Vietnam as a lesson for Afghanistan?

**Major.Stupidity** · August 07, 2009, 12:39 AM

Here's an interesting article about the Obama administration reaching out to various analysts of the Vietnam War including Stanley Karnow trying to cross apply lessons from Vietnam to Afghanistan. My question is this: Is such a comparison apt, can one compare one COIN operation to another. What Afghanistan and South Vietnam do share in common is a corrupt central government (with little to no popular support), and the issue of civilian casualties, with the United States heavy reliance on air power. Can one draw lessons from the Vietnam war?

**Captain Jin** · August 07, 2009, 01:30 AM

Some comparisons can be drawn. For instance, not treating the people in the manner that Vietnamese were treated in order to win over the populace to gain that support necessary to isolate pockets of resistance. Nation building also comes to mind, there in Vietnam there wasn't a concerted effort to improve the country of S. Vietnam, whereas in A-stan ISAF the US and countries like India are actively attempting to build up Afghan infrastructure. Not rebuild, but actually build, since the country is really quite backwards in regards to that.

There isn't an 'overuse' of air power by any means. In Vietnam the overuse was that it was simply carpet bombing the North, and Cambodia and Laos in order to disrupts a supply line that simply was not getting disrupted. It was also used as a tool to take the fight to the North without actually taking the fight to the North, which obviously didn't work. In Afghanistan, air power is used as a shield and a force multiplier. The common tactic is for a squad sized element(12-15) to go against a 40-50 man taliban element. Taliban attacks when they have a larger force, in which case force multipliers are necessary in order to effectively combat the enemy and minimize your own casualties. Drone strikes and other surgical hits on specified targets in Pakistan could be argued as overuse of air power, but I don't think so. Collateral damage may occur, but find me a war without any of that and I'll buy you a million cookies with huge chocolate chips. The precision strikes utilized now are a far cry from the carpet bombing B-52s of yesteryear.

A lesson that can be learned from both Vietnam and Iraq, is let the commander's on the ground take control rather than politicians and arm chair generals in DC. When they started to listen to the guys in the know, Iraq turned around. Vietnam was a sick example of how politicians can really muck up a war, very similiar to Britains own foray into A-stan (allowing politicians to make military decisions doesn't go well).

So yes, some comparisons can lessons can be learned. Namely, keep politicians out of the military aspects, don't isolate yourself from the population (Ie body counts and lack of concern for who you harm), saturate the area with your presence and provide security for that population rather than go out on patrols looking for body counts. We had to alter our styles and tactics, where yuo literally had in the 6-5(infantry bible) search and destroy patrols, pretty much had to add presence patrols -- which was literally like a cop walking a beat. There's a few other things as well, but these to me are the major ones. I don't see a problem with looking to history and trying to learn lessons from previous bouts (you can even learn some stuff from the Marines fighting in the banana republics as long ago as the late 1800s early 1900s). You just have to be objective about it rather than making a broad all encompassing comparison like many people do, you have to pick and choose what's applicable and evaluate each bullet point you pick to ensure it can be applied.

**Keravnos** · August 07, 2009, 01:39 AM

a very good analysis. Thanks for it.
+rep (oops, can't at the moment)

**~~Exarch~~** · August 07, 2009, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Jin

Some comparisons can be drawn. For instance, not treating the people in the manner that Vietnamese were treated in order to win over the populace to gain that support necessary to isolate pockets of resistance. Nation building also comes to mind, there in Vietnam there wasn't a concerted effort to improve the country of S. Vietnam, whereas in A-stan ISAF the US and countries like India are actively attempting to build up Afghan infrastructure. Not rebuild, but actually build, since the country is really quite backwards in regards to that.

There isn't an 'overuse' of air power by any means. In Vietnam the overuse was that it was simply carpet bombing the North, and Cambodia and Laos in order to disrupts a supply line that simply was not getting disrupted. It was also used as a tool to take the fight to the North without actually taking the fight to the North, which obviously didn't work. In Afghanistan, air power is used as a shield and a force multiplier. The common tactic is for a squad sized element(12-15) to go against a 40-50 man taliban element. Taliban attacks when they have a larger force, in which case force multipliers are necessary in order to effectively combat the enemy and minimize your own casualties. Drone strikes and other surgical hits on specified targets in Pakistan could be argued as overuse of air power, but I don't think so. Collateral damage may occur, but find me a war without any of that and I'll buy you a million cookies with huge chocolate chips. The precision strikes utilized now are a far cry from the carpet bombing B-52s of yesteryear.

A lesson that can be learned from both Vietnam and Iraq, is let the commander's on the ground take control rather than politicians and arm chair generals in DC. When they started to listen to the guys in the know, Iraq turned around. Vietnam was a sick example of how politicians can really muck up a war, very similiar to Britains own foray into A-stan (allowing politicians to make military decisions doesn't go well).

So yes, some comparisons can lessons can be learned. Namely, keep politicians out of the military aspects, don't isolate yourself from the population (Ie body counts and lack of concern for who you harm), saturate the area with your presence and provide security for that population rather than go out on patrols looking for body counts. We had to alter our styles and tactics, where yuo literally had in the 6-5(infantry bible) search and destroy patrols, pretty much had to add presence patrols -- which was literally like a cop walking a beat. There's a few other things as well, but these to me are the major ones. I don't see a problem with looking to history and trying to learn lessons from previous bouts (you can even learn some stuff from the Marines fighting in the banana republics as long ago as the late 1800s early 1900s). You just have to be objective about it rather than making a broad all encompassing comparison like many people do, you have to pick and choose what's applicable and evaluate each bullet point you pick to ensure it can be applied.

interesting, capn jin
just wanted to know, how do you win over the locals when the taliban can appeal to common religion, and say you guys are colonial invaders etc etc

that brings to mind a scene from 'good morning vietnam' where robin williams' viet friend was also a VC officer

**Major.Stupidity** · August 07, 2009, 02:02 AM

Drone strikes and other surgical hits on specified targets in Pakistan could be argued as overuse of air power, but I don't think so. Collateral damage may occur, but find me a war without any of that and I'll buy you a million cookies with huge chocolate chips. The precision strikes utilized now are a far cry from the carpet bombing B-52s of yesteryea

But doesn't drone strikes work against winning locals over, especially when they kill civilians no matter how "precision they are"?

just wanted to know, how do you win over the locals when the taliban can appeal to common religion, and say you guys are colonial invaders etc etc

I think its a bit more sophisticated then just appealing to "common religion" in that many individuals join an insurgency for things that aren't related to religion, in that they join out of vengeance for a family member killed, or to resist foreign occupation which has no sectarian divides.

**ivan_the_terrible** · August 07, 2009, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Major.Stupidity

But doesn't drone strikes work against winning locals over, especially when they kill civilians no matter how "precision they are"?

Phrases like 'precision bombing', 'smart weapons', 'decapitation strikes' etc are a way to positively frame the unpleasant - and more or less unavoidable - realities of war in order to not lose popular support at home.

The military usually use this language in their official press releases and the like, and most news media pick it up without question.

**Captain Jin** · August 07, 2009, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by ivan_the_terrible

Phrases like 'precision bombing', 'smart weapons', 'decapitation strikes' etc are a way to positively frame the unpleasant - and more or less unavoidable - realities of war in order to not lose popular support at home.

The military usually use this language in their official press releases and the like, and most news media pick it up without question.

This is true too. But you can't deny the differences either. Granted, the military has to be media conscious, but you make it seem as though a guided bomb is the same as carpet bombing or some such, and that only the name was changed. It is in fact precision bombing because you're able to select and drop on a specific target, rather than bombing the entire city just to destroy one target-- thus by definition that is a precision bombing. Unfortunately it's not without inconsistency and therefore there is still collateral damage. But the difference is undeniable.

**nopasties** · August 07, 2009, 02:04 AM

For those who don't follow link

McAllister cited analogies between the two wars:
• In both wars, security forces had an overwhelming advantage in firepower over lightly armed but highly mobile guerrillas.

• Insurgents in both cases were able to use safe havens in neighboring countries to regroup and re-equip.
_He pointed to McChrystal's order to limit airstrikes and prevent civilian casualties, linking it to the overuse of air power in Vietnam which resulted in massive civilian deaths.
McAllister drew a parallel to another failed political strategy from Vietnam — the presidential election.
"That ('67 ballot) helped ensure that U.S. efforts would continue to be compromised by its support for a corrupt, unpopular regime in Saigon," McAllister said.
Rufus Phillips, Holbrooke's boss in Vietnam and author of the book "Why Vietnam Matters," echoed that warning.
"The rigged election in South Vietnam proved (to be) the most destructive and destabilizing factor of all," said Phillips, now in Kabul helping to monitor the upcoming election.
David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency specialist who will soon assume a role as a senior adviser to McChrystal, compared Karzai to South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.
"He has a reasonably clean personal reputation but he's seen as ineffective; his family are corrupt; he's alienated a very substantial portion of the population," Kilcullen said Thursday at the U.S. Institute of Peace. "He seems paranoid and delusional and out of touch with reality," he said. "That's all the sort of things that were said about President Diem in 1963."

book written by Stanley Karnlow- Vietnam a History
I have not followed the current A-Stan war muh and never read up on Vietnam much to add. It seems to me America controlled the urban areas in both these wars but had trouble in the rural areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Wali_Karzai is a problem and the decentralized power structure is a problem in Afganistan. Vietnam had Ho Chi Minh, the Taliban does not. Many Taliban fighters do it for economic reasons whereas Vietnamese had more of an ideological and personal reason to fight.

**Captain Jin** · August 07, 2009, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Exarch

interesting, capn jin
just wanted to know, how do you win over the locals when the taliban can appeal to common religion, and say you guys are colonial invaders etc etc

that brings to mind a scene from 'good morning vietnam' where robin williams' viet friend was also a VC officer

Well, this can be a problem especially in regards to Islam, because I think we've seen on a global scale there is a lot of solidarity when it comes to that religion.

The idea is to appeal to their sensibilities. It's important to remind them that that ISAF isn't out to squash their freedom to practice their religion, and indeed is there to ensure that their own interpertation of Islam can be practiced the way they wish to practice it without fear of reprisals from their own government. If that means choosing to have your wife simply wear a head scarf rather than the entire veil and what not, then so be it. It's the freedom to choose for yourself (complete equality between men and women would be a stretch, though).

In addition, to be honest the Taliban only regained a foothold in those isolated villages and towns that were void of any government of ISAF presence. They chose the Taliban not because they were the best option, but because they were the only option. People needed courts, 'rules' and someone to mediate disputes and the Taliban stepped in to fill that void and it's cost some support in those rural regions. You secure those population centers and then you chase off the Taliban into hinterland and you eradicate them outside of pop. centers and in doing so limit collateral damage which in turn leads to additional local support. On top of that you are doing whatever you can to gain that local support, whether it's digging new wells for water in a town, or putting a generator or two in allowing the people limited electricity etc. Pass out soccer balls, school supplies and stuff. These small gestures go a long long way. Medicine for the sick, and for the children etc. Meanwhile you've locked down the towns with checkpoints preventing Taliban infiltration on any notable scale and keep them from getting weapons into the population centers while you've got lighter more capable units out chasing them around in country side till you kill them all. This was applied in Iraq in a similar manner and it worked very well.

The problem in Afghanistan is that they flee to Pakistan to regroup and re-arm, but hopefully as Pakistan attempts greater and greater military operations against the Taliban it'll be enough, though I doubt it. Obviously there's the problem of the internal afghan politics as well, but that can be said about Iraq as well and I think if you secure the population and make them feel safe until you can start getting some form of government institutions out there to support those people and establish security forces for them so they feel safer than they ever have then you would be good.

Lock down those civic centers with Army units and Afghan police. Fight the Taliban in the hills and countryside with Marines, LAVs, and other mechanized units.

But doesn't drone strikes work against winning locals over, especially when they kill civilians no matter how "precision they are"?

To degree, but I think it's not a notable level. Airpower was used a lot in the earlier phases of Iraq and it wasn't a point of contention for Iraqis on a scale that was enough to turn the tide against us.

As nopasties had put in his quote there, I highly recommend reading David Kilcullen's thoughts about Afghanistan. He was a key player in the development of surge in Iraq and he's got solid ideas about Afghanistan that I agree with just about whole heartedly.

**nopasties** · August 07, 2009, 02:43 AM

interviews with Stanley Karnow
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6923 1995
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3778 2000

discussion with Karnow comparing Iraq to Vietnam
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...nam_11-23.html
http://www.lib.washington.edu/southe...y%20Karnow.htm

audio sample of vietnam book
http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/ope...e=Audio+Sample

**SonOfOdin** · August 07, 2009, 05:41 AM

"History Repeats itself because people never learn" - quote from somewhere in ETW

**ivan_the_terrible** · August 07, 2009, 07:38 AM

Of course there is a difference. You can't really fault the military for trying to frame their actions positively either - they're simply operating in a system where public support is necessary. It's only natural for them to want to maximise it.

**Captain Jin** · August 07, 2009, 08:12 AM

Most definitely. It's actually sad you have to wage a PR war along with a war but whatever.

**Mikelus Trento** · August 07, 2009, 08:32 AM

There are significant differences between the 2 conflicts...

1. The American military is all volunteer vs a draft force. Therefore morale will be better.
2. The terrain is about as different as you can get...desert and mountains vs jungles and hills
3. The insurgency was fully supported by a nation (N. Vietnam) who committed their regular army. This would be the same as if Pakistani regular troops were actively fighting in Afghanistan.
4. The insurgency, and N. Vietnam were supported by 2 military great powers, China and the USSR.
5. This support also included airpower, and although outclassed, it was surely more than the non-existant Taliban air force.
6. The US's support for Afghanistan is much greater, and most see it as a response to a direct attack on the USA. There was no precipitating event in Vietnam.
7. Technology has improved many fold since the 60s and 70s.

**Sphere** · August 07, 2009, 10:09 AM

It is important to note how the conflict in A-stan is more closely related to Vietnam than Iraq. Iraq is a highly urbanized society where the US military was able to park infantry units in an area and police the streets, wall off area's, impose the rule of law etc. That is never going to be an option in A-stan which has a larger population that is very spread out among small, remote villages.The same was true in Vietnam, which also had a very rural population.

This gives Al Qaida and the Taliban the advantage in that they are able to slip from village to village to intimidate the local population, and maintain a power base. This cannot be countered by parking infantry units in each and every village, as there are not enough soildiers in the entire US military to make that a reality, and it would rub agaisnt the seclusive and closed nature of these small villages.

The US has to be mindful of not repeating the same mistake of chasing insurgents around the country side, causing large civilian casualties without doing much damage to the enemy. They have to find away to win over these myriad of small villages so that vital intelligence can flow to the coalition forces. Also they need create and organize enough local militia so that free travel is denied to the insurgents.

**RussoAmiTurristo** · August 07, 2009, 10:50 AM

It doesn't matter. Study Afghanistan and Vietnam all you want. You forget the underlying fact that Afghanis are stupid, backward, and thus stuborn. They see the US as an occupier and they we will fight for years. I say we withdraw and periodically bomb them with uav's and predators. Afghanistan is a waste of time and money. Even more so than Iraq. You'll say it's to fight radical islam. But that

's virtually present in every islamic country. You need espionage and cooperation with said islamic country's security apparatuses. BTW the UAV is the only thing we need there.

Proof:

The death of top Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud has been confirmed by a close associate and Pakistani officials in South Waziristan, Aaj TV reported Aug 7. According to Mehsud’s associate, Kifayatullah, both Pakistani intelligence and Taliban sources reported that Mehsud and his second wife were killed by a U.S. drone strike on Aug. 5 on the house of his father-in-law, Ikramuddin.

(later in the text)
That Mehsud was killed by a U.S. airstrike shows improved cooperation between U.S. and Pakistani intelligence agencies and indicates that the drone strikes are taking place with Islamabad’s approval, despite the public statements by Pakistani officials that these drone strikes were a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/200...itullah_mehsud
That

got his ass blown sky high.

P.S. You'll say this new strategy of giving them presents will work. Maybe but it will take years and money. I personally don't think they are worth the money.

**Gumpfendorfer** · August 07, 2009, 02:10 PM

The US has to be mindful of not repeating the same mistake of chasing insurgents around the country side, causing large civilian casualties without doing much damage to the enemy. They have to find away to win over these myriad of small villages so that vital intelligence can flow to the coalition forces. Also they need create and organize enough local militia so that free travel is denied to the insurgents.

Very true.

Killcullen by the way was quoted today in my newspaper saying the US has about two years ahead of hard fighting, if there is not going to be any serious progress within that time frame, the change we'd all be packing our bags is quite real.

You forget the underlying fact that Afghanis are stupid, backward, and thus stuborn. They see the US as an occupier and they we will fight for years.

Anyone making statements like that should ask himself whether he -or she- is intelligent enough to understand multi layered, very complex issues. I mean don't let facts get in your way, such as that the majority of Afghans actually wants us to be there... stubborn is with two b's

**Treize** · August 07, 2009, 02:13 PM

About...

About trying to remove regimes that are not friendly to you, that has alot of popular support and replace them with a puppet government that everyone dislikes?
Or what?

**Gumpfendorfer** · August 07, 2009, 02:39 PM

About trying to remove regimes that are not friendly to you, that has alot of popular support and replace them with a puppet government that everyone dislikes?

It's the other way around, it wasn't exactly that the Taliban were popular in 2001. The constant massacres, the collapse of the entire economy, and even after several years of the Taliban rule corruption and power abuse by local warlords was on the rise again. They were peasants running the country.

Even the Taliban were running against the same brick wall NATO is running in to at the moment. It's thick, very thick.

**s.rwitt** · August 07, 2009, 02:54 PM

interesting, capn jin
just wanted to know, how do you win over the locals when the taliban can appeal to common religion, and say you guys are colonial invaders etc etc

Hopefully we can get them to appreciate the fact that they share a common religion with their government and security forces. If they support and trust the ANA, even if they still consider us occupiers, we can accomplish what is happening in Iraq.