WI Afghanistan war becomes Vietnam 2.0

The Vietnam war resulted in nearly 60000 dead Americans and over 300000 wounded service men, so what if the Afghanistan invasion went horribly for the US and becomes an even more drawn out and bloodier war than otl just like Vietnam, would that impact the bush administrations foreign policy towards Iraq, would Kerry win the 2004 election if public opinion turns on Bush.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It wasn't already?

Wasn't even close. Afghanistan was actually fairly well done. Iraq was the Charlie Foxtrot.

Total U.S. combat losses over 14 years are under 2,500 or around 180 a year. The U.S. was losing that every WEEK in Vietnam for most of the late 1960s into early 1971. Wounded are around 22K or under 1,600 a year. It is cold comfort to those who are part of these figures, but compared to the Nam, or even 2002 Iraq, they are quite low.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The Vietnam war resulted in nearly 60000 dead Americans and over 300000 wounded service men, so what if the Afghanistan invasion went horribly for the US and becomes an even more drawn out and bloodier war than otl just like Vietnam, would that impact the bush administrations foreign policy towards Iraq, would Kerry win the 2004 election if public opinion turns on Bush.

It can't, Vietnam was bloody because the US was fighting the North Vietnamese regular army which was armed by China and the USSR. The USSR got bloodied in Afghanistan because the US, Pakistan and Saudis funded the Afghans against them. Foreign aid is what makes guerrillas effective, without foreign aid the best case scenario is something like FARC is Columbia.

There simply isn't anyone capable of funneling the same amount of aid to the Taliban post-2001, the closet you had were the Pakistanis but even they had to be very careful as to not get caught.
 
The Vietnam war resulted in nearly 60000 dead Americans and over 300000 wounded service men, so what if the Afghanistan invasion went horribly for the US and becomes an even more drawn out and bloodier war than otl just like Vietnam, would that impact the bush administrations foreign policy towards Iraq, would Kerry win the 2004 election if public opinion turns on Bush.

I don't see this happening. Even the Soviets didn't have as rough as an experience as Vietnam, although it was still pretty bad. Who is going to arm and supply the Taliban? Afghanistan was a pariah state, even before 9/11.

Afghanistan's problem was that after 2003, it became a secondary concern. Resources were diverted, and the Taliban were able to reorganize and recruit in Waziristan. If Afghanistan was not neglected for 6 years or so, things would be radically different.
 
Wasn't even close. Afghanistan was actually fairly well done. Iraq was the Charlie Foxtrot.

Total U.S. combat losses over 14 years are under 2,500 or around 180 a year. The U.S. was losing that every WEEK in Vietnam for most of the late 1960s into early 1971. Wounded are around 22K or under 1,600 a year. It is cold comfort to those who are part of these figures, but compared to the Nam, or even 2002 Iraq, they are quite low.

Not many US troops died in Iraq either . Even an anti-war site puts it at less than 4,500. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ . That is about half a division.
 

celt

Banned
An overtly hostile Pakistan would make it a lot bloodier, imagine them supplying the Taliban with anti-tank and anti-air missiles or Pakistani special forces fighting side by side with the Taliban. Supplies would be a huge issue in this sort of scenario, NATO would be heavily dependent on the goodwill of the Russians to be able to supply a reasonably sizes force.

A POD could when Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Pakistan's intelligence director that the US would bomb them back to the Stone Age if they didn't help out in the War in Terror.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
An overtly hostile Pakistan would make it a lot bloodier, imagine them supplying the Taliban with anti-tank and anti-air missiles or Pakistani special forces fighting side by side with the Taliban. Supplies would be a huge issue in this sort of scenario, NATO would be heavily dependent on the goodwill of the Russians to be able to supply a reasonably sizes force.

A POD could when Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Pakistan's intelligence director that the US would bomb them back to the Stone Age if they didn't help out in the War in Terror.

Though without tacit Pakistani support, and perhaps open Pakistani support to the Talebans, Iran's offer to help might not sound as toxic anymore.
 
The war in Afghanistan and the war fought in Vietnam was fought for different reasons and under highly different times/ circumstances. Even though they are very similar in many ways. They are not interchangeable events.


That being said China gets involved. China believes the Americans are trying to funding a massive insurgency down in Xinjiang for the East Turkestan independence movement to take hold. Let's one of the leaders for this movement is highly pro-American for some reason. The Chinese fed up with this get highly involved. Afghan conflict becomes a regional one.
 
An overtly hostile Pakistan would make it a lot bloodier, imagine them supplying the Taliban with anti-tank and anti-air missiles or Pakistani special forces fighting side by side with the Taliban. Supplies would be a huge issue in this sort of scenario, NATO would be heavily dependent on the goodwill of the Russians to be able to supply a reasonably sizes force.

A POD could when Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Pakistan's intelligence director that the US would bomb them back to the Stone Age if they didn't help out in the War in Terror.

An overtly hostile Pakistan is near ASB. The Pakistani are not suicidal.
 

celt

Banned
An overtly hostile Pakistan is near ASB. The Pakistani are not suicidal.
Not as overt as all out war, like the way they were hostile to the Soviets in Afghanistan, if there weren't actual Pakistani army divisions in Afghanistan I don't think the US would attack Pakistan directly, also there's the nuclear weapons factor so things would be kept limited to an extent. Obviously their economy would tank, so it would depend on whether the Chinese support them or not.
 
Not only are the political realities of the situation very different, as already pointed out, but there are significant operational and doctrinal differences in the way both sides prosecuted the war.
Here's a good article on the differences.

To turn Afghanistan into Vietnam, you need a POD that:
greatly increases the scale of US involvement and commitment
greatly improves the numbers, abilities, and unity of the Taliban
And erases 40 years of technological and doctrinal advances.

IMO, that's approaching ASB territory, and without significant departure from OTL that would be far more interesting (if done right) straight up is ASB.
 
Top