reluctant to kick-start the cold war by helping out fellow communists too much, and the Americans were equally reluctant to further commit to world communist/capitalist war so soon after WW2 ended.

The Nationalist Chinese forces had the advantage in regular troops of 2 or 3 to 1 over the Communists, but the communists equalled that in guerrilla numbers. however, even as late as 1947 it was looking like Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists would win, Stalin himself admitted he was wrong (quite a rare thing) about thinking Mao's forces would win and urged him to seek a peace deal with Chiang, equally the USA gave only about $3,000Million in aid to Nationalist China in the post war period, believing that they were on the verge of a win, only willing to give more aid when a peace was won or negotiated (see Russia's oddly similar view)

After all this the communist forces kicked it into top gear and within 2 years steamrollered down the country and drove the last elements of the Nationalist power structure into Taiwan, Russia laughed and the West groaned, china never really trusted either of them after that for either providing aid to the enemy or not aiding them enough

Conclusion

This was not a guerrilla war, it was a conventional civil war, fought along conventional (if at time highly tactically on the Communists side and somewhat poorly on the Nationalists) lines, the guerrilla forces supported the Communists and aided the army in just about every way possible, as well as being a base of recruits for the full time regular army, there were not the only force available for the 20+ years of war and they certainly were not the most important element at the final stage of the war when the Communists pulled off a surprise (to outside observers at least) win

from this conflict arose Mao's doctrine of guerrilla warfare, to summarise: the discontent of a people in it's government can be, with propaganda, turned into dissent, this can be, with careful control and maximum propaganda exploitation, be turned into active subversion and terrorism. in turn this is then transformed into persistent insurrection and then guerrilla war. when the time is right this is then transformed into a full-blown conventional war

it is a brief summary and one not strictly followed by Mao, but it can be effective if each and every one of the steps is fully fulfilled and moved onto at the right time and if the opposition is as limp and locked into a downward spiral as, in the Chinese Civil War, the Nationalists were. An effective halt to the success of this strategy can be achieved at any stage, the longer it is left to ferment the more chance the so called 'guerrilla war' has to succeed

I say 'so called' as you'll note only one of the stages in the plan involve direct guerrilla warfare, what starts in political dissent ends in uniformed troops marching on the capital, guys hiding in bushed and blowing up checkpoints and bridges is merely the middle part, the name 'guerrilla war' is very misleading, the above history lesson is there to show how small a part insurgents and guerrillas played in direct actions of the war, but what an important feature there were in this civil war, mainly because only one side used them.

Guerrilla Warfare lessons to be learnt

1: Mao Tse-tsung (literally) wrote the book on guerrilla warfare as it provided his 'edge' in the war and while it did win the war for him, it couldn't have done it without his conventional army and large scale open battles (some lasting for weeks or months with hundreds of thousands of regular soldiers on each side)

2: The Communist army was better than the Nationalist army in most respects, the main ones being that the meritocratic (at least for that time in history) structure of the troops and commanders and the greater moral they had played a key part in not only the battles they fought, but also in the big operational events such at The Long March and the number of deserters that the Nationalist army suffered (which often immediately swelled the Communist ranks)

3: China had a relatively self contained civil war, not an 'open' and intensive guerrilla war involving supporting allies and modern, highly trained and equipped armies, it could be said that the Chinese Civil War was fought in a style closer to WW1 than WW2 giving the guerrilla forces very little direct influence in the direct fighting

Europe: Resisting German Invasion 1939+

For the sake of simplicity, only France and Great Britain will be briefly examined

France: La Resistance

Going by Mao's stages of warfare, the Resistance in Occupied France got to the insurrection stage by D-Day and then graduated to full guerrilla warfare in support of the Allies and then (arguably) to conventional warfare with the arrival of the Free French forces. At all of these stages they were assisted by the American OSS and British SOE in supplies, training and moral support. they would have been very hard pressed to do anything more than daub slogans on walls without all this outside assistance before the full allied invasion, also the internal political infighting in the Resistance, though no where near as bad as Yugoslavian Resistance, was still a problem with their overall cohesion

Britain: Home Guard Auxiliary Battalions

These were formed in 1940 to provide a secret guerrillas army to resist at all cost the planned German invasion. (the put off and finally cancelled Operation SEALION) If anything they were formed on reverse lines to Mao's guerrilla warfare strategy, it was believed (in secret, though very realistically) that after the Germans invaded the British Mainland, the conventional army would be defeated in short order and the country would come under full German occupation, at this stage the guerrilla warfare would begin with the remnants of the British Army and the Auxiliary forces untill these were depleted by German anti-partisan operations (as later demonstrated in Russia) to an extent where only brief acts of insurrection and acts of terrorist subversion would remain, until finally the population would be under full 'Vichy' type control with only isolated acts of dissent and unrest with the resistance fully quashed a few years later.

Conclusion

The French Resistance was very well supplied by the allies, the British Auxiliary forces were not counting on any supplies or assistance from anywhere, for instance they were issued with 2 weeks of rations as none were expected to survive much longer than that within occupied Britain. A successful guerrilla movement must have graduated from and work within a base of popular support and have access to supplies and coordinated leadership, not be the remnants of a fallen regime isolated from the rest of the world.

The French Resistance succeeded because of it's outside and internal support and critically the transition to guerrilla and then conventional warfare was very much managed by the Allied command leading to the eventual French lead liberation of Paris. The British resistance effort was destined to fall into a downward spiral in the direct opposite of Mao's guerrilla warfare plan mainly due to the total lack of the assistance the French Resistance had.

These are both examples of a home based force resisting a foreign invasion force using limited guerrilla tactics, again, this is not 'real' guerrilla warfare, but resistance with a guerrilla element.

Malayan Emergency: Counter Insurgency Operations 1948-60

This is one of the classic studies for counter insurgency warfare with two foreign powers fighting over a single country, with on one side the Communist Chinese Insurgents/Terrorists making a series of cross border raids with the intention of further destabilising the government and triggering a popular uprising, and on the other side Mad Mike Calvert's SAS, take a guess who won that one...

The communist forces failed to triggering the full scale guerrilla war stage of their plan due to the harsh counter insurgency operations of the SAS Malayan Scouts (full of veterans of the SOE, Force 136, Ferret Force, WW2 SAS etc) in limiting their movement and ability to build bases and establish themselves in Malaya, also the SAS ran a large number of 'hearts and minds' operations (they coined that phrase) to win over the Malayan people away from the communists, Mao said the people were the water that the guerrilla moves through, the SAS were moving the water away and then poisoning it while aggressively (both secretly and illegally) taking the war to the Communists in deep cross border raids

Malaya eventually came to a peaceful resolve of it's communist/Chinese political minority after the foreign insurgents/terrorists were defeated and became a fully independent nation, well, as independent as you can be in the '60s

Conclusion

This 'emergency' is important as it was, in part, used as a blueprint for the later French Indo-China and USA Vietnam conflict, also as it was another total failure for the 'guerrilla warfare' operational pattern. (Vietnam went off on it's own tangent and the tactics that won this conflict weren't followed for a whole host of reasons) It is also one of the first post WW2 real 'guerrilla wars' with both sides of the fight supplied and assisted by foreign powers and conventional armed forces only used by the occupying government, in this case mainly for internal policing and defence of fixed sites such as fortified villages, key towns, roads and supply dumps etc, with the main anti-communist fighting was conducted by the foreign paramilitary SAS based forces.

Summary

The term 'Guerrilla Warfare' is a misleading and deceptive one, it is often used to name a whole host of operational stages of a conflict and is very politically loaded. most so called guerrilla wars can be slotted into the above examples, the end results coming from the way the 'war' was conducted on both sides, as well as local operational conditions etc

1: Civil War - This is often in relative isolation to foreign support, with one or both sides having guerrilla or para-military forces in operation, the decisive phase of this conflict comes when conventional forces clash in all out war and one side is the overall military winner, usually then symbolically marching on the capital.

Examples would be the Balkans/Yugoslavia, to a limited extent India/Pakistan and a number of African/South American states (though these fall into cat 3 mostly)

2: Wars of Resistance - this type of warfare stands of falls on the help the local resistance forces can gain from outside of their country, they will be a mix of trained former army fighters, trained paramilitary/guerrilla fighters, and, if possible, foreign specialists and trainers. without outside help and against a superior occupying force the guerrilla war will naturally fall apart rather than 'naturally' progress

Examples - Kuwait, Anti-Russian Afghanistan, post-Regime Iraq

3: Counter Insurgency - This is the critical stage in the evolution of a revolution, the first acts of overt armed resistance/insurrection, as such it has to be quickly limited and extinguished before it has the chance to progress to a full revolutionary war

The classic African 'Brushfire Wars' and the South Asian anti-communist 'Domino Effect' conflicts and a number of Cuban/Communist inspired South American conflicts

Some conflicts that have a guerrilla element fall into not one but a number of the above, for instance Beirut, post-Russian Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine etc, these are more complex but still follow a set of rules based on the above examples

So, in conclusion, there is no such thing as a [i[generic[/i] guerrilla war, there are, as i have briefly shown, at least 3 clear types all with very different advantages and disadvantages for all sides involved. In all cases it is by no means a clear cut case of an easy win or loss by one side of the other, again using Mao's stages of revolution as a framework, the process of guerrilla war can be pushed back as well as forward, it can't be fully defeated until it's taken back down to the 'discontent' level which can be addressed with political and social policies alone, equally it can't be a win for the 'guerrilla forces until full scale war and (usually) the capital is captured or the opposition have been captured/killed/driven out.

Now, i hope I've made clear a little "historical truth" here and that the lessons have all been well learned, it's just a matter of putting into operation effectively operations to either forma and operate a guerrilla force or to defeat one, in the end it's down to the political and military skill of both sides to fight over the people or the nation involved, it is by no means a forgone conclusion that all resistance/insurgency/guerrilla forces automatically win

(i'll do the points later, dinner now)

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
the above should give you a general idea about the nature of th conflict in relation to some others, but now i briefly (ha) answer your numbered points, first about the Vietnam War (i include some info about the French and Vietminh as they really started it)

In short:

1. Motive for the War(s)

Vietnam/ (part of) French Indo China = Freedom from colonial control and a separate, unified state of Vietnam, as 'promised' them by America in the closing stages of WW2 when they assisted the allies fight Japan's occupying forces in country (see India etc)

France = post war prestige and income guaranteed by owning overseas colonies (see also many French African colonies etc)

America (and it's allies) = stopping the 'Domino Effect' expansion of Communism by assisting South Vietnam to defeat communist backed North Vietnam (see The Korean War etc) and set up a (Western friendly) regime on the frontlines of the Communist Far East

2. Weaponry (and troop quality/types, what's a gun without someone to shoot it?)

Vietnam (Resistance/Communist/North)

Vietminh/PAVN = early on a mixture of smallarms and light support weapons supplied/captured/looted from WW2 sources including America, Japan and France before being supplied by the new Communist nations, Russia and in particular China. They went on to being the framework of the armed forces behind the later anti-American war and the final invasion of the South. Overall, generally lightly equipped, basically trained, well led and motivated troops

VietCong/VC = the reincarnation of the Vietminh, 'controlled' and supplied by the North they were light guerrilla forces designed to be raised and operate in the South conducting small scale raids, disruption and population/resource control missions to deny the countryside to the South Vietnamese forces. They were equipped along the same lines as the Vietminh but with more access to heavy weapons and a greater quantity/quality of smallarms and equipment supplied mostly by China, i.e. many of the 'AK47' assault rifles were in fact variants of the Chinese Type 56 copy. Heavy weapons included medium artillery and anti-aircraft pieces, usually located well behind their lines. Overall, light to medium equipped, basically trained, well led and motivated troops

North Vietnamese Army/NVA = The regular army of the North, they were trained and equipped along broadly Chinese lines with a strong Vietnamese flavour making them perfect to work with the VC providing heavy support to operations along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and the Northern border regions. After years of raids and support operations they finally launched fully into the war in it's closing stages and drove all the way into Saigon. They were equipped with heavy artillery batteries, heavy anti-aircraft guns and high tech SAM systems, light and medium and heavy tanks and good communications equipment and radar etc. Overall, heavily equipped, standardly trained well led and motivated troops

Others = Many Communist 'training' forces joined the North including Russian and Chinese aircraft pilots and SAM operators, essentially fighting as front line troops as well as actually training the NVA/VC in the use of the equipment and related tactics. They also too greet interest in studying American tactics, equipment and POWs

America (and its allies)

France = Straight out of WW2 and into a colonial war, they were equipped along American lines including artillery and light to medium tanks and fighter/bomber aircraft, support came from American aircraft flying supply and raid missions and French naval gunfire in costal regions. The French sent a large number of troops to the then French Indo China region to fight the forces of Ho Chi Minh, from conscripts right up to elite Foreign Legion troops with up to half a decade of WW2 combat behind them (including many former Eastern Front SS, already trained in anti-partisan warfare) The French forces also started the riverine patrolpattern soon to be copied by the Americans. Overall, very heavily equipped, a mix of standard to elite level trained, poorly to well led and poorly to well motivated troops.

Australia/New Zealand = Though relatively few in number the highly trained and motivated troops of the Australian Army Training Team, and Australia Army many with battle experience in jungle warfare from WW2, Malaya etc did more than their fair share of the 'training' missions in the decade or so they were there and began to assume a patrol/assault role outside of their training mission including using of light tanks/APCs. Well supported by heavy American firepower (with a bit of their own) they proved to be excellent Counter Insurgency (COIN) troops. Overall, heavily equipped, good to elite level trained, very led and well motivated troops.

South Vietnam/ARVN = Organised as a national regular army to defend the South against the North (again, think Korea) they were largely equipped and trained by America, including smallarms, artillery and a functional force of armour and river patrol boats. Many of the 'recruits' were actually press ganged into an army that was poorly led and treated by the South Vietnamese government and desertion was very high throughout the war. The Green Beret trained and led 'commando' forces were the core of the ARVN. Overall, terribly to well equipped, terrible to very good level trained, not at all to well led and terribly to well motivated troops.

America = from the early training and advisory forces of former SOE and WW2 veterans, including many Special Forces trained soldiers, America eventually sent in it's conventional army, navy and airforce in strength. These troops went from short term conscripts straight off the streets of America to career special forces who'd been in war longer than in peace, equipped with the height in air, land and sea based weaponry and equipment and backed up with the biggest artillery and bomber force ever seen. Overall, very heavily equipped, basic to elite level trained, basically to elite led and poorly to well motivated troops.

Others = The special forces and intelligence groups carried on their secret war in French indo China and Vietnam just like they did all over the world, training and equipping local ethnic groups to fight for and often with the regular armies around them, groups including the traditional, often Royalist Hmong and Montguards who were the natural enemies of the progressive city based regimes of both the North and South. These forces were used in and around Vietnam to disrupt supply lines, harass the enemy forces and generally draw troops away from the 'front lines' causing more of a classic partisan effect than a modern guerrilla war one. Many of these ethnic groups are actually still at war today with the national governments in their own lands as a result of this.

3. Opinions concerning the war

Vietnam (and allies)

to summarise, they wanted independence and unity, first resisting Japan's occupying forces then seceding from French Indo China, to finally uniting the North and South under a popular communist modelled central government. To this end they fought the Eastern and Western world for over 30 years (somewhat shorter than the Ho Chi Minh promised hundred years war) and won, the price being their country shattered and neighbours being badly destabilised (Cambodia and Pol Pot etc) The war was a largely popular one with the armed forces being, on average, motivated to expelling the colonial/invading forces by any means necessary, the actions (or lack thereof) of the South's corrupt family/army regime assisted this greatly (and provided a Kennedy assassination theory) and while many South Vietnamese fought the North by choice, without American backing the North would have won even without the massive support and equipping of it's Communist allies. For example the VC forces numbered around 5000 when it was first founded with former Vietminh living in the South, less than a decade later it numbered over 50000, able to soak up 30000 casualties in the Tet Offensive, one of the biggest military defeats to ever be an eventual victory.

The people of North Vietnam and it's Southern sympathisers were deep in a struggle for freedom from outside influence and for self governance for generations, it only reached full war scale after WW2, to this end it was a generally popular conflict where uncounted millions of combatants and civilians alike died and was eventually a victory, with support of China and Russia but really masterminded and fought by the Vietnamese themselves, they took on the Western world and won.

America (and allies)

Really sowing the seeds of their own later defeat, America supported the Vietnamese people's fight against their WW2 colonial Japanese government and kind of sort of said they'd support a bid for decolonisation and independence from France after eth war was won, when France made them abandon this policy America joined France in combating the Vietminh, eventually taking over in support of the new South Vietnam government forces after France pulled out and the country was divided. Vietnam was a pure anti-communist fight from then on, stopping all of the Far East/Asia falling to communism, specifically the Chinese/Maoist brand of peasant revolution. Although many of the first advisors/combatants in theatre were WW2 veterans, the later deployment were filled with raw conscripts wholly unsuited to high intensity jungle operations and it was by shear firepower and near total control of the air and sea for supply, transport and firesupport that America began to win. The ARVN forces were in general poor quality and left to behind the lines tasks which they still regularly screwed up, particularly oppressing the rural population providing fertile recruiting ground for the VC. Allied nations such as South Korea and Australia provided specialist ground forces, usually veteran/special forces and were very effective in their operations. This all added to the final American potential victory after the Tet Offensive, the VC had been dealt a massive blow and without direct NVA action in South Vietnam the communist forces had proved they were now ineffectual against the up gunned, up manned American, allied and ARVN army.

America began pulling out broadly due to it's lack of popular support for the war both at home and internationally, support that the Vietnamese Communist forces had a ready (and enforced) supply of. The spread of communism had been largely suppressed in the rest of the world and the Sino-Soviet split (largely un-recognised by the west) started the beginning of the end for Communist world domination, arguably the Vietnam war was the last big anti-communist war of the century, even though it was a technical loss for America, the overall anti-communist war was won less than 2 decades later in the same way. They didn't win the war, they just stuck around and didn't lose.



i'll do one for the Iraqi situation next (bit of Iran/Iraq, Gulf 1 and 2 etc), it shouldn't be much longer than that, i really am trying to keep this a short summary, if you have any questions just ask, i'm wildly generalizing and trying to simplify things, if anything is wrong/needs clarifying sound out and i'll sort it out. I'm afraid things like this dont' start and end in a matter of years, artificially shortening their history to a few decades is really a bit of a farce, hopefully i havent' strayed too far towards this...

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:40 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Sacramento, California
Thanks for all of the helpful information... looking forward to more Ollie.

_________________
"Enough chatter, send my regards to oblivion!" - Eternion

"Genius is one of the many forms of insanity" - Cesare L. Lombroso

"You have to swing the bat before anything can happen." - Haruko

~Member of the Cult of Godless Commie Traitors~


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:16 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
The thought of world peace must be absolutely horrifying for you Ollie. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:36 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
"Happy is the city which in peace thinks of war"

-inscription found in the armoury of Venice

"Peace is nothing but slovenliness, only war creates order"

-Bertold Brecht

going to write up the Iraq side then compare the two shortly...

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:20 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
This is going to touch upon the First Gulf War/Iraq's invasion of Kuwaite and the Iran Iraq War, but will mainly concentrate on the Second Gulf War and the current occupation/reconstruction. so, first a potted history of the last 20 years of conflict in and around Iraq.

The Iran/Iraq War of the 80s was designed to put Saddam and his Baathist military regime in place to unite and rule the Arab world. It turned out to be a bloody stalemate where both sides lost vast numbers of men and machines in a huge border war. Iraq was supported in part by the west against the Islamic Revolutionary Iran, mostly in technical assistance and copies of satellite images of Iranian troop movements etc. Even with this help instead of taking Iraq to the top of the regional powers, it actually bankrupted it, cost it a huge number of trained troops and it's fledgling nuclear weapons programme was destroyed by an out of the blue Israeli airstrike.

The First Gulf War was a direct result of this failure, in order to get a easy victory and access to the oil wealth of Kuwaiti (claimed to be a province of Iraq) the Iraqi army invaded, quickly overrunning the defenders and cleaning up the popular resistance with well practiced efficiency. Finally the West saw that the threat Saddam posed with his renewed chance of starting up a WMD program and making a nuclear backed bid for international Arab eldership. It was decided it was time to act to put him down before he attempted to unite the Arab world under his Baathist brand of crude Stalinism and most likely nuke Israel. The first UN deployments were actually placed to defend Saudi Arabia from an anticipated Iraqi attack (or at least the threat of attack) and from there they moved into Iraq and dealt with the remains of the Iraqi army, it having been mostly decimated by air and cruise missile strikes. The aftermath of this attack was the surrender and withdrawal of the Iraqi Army from Kuwait and the border regions of Iraq and the establishment of no fly zones and a dismantling of their WMD program. Saddam stayed in power and brutally repressed any attempt to kick him out from within, including attacks on the rebelling Shia and Kurd populations in the South and North respectively.

The Second Gulf War, like WW2, came out of the restrictions placed on the losing side after the first war, Iraq had been testing the limits of both the WMD and no fly zone parts of the surrender deal before the ink was even dry on it, at first to deal with the rebelling factions within their own country, mostly using helicopters to fly paramilitary units around to engage these rebellious groups, and they continued to frustrate UN weapons inspectors at every turn. in the decade or so between the two wars combat air patrols regularly engaged Iraqi aircraft and anti-aircraft radar/missile sites within the no fly zone and the state Iraqi WMD program and stockpiles was hidden from the full view of the UN. This, in connection with the fear of Iraq harbouring anti-western terrorists and the continued threat of Iraq posed to regional stability and the state of it's own collapsing nation was the prime reason for the 'regime change' war. again after heavy air and sea bombardment the forces of the coalition moved in from all sides. this time as expected the Iraqi forces put up a far lesser resistance than the first Gulf War, they didn't surrender or revolt on mass as expected in some quarters and hardcore elements fought to the death. however the end was inevitable and the regime fell. the coalition, bolstered by it;'s many allied nation's armed forces set up a security force throughout the country to police the streets, rebuild the nations infrastructure and hunt down the remains of the hardcore forces and regime leaders.

today the power vacuum that Saddam the Baath party have left is filled by the coalition, the Interim government and it's security forces and a number of religious/regional based militias. also in this mix are a few die hard Baathists and foreign fighters supported by, yes, al Queda.

now, onto the current conflict

1. Motive for the War(s)

Iraq (Regime/Resistance) = Motives are split broadly along group/religion affiliation lines.

The Baathist and homegrown insurgent forces are mostly former regime armed and political forces looking forward to a life back in power at the top of the pile having been rudely pushed off it last year. their motives are also mixed in with the general feeling by the resistance groups that the west, America especially shouldn't be influencing Middle Eastern politics so much, much less have troops in it, this leads to tenuous unities with other groups at times. Baathists also tend to be from the Sunni Muslim minority.

Religious groups, primarily the Shia Muslims, are finding the post Saddam Iraq a fertile ground for freedom of religion and expression of their religious identity, good though this might at first seem it has led to some radical clerics assuming command of 'armies' of followers. their main aims are gaining a foothold in post Baathist political power and turning the former secular state into an Islamic one. These groups are supported by fellow Sunnis Iran, at least in vocal support, often with Iranians joining the armed forces of the Iraqi clerics.

Regional/ethnic groups such as the Kurds suffered under Saddam and are persecuted in most of the nations they live in, a homelandless people they claim a region commonly called Kurdistan as their nation, unfortunately this included land in Northern Iraq and Turkey, a pair of nations not known for liking internal dissent, as such they have long had their own army and political parties, though these often war with each other they do defend the idea of a Kurdish homeland, and are making their presence felt in Northern Iraq as target for resistance forces seeking to pull them into the terrorist cycle of violence in an attempt to delegitimise them from future political power in Iraq. Generally the Kurds are pro-coalition, having fought with the American Special forces in the North, but they are a factional group and could be a problem if they feel left out of future affairs.

Terrorist groups operating in Iraq are hard to identify, they often arrive with arms and expertise in insurgency and guerrilla warfare learned in the last few decided of Islamic warfare across the world. As they rarely carry out direct action attacks themselves their actions are often attributed to one of the other factions fighting in Iraq, they seek to influence and take power from those groups by training and radicalising them into becoming, essentially, small armies run and trained by, not filled with, foreign terrorists. These terrorists are often directly affiliated with the al-Queda network of Islamic terror groups and have an agenda wholly outside of the small scale nationalist aspirations of the real Iraqi resistance factions. Their aim is no less than the total destruction of the West and the establishment of radical Islamic power across the region (then the world etc) for them Iraq is an opportunity to attack Americans directly and create a ground for training Arabs in the art of Islamic revolution, while pushing the short term goals of the local country they are actually making it a stepping stone for further operations, as such they will work with anyone they can to further this goal. As the Baathist resistance burns out they aim to keep the (limited) momentum going by shaping the conflict in their own image

America (and it's allies) = World Peace

That is to say cheap oil, open markets, free and democratic allied nations and an end to terrorism. Iraq was a threat to all of these, as the West mostly saw it, and had been in breach of post Gulf War 1 UN mandates for years, it hadn't fallen apart on itself after it's defeat as was hoped and Saddam clung to power in an ever more reactionary and damaging way, the final straw came from the continued lack of cooperation on WMD inspector trips and the growing threat of international Arab terrorism that it was thought Saddam would latch on to, Libya style. it was decided that the Baathist regime would be removed and a moderate, representory governing council would replace it, this could be done the easy way or the hard way, Saddam predictably took the hard way out. The result of that was the nation falling apart like a pack of cards, the iron grip of the Baathis regime removed caused a number of factions to attempt to assume local power, most concentrating on anti-coalition activities. The coalition forces now are attempting to reconstruct the national infrastructure and security forces before pulling out and allowing Iraq to return to the international community, no doubt carefully monitored by the coalition for a time afterwards.

2. Weaponry (and troop quality/types, what's a gun without someone to shoot it?)

Iraq (Regime/Resistance)

Baathist loyalist = Mostly former secret police, army and irregular paramilitary forces, most of their heavy equipment was captured or destroyed in the formal war reducing them to the level of smallarms and light mortars, good for local control, hit and run and harassing attacks, useless for an extended fight or escalating a war. They enjoy some popular support from Sunni/Baathist communities but are being replaced by more radical, non-Baathist forces. Overall, lightly equipped and poor to good training, leadership and motivation.

Religious/regional factions = Interested only in local security and future political power, these groups consist of former regime loyalists and army regulars, as well as a big civilian irregular militia force including veterans of a number of national and international wars through to children throwing stones. These groups are often bolstered by foreign fighters who share their goals (i.e. Turkish Kurds, Iranian Shias etc) Weapons include the standard smallarms and light support weapons, their strong local support networks assist in supply and shelter for the militias in their own areas. Overall they are lightly equipped, range from having zero to fair training and are fair to well motivated and lead.

foreign fighters/al Queda = Specialists in international terrorist and revolutionary warfare tactics, these groups and individuals seek to build local networks of agents to carry out attack on coalition and allied groups, weapons are less of an issue as they take control of whatever the local groups have and then source out more arms and equipment from international sources including small numbers of high tech and specialised improvised weapons not available to the local domestic armed groups. Overall, they are average to highly trained and well to fanatically motivated and led


America (and its allies)

America = Having fought in Iraq a decade ago the armed forces of America were well prepared to fight the Second Gulf War and they battled though to victory with relatively few losses, it was securing the peace that started to cause trouble for the essentially congenital armed forces in theatre at the time. The heavy equipment and weapons of the conventional war are still in country, but are of reduced use in the current stages of the war, most used are light vehicles and armour and air assets in rapid reaction groups to hunt down and react to insurgent forces and local security situations. however a full array of weapons and servicemen and women are there, up to and including air defence weapons against an enemy with no air assets. a great number of personnel are essentially non-combatants and reservists dealing with issues of administrating and rebuilding the structure of the nation. Overall they are very heavily equipped, average to elite trained, average to elite led and good to well motivated.

Other coalition partners = Leading nations in the coalition such as The United Kingdom and Australia provided combat troops and support for the actual war, and while other nations sent small, specialist forces to assist also the main deployment came to secure the peace and rebuild the country. From eastern European conscripts to professional career soldiers and special forces of western nations, the non-American forces in the coalition are a mixed bunch, but are generally well armed equipped for their internal security role including light and heavy armour and limited air assets (not to mention being able to call in support from American assets) and include many combat and counter insurgency/anti terrorist operation specialists. Overall they are medium to heavily equipped, average to elite trained and led and average to well motivated.

New Iraqi forces = The rebuilding of the Iraqi army and police forces has fallen to the coalition forces in the wake of the near total disintegration of the old security forces during and after the war. Many former soldiers and police have signed back up in order to secure a future for themselves and their country but have been badly hit by local and national campaigns against coalition forces and those assisting them leading to many desertions to local/religious groups who have more influence over them. designed for internal security only with few heavy assets (for the time being) they are very reliant on the coalition for guidance and support. Overall lightly equipped, poor to average trained, motivated and led

International security groups = Security groups from all of the coalition nations are bidding for contracts to guard assets and personnel in Iraq, mostly groups will be hired by civilian contractors from the same nation as them to conduct security on the projects they are working on specifically and as body guards in general. These range from civilian and former military personnel providing risk assessment and awareness training to fully armed paramilitary outfits filled with a mix of former special forces equipped with light armoured vehicles and smallarms, protecting convoys, sites and personnel that the coalition armed forces are too thinly spread to do so themselves. Also involved is the shadowy hand of the coalition intelligence services operation deniable operations and Geneva convention avoiding tasks under the cover of civilian security groups, but this is in the vast minority. Overall very lightly to lightly equipped, average to elite trained and led and well motivated ($)

3. Opinions concerning the war

Iraq (Regime/Resistance)
As mentioned, their objectives are differed and often directly conflicting, from the reinstatement of Saddam and the Baathist regime to the destruction of America and it's evil allies. These groups have limited popular support, often restricted to regional and religious groups with many Iraqis disowning them all together as troublemakers and bandits, as such they have often have as much trouble from the local population as support from it, and spend a lot of time in power struggles against other factions rather than the coalition directly. As a single group the resistance does not exist, their only common enemy is the occupying forces, and at times even that is not the case with groups working with the coalition when it suits them and attacking them when it doesn't.

Internationally the support for the anti-coalition forces comes from a wide spectrum, from left-wing peace/anti-imperialist/globalisation groups who see it as a legitimate force against American political hegemony, to the radical Islamic terror groups who send money and men to join in the fight for Islam/against America. both of these tend groups use the specific example of Iraq to illustrate a wider point, the specifics of the situation are less important than their overall agenda and the future of their policies and both claim to loath the current situation in Iraq but both also make all the political capital they can out of it and would sorely miss it when it ends.

America (and allies)
With the war won and Saddam now in custody, all that is left is to rebuild Iraq into a modern progressive nation. To these ends the nations of the coalition are spending a lot of money and not a few lives to do this as fast as possible before the political will to see it through lessens too much. Many of the 'new' nations of Eastern Europe and other former Soviet states are eager to join in this effort to gain a place for themselves on the international stage and gain firmer alliances with the West, specifically America, to many of these nations democracy is still slow to take a hold and opposition to the war and current operations is limited, the gains they can make far outweigh the losses, unlike those of America, at lest in the short term.

Long term the fate of Iraq is designed to be a case in point to the world demonstrating that to oppose the UN, and specifically America is a fast way to destruction, unregulated nuclear power, WMD development, dealing with terrorists and threatening both the internal religious/ethnic groups and neighbouring countries will not be tolerated by the coalition partners. The ethnic cleansing that happened in the Balkans will not be allowed to start up again, nor will the ending of aid missions such as in Somalia, already Libya has joined in talks and decommissioning in exchange for being allowed back into the international community rather than risk the same fate, Pakistan has re-joined the commonwealth and the rest of the usual suspects are starting to reduce their aggressive moves and are building bridges within the international community, all either by coincidence or through fear of being next on the list of an active America and it's allies


again, just a quick (ha) overview of the situation, very generalised, very open to exact discussion and clarification.

now all I need to do is actually do what's needed, and compare the two conflicts, but I thought a base of knowledge was needed before I did that, just to get you all up to speed with what's going on first

really, if you want to do it yourself just look at my guerrilla warfare essay above and then use the numbered points here to flesh it out specifically for Iraq and Vietnam

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
and finally:

compare/contrast

1. Motive for the War(s)

The Vietminh, NVA and VC compared to Baathists, Religious/Regional groups and International Terrorists

Vietnam was a generally poor, plantation based economy had been under French colonial rule before WW2 and for a time after it before being divided under the pro western South and pro national unity/eastern North, Iraq was an independent oil rich Arab nation for generations. Vietnam had, in WW2, been invaded and oppressed by the Japanese and were promised nationhood by the Americans in return for opposing them, Iraq had joined in a number of Anti-Israel wars and lost them all, under Saddam they fought the Iranians and certainly didn't win anything, in the last 2 decades they're spent most of their time oppressing their own people and threatening their neighbours. Vietnam fought a war against Japan, France, America and anyone else who decided to join in went on for decades, and they won. Iraq failed in just about ever war they have been in, often with terrible losses in men and machines ending up with taking on the world biggest military powers and (predictably) losing, twice.The people of Vietnam were fighting for a grassroots drive for independence and nationhood in a time when colonial states around the world were all gaining independence from their former European masters, Iraq fought along side other Arab nations for a time before taking up their own (Baathist/Saddam's) agenda of regional and personal power gains, they made the mistake of continuing this after the Cold War ended and instead of a fun proxy war situation they were actually hit by direct intervention, twice. Vietnam was a Maoist peasant revolution style war building to conventional war and victory, The current Iraqi conflict was a conventional war falling backwards to insurgent attacks and, by Mao's theories of unconventional warfare, future defeat.


America (1960/70s) Allied Nations, South Vietnam/ARVN and US supported partisan forces compared to America (2000's), Coalition Forces, New Iraqi Security forces and international security groups

The American led alliance fought in Vietnam's later stages in a firm attempt to stop the spread of communism and to stamp out a revolutionary war before it inspires others in the region/world at large, the American led Coalition invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam in order to make an example of him to the world, that decades of militaristic posturing and outright aggression against his neighbours and his own people is not to be tolerated any more. In Vietnam the American led alliance supported the South's armed forces to the point where they often took over entirely from them in combat operations, left to stand alone the South fell apart fast, in Iraq they were at first the sole armed forces in country and are now training and equipping Iraqi Security forces to take over so that they can leave in the future, if they do it too quickly they will fail just as in South Vietnam. In Vietnam the war was at first insurgent, then guerrilla then fully conventional, in Iraq the situation in going in reverse, the conventional battles and most of the guerrilla activity is over, insurgent and terrorist actions are the last remains of the 'resistance' forces

2. Weaponry (and troop quality/types)

The Vietminh, NVA and VC compared to Baathists, Religious/Regional groups and International Terrorists

When the Vietnamese started resisting the Japanese and later the French they had little in the way of military equipment and arms but what they could source infrequently from allies (America etc) and seize for the enemy, when the cold war hotted up they started getting vast supplies from Russia and China, not to mention their own factory system making copies and homegrown versions of communist equipment and weapons, this supply increased over the war. Iraq was supplied (along with many other Arab nations) by the Soviet block and China for decades, ranging from WW2 to modern tanks, heavy weaponry and smallarms, in the last few decades they're sources high tech communications and radar/air defence equipment from a variety of western nations, notably France and some former soviet nations as well as producing their own versions of mostly soviet equipment and weapons, today they have a tiny amount of that equipment, mostly smallarms and light support weapons with zero chance of getting or producing much more than a tiny amount of smallarms, mostly from sympathetic border nations or terrorist groups. In the ending stages of the war, Vietnam had a united airforce, armoured force, navy and huge army, all ranging from conscripts who lived with war all of their lives to battle hardened veterans and leaders of tactical genius. Iraqi has a fractious number of competing groups of citizen to former army militias with a few terrorist/revolutionary war veterans, mostly al-Qeada affiliated or foreign agents/volunteers. Vietnam had one of the best trained, coordinated and equipped jungle warfare armies of their day, Iraq has one of the worst trained, coordinated and equipped resistance forces ever. North Vietnam was a real country supported, equipped and trained directly by world superpowers, Iraq is fully occupied and equipped from the remains of a shattered army with very few nations doing anything to assist their resistance of the Coalition for fear of sanctions or the conflict spreading to their nation.

Overall Vietnam had a force getting stronger by the year, Iraq has a force getting weaker by the month

America (1960/70s) Allied Nations, South Vietnam/ARVN and US supported partisan forces compared to America (2000's), Coalition Forces, New Iraqi Security forces and international security groups

America was at full superpower status and supported by a number of allied nations they had access to some of the worlds best arms, equipment and men, however as the conflict spiralled into full warfare the quality of their force was watered down to up the quantity. In Iraq they started with a full conventional army and are now backed with a large number of allied nations troops to supplement the current security force and are generally better trained and led than in Vietnam. In Vietnam the large conventional force was somewhat mismatched with the generally jungle based fighting, the heavy armour and support fire had a much smaller effect in such close in battles than it was designed for (generally western European conflict) In Iraq conversely the huge advantage in heavy direct and indirect weapons that the Americans and allied forces have means they can act decisively in all but the best focussed ambushes (few and far between) and heavy urban operations, even in these they have proved to be better armed and trained than their enemy.

3. Opinions concerning the war

well, really thats' your job now, and it's not like i havent' laced the above with opinions anyway..

come on, this is Debate Club, someone engage me...

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:49 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Alright Ollie, I'll shoot:

I think you missed a big point here, the different political atmospheres and the media coverage, as well as the "Lessons Learned" applied from Vietnam right into Iraq II, that is what I will go over here.

Political Atmosphere and the Media: Vietnam (USA #1)

The public generally supported Vietnam at the start, and support for it never fell below 50% in most polls until after Vietnamization started: this leads me to believe one of two things:

a) (some) Politicians that are jittery of losing popular support and being ousted due to supporting an unpopular war tend to "jump the gun" and try to get out, or start getting out, before the war actually becomes unpopular.
b) (some) Politicians overreact to antiwar sentiment, anticipating that the country has seen too many political losses or human losses, and pull out despite popular sentiment supporting them at least marginally. Seeing that 'el leader' is backing away, the public then figures the cause isn't worth it and turns against staying there (if you're already running away, why stay...)

The methods (or circumstances, depending on whether the Vietnamese army (the bad one) was calculating this type of warfare for its political impact or was doing it just to try and hurt the USA however possible, and they (accidentally) stumbled upon the way to get the US out) used/happened upon by the Vietnamese army is arguably just an extension of some of the old blitzkrieg tactics, rather than manuever around military units and strike vital targets/leadership in the rear, leaving the units up front leaderless and unable to do much, you skip militarily engaging your enemy entirely and calculate your attacks to have the maximum political impact, the people who are actually in charge of the deployment and have the power to make an army pull out even after having soundly defeated you militarily, as the attack was a political victory. Whether on accident or on purpose, the Vietcong ended up being an effective political attack force, creating the (untrue) image of a military loss.

The media, as well, played a vital part in this, being allowed to wander around and capture some stunning images on the battlefield, letting the baby boomer generation see how war is actually like while eating TV dinners, this was an advantage the North had as well, especially during the Tet Offensive, where places where poeple thought were nice and safe were attacked and you could see the ruins of cities that were supposed to be 100% safe/American occupied/etc.

Political Attitudes and the Media: Iraq II (Lessons Learned)

The above got the army thinking a lot about the political aspect of war, something they traditionally didn't meddle too much in, but which was used effectively (if, arguably, unintentionally) to make them pull out and thus lose the war, an amazing amount of army literature is dedicated to analysing the mistakes made in that war and reccomending ways to do it better. Afghanistan and Iraq II (but moreso Iraq II) has been the first real test of these doctrines and has inspired the evolution of some new ideas within the military, which I will outline below.

Information Warfare: The Politics

Previously regulated to jamming enemy radar and propagandizing enemy soldiers/inspiring friendly citizens with roses and notes, this has moved to making sure the free media doesn't wander about and possibly catch something they shouldn't, the best example of this is the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos, the army was able to keep this under wraps while investigating/preparing to prosecute since early January, the photos didn't come out until May, though it was somewhat a surprise on the part of the Pentagon (overconfidence in their own ability to 'cap' info?) they dealt with it fairly well, with apologies, publisizings, showing that they had been handling it and people were going to be put on trial for it, etc. Overall however the Abu Ghraib prison abuse 'scandel' was a quasi-failure, absolute victory in this sense would have been the disciplining/imprisonment/execution (possibly) of some soldiers, with either no information being leaked out to the media or it being publisized on the Pentagon's terms in order to show how great they are about cleaning up their own messes (everything looks better after the fact, its all been resolved etc.)

Overall the effectiveness of this portion of the war will only be known to somewhat pedantic historians long from now, a real victory = problem solved, no media contact during or after it, no political problems back home putting the mission at risk.

The Media (Baghdad hotel is so nice Joe, lets just copy Al-J's headline and have a drink at the Chile's down the street)

This was a somewhat unexpected portion of the war, and as such the response was also somewhat slow, Al-Jazeera was apparently overlooked as a vital source of misinformation/sensitive information to the Iraqi populace that is (a little bit?) anti-American, though this has been somewhat mitigated by the local papers/news channels popping up within Iraq with the lift on government sanctions on private papers and news sources. The response to Al-Jazeera has been somewhat haphazard, but the army has also had a problem with a second (unexpected) circumstance in the war.

This has been the complete apathy of the media in terms of going out and getting a story. In Vietnam, the media was largely allowed to wander about and film as they wish, the army most likely had plans either to restrict the freedom of movement of the media or perhaps planned on desseminating some information on how to act/talk while around 'the media,' however this problem has never come up as the media folk, for the most part, stay in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad, and very few are out in the hinterlands or even outside the safe zones in Baghdad, thus solving the army's problem but also giving a whole new one: for the most part hearsay is published, or vastly overblown reports when mortar fire actually comes in where the reporters are staying, or just bylines/stories copied or the media taking a lead from Al-Jazeera, and not publisizing the many 'good moments' that happen far from a fortress in Baghdad fully staffed by American troops.

In response to these two problems in reguards to the war, the Pentagon has set up more and more news outlets, first a marine website that was for the most part the source of information on how Fallujah was going in the west, culimnating in the recent opening of a Marine-Corps-Owned arabic TV news outlet in Iraq, to put out information spun in a way that the Pentagon feels is best.

Conclusion

Vietnam has had a big impact on the entire military and does to this day, in that perspective it is unsurprising that the problems of Vietnam were ready to be addressed in Iraq, and (as it tends to happen) the guys on the ground found out that Iraq was not Vietnam, and so had to deal with new problems (such as Al-Jazeera), though of only limited scope in its tactical impact on the running of Iraq, Vietnam also pointed the way to the military becoming more directly involved in the political aspect of the war, thus the responses to the political problems in-theatre.

What you are seeign right now is an expanded information/political warfare and its tactics in its infancy (at least for American tacticians: I am unfamiliar with others), it will be interesting to see when we really get good at it etc., but for the most part the only reason you can see it is because we're new at it and developing a strategy on how to best handle these situations.

I await your response, Ollie.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:24 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
see, i avoided specific instances and examples like this for the same reason i avoided specific weapons and personalities in the war(s), i was going for a macro approach, now that the framework is set down (unless anyone wants to correct me on anything) then we can get onto this sort of stuff

i mean the propaganda effect on the troops/civillian population rather depends on hw they feel already, if it's likely to add to or change their current feelings and level of militancy etc, also it's easy to group them all together as the 'Iraqi Resistance' or somesuch when, as i think i've described above, they're actually quite a mixed bag with wildly conflicting agendas, hard to affect with 'general' political or media representation

tho i can't saw i've read a single account of a nonaccredited journalist in Iraq being treated very well by any of the armed forces they were with, most (especially ex-army ones) complign of being orderd around and having loaded weapons pointed at them, it seemed that their firsthand knowlage of troops prehaps made them enjoy this situation even less than a 'normal' journalist would, but i't's likely that it's just an over reaction from warey soldiers who are supprised that a journalist should actually be out of their fortified compound and wandering around the desert

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group