Vietnam and Iraq wars?

Question

Okay so i have to write a 1000 word essay contrasting these two wars.. like the similarities and differences (including some info from the point of view of the US). Im no good at history AT ALL so i read up on them both and have a general understanding of them. One of them is about Communism and capitalism (Vietnam) and one about arms and weapons (Iraq). they are completely different and the only similarity i can think of is that the US joined to regain peace and structure. Im in grade twelve so i figure i should go in depth a bit but i have such a hard time in history :( if anyone has any info that might help id appreciate it soooooo much!
or you could just write my essay for me xD ahahah juuust kidding :)

Answer 1

Similarities between the two wars --



In Vietnam the US violated the "1954 Geneva Agreements on Indochina" even as they were being signed, and this led directly to the Second Indochina (Vietnam) War starting.

With Iraq the US violated the UN Charter and invaded Iraq.



With Vietnam the US used the "Communist" expansion threat as an excuse to intervene in Vietnam. In Iraq the US used the "WMD" excuse.



Vietnam had oil, minerals and rubber as export commodities and the US needed them. Iraq has oil.



In Vietnam the US installed a right-wing anti-communist military dictator, Ngo Dien Diem and supported his subsequent replacements. In Iraq they installed a undemocratic government which is not liked by the people.



The US supported the Viet Minh during WW-2 (training and arming them) then apposed them during the First Indochina War (1947-1954) in the fight against the French (the US armed the French) and the US continued to appose the Viet Minh after 1954.

The US armed Saddam Hussein when he was their ally against Iran then turned against him after that war.



The terminology for the enemy was similar. In Vietnam the US did not use the correct names for the fighting enemy -- The National Liberation Front of Southern Vietnam (NLF) became "Viet Cong", a shortened slang for Vietnamese Communist, something that less than 4% of the NLF members were. The Peoples Army of Vietnam (PAVN) was inaccurately called the North Vietnamese Army (NVA).

In Iraq the enemy was called "Terrorists" or members of Al Queida (which they were not until some 4-6 months after the US invasion).

By giving the enemy inaccurate names, the US attempts to turn people against those enemy and obtain support for their own actions.



Contrasts between conflicts. --



In Vietnam most of the people supported the Viet Minh, and its leader, Ho Chi Minh, and the idea of Vietnamese independence which he was fighting for.

In Iraq it was the opposite. Most people did not like Saddam Hussein and he was a military dictator who killed people who belonged to another Islamic sect plus killing the Kurds.



Vietnam was a slow build-up of troops while in Iraq it was a rapid invasion.



In Vietnam the troops did most of the fighting and security work. In Iraq the fighting was done early by the troops then "security work" was contracted out to "security contractors" and many other jobs that were done by the military in Vietnam because contract jobs in Iraq.



Edit:

In 1954 the "government of Vietnam" was the Viet Minh and its allies and they went on to become the government of the Peoples Republic of Vietnam. There was no government at the time that became the (southern) Republic of Vietnam. The main signatories to the agreements were France and the Viet Minh.

Yes, the US did not sign the agreements, but they promised to "abide" by the agreements. They were violating the agreements even as they made the promise.

The majority of the Vietnamese were supportive of the Viet Minh -- Even the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dallas, is quoted as saying, "We cannot allow elections to take place in the south as Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh will win at least 80% of the votes" in a free election.

Hanoi has always stated they sent PAVN troops to the south in mid 1965 shortly after the US committed the "first US fighting troops, the US marines". The "battle of Ia Drang" in November 1965 was the first battle between PAVN & US troops (in this case the newly created US Army-Airborne).

Gulf War-1 was in 1991 while the Iran-Iraq war was 1980-1988.



I could nitpick other aspects of Gerald's answer, but these are just some of his inaccuracies.

Answer 2

A uniformed force (US)fighting a hit and run gorilla enemy. Both wars are 10 plus years long.The rising up by civilians against the wars. The cost both in lives,material ,the hard cost of wars, including the VETs under VA care since the 60s.The weapons were the same M16-AK 47s,ammunition used in the same.Both wars had the white house attempting to run them. John

Answer 3

that first answer is trash and at the same time its true. While they were considered wars, they scaled more like conflicts. I do have an idea as for the contrast part of your paper, and that is in dealing with EPW's (enemy prisoners of war). Research how things were handled in Vietnam and then in Iraq.

Answer 4

The United States government never signed the Geneva Accords. Neither did the Government of Vietnam which eventually became the Republic of Vietnam. They didn't sign the accords because the disapproved of dividing Vietnam to begin with, and did not trust that a fair election could be held within two years. Neither government was obligated to honor a treaty they had not signed.



In both Southeast Asia and the Middle East the United States was worried that if left unchecked the aggressive nature of the opponents (Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam and Saddam Hussein in Iraq) could and/or would lead to expanded wars that could explode into WW III. In both cases the US interests in ensuring neither conflict could or would expand beyond a regional problem. In short, we are trying to keep a lid on little things that historically sparked WW I and WW II.



The US did not "install" a government in either South Vietnam or Iraq. Both governments were elected by the people of the couturiers which they governed.



The US government had mutually beneficial contact with Ho Chi Minh during WW II, and Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Iraq (First Gulf) War. The presumption that we somehow crated these two monsters is a completely incorrect view of history. Ho never did much against the Japanese. Saddam pinned down the Iranians for several years. It was in America's interest to oppose Japan during WW II and Iran in the wake of the Hostage Crises.



Nitpicking about what we called the Communist forces and how they wanted to style themselves is a bogus argument. They called us "air pirates, Imperialists, colonialists," and a lot of unprintable names too. We called them the VC (Viet Cong) and the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). Frankly, they liked the "VC" label and adapted it themselves. They always claimed the NVA was never in the country until after the Final Offensive in 1975.



The Iraqi Army was never called terrorists (although they acted like it when they occupied Kuwait and gassed the Kurds). Iraq hosted terrorists, gave them a safe haven to organize, train, and launch attacks from. He claimed to have Weapons of Mass Destruction (implying he had stockpiles of chemical and possibly biological weapons). He was mostly bluffing to intimidate his neighbors, but we called his bluff. He lost.





By giving the Americans inaccurate names, the Communists attempted to turn people against us and obtain support for their own actions. (Thanks Walter, I couldn't have said it without you.)



Most of the people of South Vietnam supported the government of South Vietnam. When given the opportunity to rally to the Communists cause in 1965, 1968, 1972, and (even) in 1975 when the jig was up and everyone knew the Communists were going to win, the people of South Vietnam rallied to the Republic of Vietnam, not the Communist invaders (and the NVA was considered to be at least a "foreign" as the Americans by the South Vietnamese people).



Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist, and few Iraqis were sorry to see him go. But they were not all that happy to see the American occupation of their country either. Our best hope in Iraq is to leave them with as stable a government as possible, then let them hash out their own differences. We can't allow a Civil War to spill over into other countries in the region (and may have to intervene gain) but they are never going to find their own balance as long as we are there propping them up.



Vietnam escalated as the Communists sent more troops and weapons south to try and overthrow the government. In a way Iraq escalated too. After the Desert Storm cease-fire Saddam limited, harassed, then banned the UN teams ensuring that his stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction were neutralized. After banning the inspectors he started hinting that Iraq had store they had never found, or had built new stores over several years. He is now accused of bluffing, but there is some evidence what stockpiles he had were moved to Syria before the American invasion.

Answer 5

First of all, neither of those are wars. If anything, I would call them Conflicts but mostly they are just Interventions.