I read today Kenneth Clarke has said that Iraq could be a vietnam if Tony Blair goes to war without support.
I think he’s being terribly niave and doesn’t understand the nature of the conflict in Vietnam compared to Iraq. Namely that we have already established without doubt that we can completely decimate Iraq qith very little effort, while Vietnam was all guerilla warfare in excellent guerialla warfare terrain. Does anyone here agreee with Clarke, and if so, why?
I would imagine he’s referring to popular opposition to the war, and I must say the thought has crossed my mind more than once.
Of course “we” can dessimate Iraq. But if the Iraqi people choose to fight off the invaders there will be huge casualties. Surely carpet bombing Baghdad would be politically unacceptable (and a crime against humanity). Therefore, if this turns into urban warfare and there is large scale resistance, it could get very messy: it will be extremely difficult to take on 7 million Iraqis. If the people of Iraq turn on Hussein, and accept the American-led invasion, it could be over quickly. However, I do not imagine that Iraqis will be too willing to embrace the Americans.
If this becomes a long drawn-out affair, Tony Blair may well be forced to stand down.
I’d say Kenneth Clarke is dead right.
Your second scenario, Gordy, is much more likely. They will not be fighting 7 million iraqis, not even arguably, all of the Republican Guard, but roughly the 70,000 odd that make up the Special Republican Guard, plus factions within the Republican Guard who choose to fight against the ‘allies’.
Matt, you can easily be pedantic about comparisons with Vietnam. Of course the circumstances in which the two conflicts arise would be different, and the nature of the conflict would be quite different.
I think Ken Clarke was maybe a little bit naive regarding how this war, if it happens, would pan out. However, if it were to be a protracted and messy affair (which we really cannot know, regardless of any confidence in American military might), Clarke would be right. This can end up like a Vietnam, though there is much more at stake with this conflict. The old and o so clear divisions of the cold war are now gone. All is to play for, which is why France Germany Russia Britain and of course the us are all going out of their way to assert themselves now, so as to hold a high place in an international order that is now up for grabs.
The Iraqi plan in war would be to fight with guerilla warfare, as a weapon-punch strategy would defeat the object of trying to trying to avert the ‘aggressors’. The response would simply be obliterative.
Incidentally, I hope you’re both getting as much out of these threads as I am. If when engaging with the opposing argument, you find yourself truly cornered, do not be afraid to change your view. We’re all here because we have a passion for the truth. I am totally unconvinced of the arguments for forceful military intervention in Iraq, as the world-wide repercussions would be too much to bare. I do not oppose war in principle, but I do believe that if more effort was made in international relations at finding a consensus than has even been consistently the case since world war 2, there should really be no need for forceful military intervention. It is nearly always those who do not follow the rules of international relations that end up on the recieving end of a war, and usually defeat. Politics is important. And ignoring the views of political leaders around the world, is an ignorance at peril. Solidarity, as undesirable as it may seem at times, is absolutely crucial. If one side is not convincing their opponent of their arguments, they must find an unfashionable comprimise and consensus.
Next Friday will see a critical junction in the history of international relations. Do not blink.
Yes I am getting quite a lot out of it, I can be a little emphatic at times though, one of my bad points.
I think I was wondering more whether the iraqi people will turn into fanatical warriors or celebrate their release as soon as they’re removed from his political apparatus and see that the allies aren’t attacking them (who I assume will be bending over backwards to try and ensure that the normal iraqis get on with a normal life).
I kinda assume there will be a massive propaganda campaign within Iraq to try and dissuade the normal iraqis from doing anything.
Correct correct and correct.
I’m reasonably convinced that the later scenario will prevail. We will just have to wait and see. It depends really on the environment the western-allied invasion provides for those who have all the time secretly wanted to dissent. There is no black and white on how the Iraqi people will react. There are three major groupings, the Shia’s Sunnis and Kurds, and many individually unoppressed individuals may be content with the Saddam regime. There were many freedoms guaranteed in Iraq for many people, despite the barbarous tactics Saddam’s regime used to ‘maintain’ ‘order’.
pride before folly the reason we fight wars is because sometimes the under dog does win… i agree america should win a war with iraq with easy but to have so much confidence could lead to mistakes…
as far as war with iraq and vietnam being the same thing… that had to of been a joke because thats just laughable…