WI: Another Vietnam After Vietnam

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Total lack of strategic co-ordination and inability to direct joint operations properly, as well as the failure to understand anything about their enemy and to adjust when the enemy adjusted. Too, there was the draft an poor force structure it left as another obvious difference.

Okay, the lack of adjustment to enemy tactics and strategy applies to Iraq too, just in different ways.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Okay, the lack of adjustment to enemy tactics and strategy applies to Iraq too, just in different ways.

Yes, but Iraq is not Vietnam for the good reason that Iraq and Afghanistan were simultaneously managed by volunteer armies. Vietnam was fought by the WWII-style army.

[serbrcq]

Originally Posted by Chris S

3. Since Iran's Islamic revolutionaries couldn't possibly hope for North Vietnam and Vietcong levels of support from any outside power (even the USSR and China) then US casualties should be a great deal lower than in Vietnam. Maybe on the order of 400 US deaths a month maximum and averaging around 200 deaths a month.

Not sure I'm with you on this one. If the Cold War taught us anything, it's that ideological considerations take a backseat to power politics - I could definitely see the Soviets funneling NVA levels of military aid to the Islamic revolutionaries and speaking of the invasion as an act of American imperialism intended to place the Shah back in power. The Islamists, similarly, would tone down their rhetoric about Afghanistan and form temporary alliances with the left.

Think of the American support for the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Yes, but Iraq is not Vietnam for the good reason that Iraq and Afghanistan were simultaneously managed by volunteer armies. Vietnam was fought by the WWII-style army.

Yes, although it's interesting to note that this caused severe manpower restraints.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, the US could get pulled into Iran during the 1980s.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Yes, although it's interesting to note that this caused severe manpower restraints.

Additionally, as others have pointed out, the US could get pulled into Iran during the 1980s.

However that's not the same problem as Vietnam, where the issues were completely different ones. *If* the USA were in a situation where it raised a new draft it'd actually have to re-learn a lot of the same lessons it knew in older wars, but that would not itself be another Vietnam.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

However that's not the same problem as Vietnam, where the issues were completely different ones. *If* the USA were in a situation where it raised a new draft it'd actually have to re-learn a lot of the same lessons it knew in older wars, but that would not itself be another Vietnam.

Well, I think we may be talking past each other somewhat.

What I'm thinking of with Vietnam is a guerrilla conflict where the US military is an intractable position, i.e. trying to defeat a unconventional military with conventional tactics while having no ability to exit cleanly. That's it. Whether the military is draft based or not, or whether it's using tactics from WW2 isn't what is relevant here.

What I should've said is got stuck in another intractable guerrilla conflict, as that would be far more accurate, my apologies.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Well, I think we may be talking past each other somewhat.

What I'm thinking of with Vietnam is a guerrilla conflict where the US military is an intractable position, i.e. trying to defeat a unconventional military with conventional tactics while having no ability to exit cleanly. That's it. Whether the military is draft based or not, or whether it's using tactics from WW2 isn't what is relevant here.

What I should've said is got stuck in another intractable guerrilla conflict, as that would be far more accurate, my apologies.

That's because Vietnam wasn't just an unconventional war. It was a mixture of both, requiring both skill sets. The USA never lost a battle in that war, but it lost the war due to logistical and strategic issues. Iraq and Afghanistan are very different wars against different enemies who don't have a major ideological super-center turbocharging them with infinite logistics.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

That's because Vietnam wasn't just an unconventional war. It was a mixture of both, requiring both skill sets. The USA never lost a battle in that war, but it lost the war due to logistical and strategic issues. Iraq and Afghanistan are very different wars against different enemies who don't have a major ideological super-center turbocharging them with infinite logistics.

Okay, the last I'd say could be replicated. If the US gets dragged into a war against Iran, the USSR may fund it out of realpolitik, and Iran has an even larger hostile populace to deal with compared to Vietnam. It even has the elements of propping up a government that has no traction with the populace, i.e. the Shah.

[Chris S]

Originally Posted by serbrcq

Not sure I'm with you on this one. If the Cold War taught us anything, it's that ideological considerations take a backseat to power politics - I could definitely see the Soviets funneling NVA levels of military aid to the Islamic revolutionaries and speaking of the invasion as an act of American imperialism intended to place the Shah back in power. The Islamists, similarly, would tone down their rhetoric about Afghanistan and form temporary alliances with the left.

Think of the American support for the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam.

I wasn't precluding any assistance. Just the level of assistance that the NVA or DPRK got from the USSR and China for instance. Even American support for the Khmer Rouge falls very far short in comparison. The Khmer Rouge weren't being supplied with with F-4s and SAMs. They were being supplied with money, food, medicines and political support and at best some small arms. And the level of assistance was nowhere near enough to drive the Vietnamese out of Cambodia. It was an end of Soviet support that lead to Vietnam withdrawing because the tab had become too expensive. Even so the leader they left behind in Cambodia (Hun Sen) continued to rule for another 3-4 years after a complete Vietnamese withdrawal.

As the USSR and USA both apparently provided assistance to both Iraq and Iran during the OTL Iran-Iraq War, I could certainly see the Soviets providing Iranian rebels of all stripes some kind of assistance. But it definitely would not be on the same level provided to the Vietnamese. It would be a case of the USSR having an interest in neither the USA nor the Iranian Islamic Revolutionaries succeeding since one is the Cold War foe and the other would represent the threat of spreading Islamic revolution in the USSR's Muslim republics. It would be similar to how the USSR supported a far-right party in West Germany but you can bet your bottom dollar that if it came down to war, the USSR would not be providing the kind of assistance necessary for that party to gain control of West Germany. There would be other, more practical reasons the USSR would want to see the guerrilla conflict prolonged:

- to serve as a bargaining chip for Afghanistan

- to keep oil and gas prices relatively high due to instability in Iran

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Chris S

I wasn't precluding any assistance. Just the level of assistance that the NVA or DPRK got from the USSR and China for instance. Even American support for the Khmer Rouge falls very far short in comparison. The Khmer Rouge weren't being supplied with with F-4s and SAMs. They were being supplied with money, food, medicines and political support and at best some small arms. And the level of assistance was nowhere near enough to drive the Vietnamese out of Cambodia. It was an end of Soviet support that lead to Vietnam withdrawing because the tab had become too expensive. Even so the leader they left behind in Cambodia (Hun Sen) continued to rule for another 3-4 years after a complete Vietnamese withdrawal.

As the USSR and USA both apparently provided assistance to both Iraq and Iran during the OTL Iran-Iraq War, I could certainly see the Soviets providing Iranian rebels of all stripes some kind of assistance. But it definitely would not be on the same level provided to the Vietnamese. It would be a case of the USSR having an interest in neither the USA nor the Iranian Islamic Revolutionaries succeeding since one is the Cold War foe and the other would represent the threat of spreading Islamic revolution in the USSR's Muslim republics. It would be similar to how the USSR supported a far-right party in West Germany but you can bet your bottom dollar that if it came down to war, the USSR would not be providing the kind of assistance necessary for that party to gain control of West Germany. There would be other, more practical reasons the USSR would want to see the guerrilla conflict prolonged:

- to serve as a bargaining chip for Afghanistan

- to keep oil and gas prices relatively high due to instability in Iran

Yes, but on balance, doesn't Iran have more people, and also, have an even harsher climate than Vietnam? Both of these could cause the US issues, to say the least.

[serbrcq]

Originally Posted by Chris S

I wasn't precluding any assistance. Just the level of assistance that the NVA or DPRK got from the USSR and China for instance. Even American support for the Khmer Rouge falls very far short in comparison. The Khmer Rouge weren't being supplied with with F-4s and SAMs. They were being supplied with money, food, medicines and political support and at best some small arms. And the level of assistance was nowhere near enough to drive the Vietnamese out of Cambodia. It was an end of Soviet support that lead to Vietnam withdrawing because the tab had become too expensive. Even so the leader they left behind in Cambodia (Hun Sen) continued to rule for another 3-4 years after a complete Vietnamese withdrawal.

As the USSR and USA both apparently provided assistance to both Iraq and Iran during the OTL Iran-Iraq War, I could certainly see the Soviets providing Iranian rebels of all stripes some kind of assistance. But it definitely would not be on the same level provided to the Vietnamese. It would be a case of the USSR having an interest in neither the USA nor the Iranian Islamic Revolutionaries succeeding since one is the Cold War foe and the other would represent the threat of spreading Islamic revolution in the USSR's Muslim republics. It would be similar to how the USSR supported a far-right party in West Germany but you can bet your bottom dollar that if it came down to war, the USSR would not be providing the kind of assistance necessary for that party to gain control of West Germany. There would be other, more practical reasons the USSR would want to see the guerrilla conflict prolonged:

- to serve as a bargaining chip for Afghanistan

- to keep oil and gas prices relatively high due to instability in Iran

Yes, I doubt they'd be handing out MiGs to the ayatollahs, but for the reasons you state at the end, they could provide enough aid to provoke a lasting and intractable guerrilla war.

I do think having Islamist Iran on the border would be more palatable to the Soviet leadership than the US Army - especially if that Islamist state, once the US withdraws, is highly damaged by years and years of warfare. In that case, they would be an unstable and friendless regime, and open for co-optation by the Soviets themselves. Economic, medical and military aid for their ruined country in return for turning down the foreign proselytizing and letting the Russians get their warm-water ports? Sounds like a good deal to me, and if some of the more militant ayatollahs like Khomeini were killed by the Americans or bumped off by the KGB in the course of the war, the Iranians might consider it.

[Pesterfield]

If the Soviets do give aid does it have to go entirely to the Islamic faction, maybe a large part of their aid goes to the Communist Party of Iran.

[TxCoatl1970]

The Sovs would have funded the heck out of the Tudeh and MEK, but not the ayatollahs.
They were official atheists very suspicious of their Central Asian republics' stability and loyalty and your idea of funding the very folks guaranteed to bite them in the ass a decade later in their backyard later is ASB.

It'd be like the USA funding Mexican nationalist groups dedicated to the Reconquista of all lands ceded by Treaty of Buena Vista or somesuch.

The Israelis managed to screw themselves by funding Hamas as an answer to the secular PLO so it's not impossible for realpolitik policies to blowback on you.

Iran's far more urbanized, but between the cities are vast expanses of desert, mountainous terrain, and dry steppe that are perfect guerrilla country. You'd have all the fun of Iraqi urban warfare mixed with the fun of chasing mujaehedin in Afghanistan- depending on whether the Tudeh and MEK or whatever resistance group catches on, gets popular support and has the military oomph to get and keep a campaign going.
The main reason that things were such a rugby scrum during the Iranian Revolution between secular and Islamist elements is that SAVAK systematically decapitated any movement vaguely criritcal and thus threatening to the Shah so you had a bunch of dwarfs all scrambling for power and influence once the Shah buggered off.

The problem you run into with a guerrilla war is, if SAVAK if still around in any capacity and allowed free rein, chances of that are near zero. They would inititate a counterinsurgency campaign that made Project Phoenix look like a picnic.

In the last days of the Shah, you saw a total collapse of morale on the royalist army and security forces. Under more effective, respected leadership, they would have no problem rolling up anything short of a Soviet invasion.

If the Sovs tried anything while the Shah or a US-allied government is in place, it's a tripwire to WWIII. The Sovs knew it and preferred to undermine the Iranians from within once the Briitsh and Americans made Iran a strategic priority and ally.

[Killer300]

From the sound of things, Iran is ripe in more ways than previously thought tbe like Vietnam. Iranian Communists could do quite well with Soviet support among all the gurriellas.

[Killer300]

Guys, the main question I wondered with is what's the impact of this on America's culture? Will social upheavals like those experienced in the 1960s occur too?

[Kome]

Originally Posted by Chris S

I wasn't precluding any assistance. Just the level of assistance that the NVA or DPRK got from the USSR and China for instance. Even American support for the Khmer Rouge falls very far short in comparison. The Khmer Rouge weren't being supplied with with F-4s and SAMs. They were being supplied with money, food, medicines and political support and at best some small arms. And the level of assistance was nowhere near enough to drive the Vietnamese out of Cambodia. It was an end of Soviet support that lead to Vietnam withdrawing because the tab had become too expensive. Even so the leader they left behind in Cambodia (Hun Sen) continued to rule for another 3-4 years after a complete Vietnamese withdrawal.

One of the great ironies of the 20th century that Vietnam actually didnt turn out to be all that good at the other side of guerrilla warfare.

[serbrcq]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Guys, the main question I wondered with is what's the impact of this on America's culture? Will social upheavals like those experienced in the 1960s occur too?

It might highlight some elements of the 80s that were often glossed over - like the drug epidemic. Imagine the military conscripting soldiers out of the ghettos and finding they were all crack addicts. And with Afghanistan right next door, who knows what could happen out there in the field. More serious problems with heroin than in Vietnam?

However, more focus on this issue could lead to a more thorough investigation of the Contras' drug-smuggling operations, and instead of being an abstract foreign policy issue, the question of what kind of scumbags our government was dealing with would take center stage in domestic politics. A Congressional inquiry into the government's knowledge of Contra drug dealing could result in Oliver North and others going to jail.

It would be a scandal of Watergate proportions - and the second one in two decades. What that would do to the American psyche, I don't know.

[Chris S]

Originally Posted by Kome

One of the great ironies of the 20th century that Vietnam actually didnt turn out to be all that good at the other side of guerrilla warfare.

I dunno. Maybe I'm thinking of a different 1979-1989 period, but during that time the Cambodian guerrillas stood zero chance of actually winning despite having massive Western and Chinese support. That doesn't seem like Vietnam did too badly to me. Vietnam's leaders didn't care about the losses and it isn't like Vietnam's society was going to change those leaders even if Vietnamese society could not stomach the losses in the counter-insurgency campaign against the Cambodian guerrillas.

Simply put, Vietnam's experience in Cambodia would have most likely been successful (like the British campaign in Malaya, but note, it was not conducted like the British campaign) were it not for the extensive foreign support that Cambodian rebels had including a neighbouring country from which to base their operations. Certainly it was not a case of relatively more popular (than the government) Cambodian rebels versus an out-of-touch government as was the case in South Vietnam where you had nationalist (but communist) rebels versus a government which was initially run by a Catholic minority and then by corrupt generals. After all the Cambodian rebels included the Khmer Rouge who had managed to squander whatever popularity they might have ever had by culling Cambodia's population to such an extent that it actually fell from 7 million in 1975 (which is after the Vietnam War) to 6.5 million in 1980 (with estimates for the death toll seeming to average around 1.7 million). I would bet very good money that without Western support the Cambodia rebels would have basically collapsed by 1985 (if not much earlier) following the 1984/85 Vietnamese campaign which basically drove the rebels out of western Cambodia (eastern and central Cambodia were never in danger in falling under rebel control even if there were sporadic attacks) and into Thailand.

[Chris S]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Yes, but on balance, doesn't Iran have more people, and also, have an even harsher climate than Vietnam? Both of these could cause the US issues, to say the least.

More people? Nope.

Iran in 1980 had 39 million. Vietnam (as a whole) in 1970-1975 had 45-50 million.

Harsher climate? Well a different climate certainly. Hot and dry. So I guess dehydration would be the major concern more than say tropical diseases and fungus.

But as TxCoatl1970 noted Iran's geography (physical geography and demography) would mean it would basically be a combination of the kind of warfare we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan provided rebel groups take advantage of these features and engender popular support and have enough funding and support (local and foreign) to keep them going.

Originally Posted by serbrcq

Yes, I doubt they'd be handing out MiGs to the ayatollahs, but for the reasons you state at the end, they could provide enough aid to provoke a lasting and intractable guerrilla war.

I do think having Islamist Iran on the border would be more palatable to the Soviet leadership than the US Army - especially if that Islamist state, once the US withdraws, is highly damaged by years and years of warfare. In that case, they would be an unstable and friendless regime, and open for co-optation by the Soviets themselves. Economic, medical and military aid for their ruined country in return for turning down the foreign proselytizing and letting the Russians get their warm-water ports? Sounds like a good deal to me, and if some of the more militant ayatollahs like Khomeini were killed by the Americans or bumped off by the KGB in the course of the war, the Iranians might consider it.

As Pesterfield and TxCoatl1970 have pointed out the Soviets would be more likely to give aid to leftists in Iran than to Islamists. And I don't think having an Islamist Iran would be any more palatable to the Soviet leadership than the US Army. Both would represent threats that the Soviets would have to take into consideration and deal with. Arguably the Islamists would represent more of a threat because they could stoke rebellion in the southern USSR whereas the US Army represented a conventional threat. Nuclear deterrence could work against a conventional force, but what use are nukes against rebels within your own country? And it isn't as if nuking the ones inciting the rebellion is going set things right. If anything it would only spur on the rebellion.

I believe Soviet support of the Islamists would be like their support of the Socialist Reich Party in the early Cold War - limited support to achieve limited goals. Wider support would be given to communists and leftists with the aim of having them become the most powerful rebel group and capable of coming into power once the US withdraws. Support for the Islamists would be to the extent that they would help to bleed US forces (and thus help the Soviets' preferred rebel groups by weakening the same US forces that would be fighting against the leftist rebels). The hope would probably be to see the US and Islamists bleed each other dry so the leftists can come in to pick up the pieces.




Additionally (and this is not related to serbrcq's post) I doubt the US would be trying to get the Shah back into power. They would support backers of the Shah, but would probably aim to have a friendly, non-Islamist and non-communist interim government installed that would later have a referendum on the Shah (before which pro-Shah propaganda would probably be distributed throughout Iran)

[Chris S]

Originally Posted by Killer300

From the sound of things, Iran is ripe in more ways than previously thought tbe like Vietnam. Iranian Communists could do quite well with Soviet support among all the gurriellas.

Don't know how well the Iranian communists would do. It may not be all that well actually. They would certainly exist and probably get the lion's share of support and may even develop a fair following in Iran after a while (maybe by say 1984 if a war started in 1980), but in terms of bang-for-buck the Islamists would probably have more support and get more done against the US Army (and Iraqi Army maybe) proportionally speaking than the communists in comparison to their respective levels of support.