What are the similarities between the Iraqi Insurgent Forces and the Viet Cong?
413943
-Highly skilled with gurella warfare\n-Funded mostly by external governments (Viet Cong by the Soviets, Iraqi by Syria and Iran)\n-Willing to die for their cause\n-Smart enough to know that they can't win militarily, so they have to resort to alternatives to sway US public opinion against the war\n-Targeted civilians as part of the campaign (although civilians are now the FOCAL point of the Iraqi insurgents)
1055753
This is the beginning of the drawdown. It will take a few years at least. Unlike Vietnam, we have never increased our numbers of troops in-country. We have made enormous strides but we need more Iraqis trained as soldiers and police before we can beging a major pull-out.
1173607
U.S. Cold Warriors were convinced that if Vietnam fell to the communists, that the rest of Southeast Asia would "fall like dominoes."  So they sent American troops to prop up the weak South Vietnamese government and army.\n\nThe Vietcong's main goal was the overthrow of the South Vietnamese government, and unification with North Vietnam.
1066054
When america coerced the un to enter vietnam under the guise of atrocities commited by the north against the south. it was the south who tried to set up a puppet govt. When vietnam won indepenence from france it was only one country.Liberated by the communist regime.The usa could'nt coerce the un to invade iraq they went ahead anyway for some ulterior motive. Certainly not the stated reason In both wars it was absolute banditry they will be deafeted.No matter how strong you cannot break the will of the people
149402
no body knows exactly.an iraqi fraind of mine told me that once he was an eye witness on a roadside explossion where 7 soldiers wher killed,in the evening,it was announced that 1 was killed.those who are not carrying the us nationality are not counted,you find amongst them men from all over the world.it is estimated that the coalition has lost arround 18000 dead,more than 120,000 iraqi civillians were killed.no one knows how many insurgents were killed,even the us army.
51833
Because they were actually waging war against their favorite enemy. No, not the vietnamese but the soviets. During the war, vietnam was divided into two. the northern part wanted to have a communist government, the bottom half wanted a democratic one. Though, it was the vietnam war, it was actually more of a US - USSR war. it can be remembered that Soviet Union (USSR, now mainly Russia) was a communist government while the US believed democracy. And so ever so often their ideologies would clash in wars like this. But the vietnam war was certainly more than about belief, it was also the newest world event for a military arms fashion show. The north was "backed" by the soviets and the south by the Americans. This was an oppurtunity for them to showcase their advancement in warfare. Each side were eager to show to each other and to the world their "impressive" toys and guns and thus informally crown who among the two was the stronger world power. Of course, neither would easily surrender but in the end the americans retreated and the south was captured by the north. Now, the vietnam war is always glorified by the USA as a symbol of their continued struggle for democracy in the world but in truth in that war as it now with iraq, the US was merely showing off their deadly jewelry even if it means meddling with the internal affairs of other countries leaving them in destruction.
1171912
Yes they are.  I conducted operations with them during the year that I was in Iraq.  Obviously all the other people who answered have never been there.  For all the operations that they conduct though, you will not hear about them.  The SF with us did very little training with our Iraqi counterparts.  I can't tell you what they did, because we just can't talk about those operations.
1182856
These "insurgents" in Iraq ARE Al-Qaeda. It is just more convenient for teh media to rename them so Bush looks worse. They are forced to fight American Soldiers on Muslim ground. Bin Laden has even offered to pull all "insurgents" out of Iraq if the US leaves, too. His reasoning for the offer is to free up these "insurgents" to go fight in America.
1026848
Fight. People have been fighting against occupiers for thousands of years. The IRA fought against British occupation. Palestinians are still fighting against Israeli occupation. Afghans fought against Soviet occupation (with support of many countries, including the US). Americans fought against British occupation. France, the Netherlands and Denmark had "The Resistance" fighting against the Nazi's in WW II. The Scotch fought against British occupation, as did groups in India, Israel and Egypt.\n\n"Insurgency" is a clever term being used to describe the current fighting in Iraq, although inaccurate. An insurgency is "a rebellion or uprising against the government". The "insurgents" are not fighting against "their government", they are fighting against a government forced on them by an occupying force.\n\nThe Iraqis are no more "insurgents" than the Americans were in the late 1700's.
472740
Hard to say.  Before it was Viet Nam it was French Indo China and the Viet Namese (CONG) were called the Viet Minh after Ho Chi Minh.  Casualty estimates posted above do not include those killed in the Pre-USA invlovement may not include Americans that were there as "advisors", civilians, Cambodians, Laotians, Chinese, and Russians.  The numbers are apalling
128070
According to my uncle who was a senior millitary officer at the time. Bush Sr. did want to occup Baghad . Schwarzkopf and the other generals at the time told him that it would take 5 -10 years of millitary occupation to ensure a stable Iraqi government.  The U.S. politicans also felt that if they sponsored internal political rebellions ( Such as the Kurdish guriella fighters) they could ensure debstablizing of the Iraqi government. Plus remember the U.N. said that their goal was to ensure that Iraqi would not invade another country.
1136400
Well, that's what Dan Rather would want you to think is going on.  'Insurgent' kind of implies they are rebelling against their own government, so that is the wrong word.    Most of the terrorists fighting our forces and murdering Iraqi civillians are illegal immigrants from Iran.  They are young people poisoned by the preaching of Islamic Jihad in other countries, brainwashed into thinking they are doing some holy thing, and then smuggled into Iraq from Iran.  Iran is the big bad guy here.  Their extremist government is behind all the fighting.  The left-wing media outlets just want you to think George Bush is a bad guy because 1. They are primarily owned by foreigners with vested interestes in seeing the US effort in Iraq fail, and 2. They are left-wing nut-jobs themselves who want to see the Democrats take back all branches of the government so they can get the US to surrender its sovreignity to the UN and a worldwide communist government can begin.
42076
Basically, it was a failure (like today's war in Iraq) and many American soldiers' lives were lost.\n\nThe Vietnam War or Second Indochina War 1 was a conflict between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN, or North Vietnam), allied with the National Liberation Front (NLF, or "Viet Cong") against the Republic of Vietnam (RVN, or South Vietnam), and its allies — notably the United States military in support of the South, with US combat troops involved from shortly after the Korean War until the official withdrawal in 1975.\n\nAfter France's attempted recolonization of Indochina was defeated in 1954 by the Viet Minh at the battle of Điện Biên Phủ, an agreement to temporarily partition the country in two with a de-militarized zone (DMZ) was reached at the Geneva Conference (1954). The "Vietnam War" ostensibly began as a civil war between feuding governments. Being Western-oriented and far less popular than Hồ Chí Minh's northern rebellion, the South Vietnam government fought largely to maintain its governing status within the partitioned entity, rather than to "unify the country" as was the goal of the North. Fighting began in 1957 and with U.S. and Soviet-Chinese involvement would steadily escalate and spill over into the neighboring Indochinese countries of Cambodia and Laos.\n\nThe Geneva partition was not a natural division of Vietnam and was not intended to create two separate countries. But the South government, with the support of the United States, blocked the Geneva scheduled elections for reunification. In the context of the Cold War, and with the recent Korean War as a precedent, the U.S. had feared that a reunified Vietnam would elect a Communist government under the popular Hồ Chí Minh. South Vietnam and its Western allies portrayed the conflict as based in a principled opposition to communism —to deter the expansion of Soviet-based control throughout Southeast Asia, and to set the tone for any likely future superpower conflicts. The North Vietnamese government and its Southern dissident allies (NLF) viewed the war as a struggle to reunite the country and to repel a foreign aggressor —a virtual continuation of the earlier war for independence against the French.\n\nAfter fifteen years of protracted fighting and massive civilian and military casualties, major direct U.S. involvement ended with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Fighting between Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) forces against the dominant combined People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and NLF forces would soon bring an end to the RVN and the war. With the Northern victory, the country was unified as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) with a communist-controlled government based in the new capital Hanoi.\n\nThis is just a brief summary. For more information on the Vietnam War, go to:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
834234
I think the main reason we have problems training the Iraqis is that they are unmotivated. They have no sense of national unity and no particular attachment to the ruling government. I believe many of them hold a closer attachment to their particular sect or tribe than to a democratic Iraq.\n\nOf course, I don't think the Iraqi army was ever very well trained. They relied more on brute force than finesse and maneuver. Like it says in the article you linked, spray-and-pray is all you need when faced with advancing hordes of Iranian infantry. Poorly trained conscripts would suffice for a war like that. \n\nCounter-insurgency operations require much better training.
758732
any similarities between the shia guys who kills the sunni's, the sunni's who murders the shia's, the suicide bombers, the 911 crashers, the al queida gang and the good Muslims ...  NO ? ok, then that answers your question too..
246111
We are training Iraqi armed forces as well as police as an ongoing project.  The country has many internal problems between the different factions there.  The insurgents trying to incite a Civil War does not make the situation any better.  Almost daily we hear about attacks against the Iraqi Police, it is amazing that there are even people who want those jobs.  Things will eventually stabilize and the Iraqi's will be able to take over.
1124655
RAMADI, Iraq -- Gazing through the telescopic sight of his M-24 rifle, Army Staff Sgt. Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team, fixed his eye on the Iraqi insurgent who had just killed an American soldier. \n    His quarry stood nonchalantly in the fourth-floor bay window of a hospital in battle-torn Ramadi, still clasping a long-barreled Kalashnikov. Instinctively allowing for wind speed and bullet drop, Shadow's commander aimed 12 feet high. \n    A single shot hit the Iraqi in the chest and killed him instantly. It had been fired from a range of more than three-quarters of a mile, well beyond the capacity of the powerful Leupold sight, accurate to 3,300 feet.