Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: A Bunch of Reasons Why Iraq Is Not Like Vietnam
James Dunnigan    11/17/2003 9:55:48 PM

Between March 19 and October 30, 2003, American troops in Iraq have suffered about .9 percent casualties (dead, wounded, or hospitalized for non-combat causes) a month. During the nine year Vietnam war, the rate was 44 percent higher (1.3 percent a month). Moreover, during Vietnam, combat caused sixty percent of the injuries, while in Iraq, combat has only caused 23 percent of the injuries. Thus U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering .21 percent combat casualties a month compared to more than three times the rate (.78 percent) during the Vietnam war. The non-combat injury rate in Vietnam (.52 percent a month) was actually lower than the rate in Iraq (.69 percent). Much of this difference is accounted for by four factors;

1- Iraq is a less healthy place for Americans than Vietnam. Although both are tropical countries, Iraq and the Persian Gulf have long been known as less hospitable, heathwise, to Westerners.

2- More women serving in units. Women in the field, just like women in sports, suffer a higher rate of bone and muscle injuries than men. The reason is simple; men have thicker bones and more muscle mass to protect them while performing the frequent physical labor required in a combat zone.

3- The average age of troops in Iraq, because everyone is a volunteer and there are lots of reservists, is several years higher than the Vietnam war average of 23 years. Older troops, especially the many reservists in their 30s and 40s, are more prone to injury and illness.

4- Medical care has become more accurate in the past forty years and the armed forces are more likely to spot a problem earlier and act. Better diagnostic capabilities are sending troops home for conditions (early stages of cancer or other slow moving illnesses) that no one could have spotted in Vietnam.

Keep in mind that the Vietnam figures are averages for 13 years (1962-75) of action by American troops in and around Vietnam. During that period, some 2.8 million American troops served over there. Moreover, the level of combat activity varied considerably from year to year. Fighting didn't really get serious (for Americans), until 1966, when 6,053 died (including 1,045 non-combat deaths.) Deaths peaked in 1968 (16,511) and trailed off considerably from 1972 (when 561 died) to 1975 (when all American troops, mainly advisors and trainers) left.

The nature of combat was also quite different in Vietnam. There it was a civil war where one side (the communists) had adjacent nations (North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia) that could be used for sanctuaries and major nations (Russia, China) supplying weapons, money and other support. As a result, most of the fighting was not against guerillas (who were largely wiped out in the 1968 Tet Offensive, a point largely missed by the American media at the time), but by North Vietnamese army units hiding in the South Vietnamese jungle. This kind of fighting involved a lot of helicopters, and 18 percent of American deaths were helicopter related (combat, and non-combat accidents.) This is more than twice the rate so far in Iraq. Same with the bombs and booby traps, which accounted for 12 percent of casualties in Vietnam, versus more than twice that rate in Iraq. The nature of the Vietnam fighting was largely gun battles in the jungle, and this was seen by the fact that, for the first time since the American Civil War, the majority of army combat deaths (61 percent) were from gunfire in Vietnam. The enemy didn't have a lot of artillery (as the foe did in Korea and the World Wars), so there were a lot of firefights in the bush. Iraqis are not very accurate with rifles, and U.S. troops have excellent body armor.

Finally, the reporting of casualties is different in Iraq. There is no "body count" (of enemy dead) mentality, a deliberate decision meant to avoid the mistakes encountered with that sort of thing in Vietnam. According to communist estimates (they admit they have no precise figures), guerilla and North Vietnamese army losses in South Vietnam were some 800,000 dead and 2.1 million sick and wounded. This is against 261,000 Allied combat deaths (mostly South Vietnamese), and 700,000 wounded. There were also 420,000 civilian deaths (mostly in the south) and 1.2 million injured. Iraq is very different, with much more precise firepower and many more journalists running around looking for the few civilian deaths that do occur. But the deaths among those attacking coalition troops is high, but deliberately not reported regularly by the military. However, every time there is an armed encounter with American troops, a detailed report is prepared. This is used to determine if current tactics and procedures could be improved and, if so, the changes are made within hours, or days. While the number of Iraqi attacker deaths are not made public, the higher fees paid to the attackers by Baath Party leaders and increased use of remote controlled bombs indicates that getting too close to A

 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Worcester    RE:A Bunch of Reasons Why Iraq Is Not Like Vietnam   11/18/2003 6:16:40 PM
You might add that professional soldiers are better trained and their casualties have less impact in a society without the draft.
 
Quote    Reply

Scorpene    RE:A Bunch of Reasons Why Iraq Is Not Like Vietnam   11/18/2003 7:51:18 PM
All good points, however, I think the biggest difference is how the whole nation's imagination is being captured by every single casualty and incident that is occurring over there. Not to say that the news media and public opinion didn't have a lot to do with Vietnam, but can you even imagine what the current crop of journalists, leaders, and Hollywood types would do with 55,000 dead troops? Ho Chi Minh understood that our center of gravity was these reporters, loud mouths, and our national self-consciousness when the TV comes on. But could Uncle Ho have imagined the current state of affairs? We would have never made it to 1972, and the Russians would have certainly attacked before 1980.
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:A Bunch of Reasons Why Iraq Is Not Like Vietnam   11/19/2003 3:48:48 PM
Media wags the dog, agreed. And casualties deserve to be among the headlines. The Brit experience (100% professional military since 1958) shows that (1) a professional force is more effective in the field and (2)casualties attract less attention at home ("it's not my son"). A by-product is better media control. EXPERIENCE: In 1975 the average service of US army enlisted personnel was 2 1/2 years (20 year old sergeants); the British was 8 years; and NATO had mandated that less than 2 years was ineffective on a modern battlefield. Direct experience and maturity count, but so does the saturation of "institutional memory" within the unit from previous campaigns. CASUALTIES: 1968 was the ONLY year in the last 300 hundred when the Brits had NO K.I.A.'s. And, since 1945: Malaya, Palestine, Cyprus (31 years and counting), Kenya, Guiana, Suez, Kuwait (1963 - 2nd time for them), Borneo, Radfan/Oman, Falklands, Gulf 1 (3rd for them), Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan (3rd time), Gulf 2 (4th for them) plus Northern Ireland (34 years...). So 1968 was the EXCEPTION to a steady list of casualties. The Falklands, for example, was six weeks, but the three on the ground exceeded the averages in Vietnam and with a fraction of the force; small but nasty. Northern Ireland has averaged 0.7 KIA per week for 34 years. Try doing that with draftees! Keep it professional, keep KIA average below 1 per week, make unit roulement frequent enough to ensure re-enlistment and Iraq can go on for years. Vietnam vs. Iraq? The difference? Soldiering is a profession and, like any other, makes short work of the imexperienced.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:A Bunch of Reasons Why Iraq Is Not Like Vietnam   11/20/2003 8:53:48 AM
I think the comparison to Vietnam should be the Thet offensive, as that is what i gather is happening now. The saddamites cannot hope for outside reinforcement!
 
Quote    Reply

crashnburn    RE:A Bunch of Reasons Why Iraq Is Not Like Vietnam   11/21/2003 1:53:35 AM
The modern American military machine being designed for and by the professional does help considerably. The one thing that does aggrevate me though is the media coverage of 'IRAQ'. Casualties are fine to report, but we also deserve a better more in depth reporting on the rebuilding processes. But as always that doesn't sell TV time now does it???
 
Quote    Reply

   RE:A Bunch of Reasons Why Iraq Is Not Like Vietnam   12/9/2003 5:32:36 PM
The situation could be akin to the pre-tet situation in Vietnam. Syria, Iran, and Al Queda are probably supporting the Saddamites to some extent. But prob not to the extent that NV & and the Sovs were supporting the viet-cong. The "Ramadan" offensive was no where close to the ferocity of Tet, but on the other hand the institutional memory of the press, and probably much of the general public can't make that distinction. The reporting is trying to paint parallels. We are basically in year one of an evolving situation. The AQ loonies and the Saddamites (and the anti-war left) are battling for the will of the US Gov't. If that will can be sapped, then the situation politically becomes very much like Vietnam. AQ is the wildcard here. If they manage a new Terrorist attack in the west they may very well harden the attitudes of a lot of Americans that would supply the gov't with enough intestinal fortitude to stay the course. The countervailing wildcard is the anti-war left. In Vietnam it coalesced during the war. In this conflict it is in place and on the ground ahead of time and operating as a "fifth-column" in the political dimension of the conflict from the outset. The professional army analysis is interesting, and I probably don't have too much to add to that. But I don't know that the American and British military traditions are that similar. The latter with regimental histories that go back unbroken hundreds of years probably draw on a larger body of esprit d'corps than an army that has been based on citizen-soldiers for most of it's history. Scottila Scottila
 
Quote    Reply

MikeG    RE:A Bunch of Reasons Why Iraq Is Not Like Vietnam   12/21/2003 8:11:22 AM
I remember VN.... and the govt press statements sound almost word for word like VN...
 
Quote    Reply

Prometheus Bound    RE:A Bunch of Reasons Why Iraq Is Not Like Vietnam   12/22/2003 1:15:22 AM
I'm surprised that no mentioned this: Sand vs. jungle. That simple fact alone is enough to completely distinguish the two. Not enough? how about this: the vc were dedicated and innovative. Those fighting against us in Iraq are not (at least until AQ gets it going)
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics