Queda volunteer soldier, fighting for their perceived way of life, on their own soil, against a foreign invader, with all their capability (although limited as it was). Compare that to the mindset of a drafted or paid U.S. soldier, fighting thousands of miles away from home, to prevent the spread of communism or to find weapons of mass destruction or create a stable government. Ironically, history has proven that the fall of South Vietnam to Communism was not a significant threat to Democracy and no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. This simplified example does not detract from the patriotism or ability of U.S. soldiers, but helps one to understand this battle of wills.
The battle of wills can be further explained by …show more content…
and Iraq and North Vietnam. The expectation of a fast war with low casualties placed an emphasis on technology and a secure logistical footprint. The cost of this in both Vietnam and Iraq has resulted in trillions of dollars of US debt. Add to the equation (whether caused by the wars or not) the economic crisis of the early 1970’s and the late 2000’s, and the instability and possible threat to the U.S. economy placed additional political pressure on the U.S. to end the conflicts. On the other hand, the insurgents (North Vietnam and Al Queda) required a minimal logistical footprint (living in their own country), secured sufficient international support, and were able to inflict significant military damage with limited resources. The best example is the development of the IED in Iraq, responsible for 60% of the casualties, that the US was not able to stop despite spending billions of US dollars in technology.4 It was something the Iraqi insurgent could make cheap with little training and easily acquired material. With such a high cost, the U.S. could not continue perpetually and sought an exit
The battle of wills can be further explained by …show more content…
and Iraq and North Vietnam. The expectation of a fast war with low casualties placed an emphasis on technology and a secure logistical footprint. The cost of this in both Vietnam and Iraq has resulted in trillions of dollars of US debt. Add to the equation (whether caused by the wars or not) the economic crisis of the early 1970’s and the late 2000’s, and the instability and possible threat to the U.S. economy placed additional political pressure on the U.S. to end the conflicts. On the other hand, the insurgents (North Vietnam and Al Queda) required a minimal logistical footprint (living in their own country), secured sufficient international support, and were able to inflict significant military damage with limited resources. The best example is the development of the IED in Iraq, responsible for 60% of the casualties, that the US was not able to stop despite spending billions of US dollars in technology.4 It was something the Iraqi insurgent could make cheap with little training and easily acquired material. With such a high cost, the U.S. could not continue perpetually and sought an exit