What do you believe is different between the US involvement in Iraq and US involvement in Korea or Viet Nam?

The draft. Of, course all are politically motivated but the U.S. people are ALL directly effected when a draft is in forced. Now, there is distress about the war but since not every-ones family is effected there isn't has much protest going on.

Well, from the above answers, I see the American capacity to avoid even the most superficial of analyses is still intact!

Japan had held Korea for decades. At the end of WW II, neither the Soviets, the Chinese nor the Americans had really given much thought to Korea, and it was divided arbitrarily without any real thought. Both the North and the South wanted reunification, though under different circumstances, and the US developed a South Korean army devoid of major tube artillery, armor or offensive air power in order to keep them from attacking the North. The Soviets had no such compunctions. In its early stages, the NKPA invasion brought a defense by South Korean and UN forces. Later, when UN forces were approaching the Yalu River, the Chinese came in. The war was entirely conventional.

Vietnam was also about reunification of an artificially split country. It was half a conventional war and half unconventional until Tet of 1968, when the Viet Cong were defeated as a fighting force. The tactical victory was turned into a strategic defeat by misperceptions in the US, notably led by luminaries such as the befuddled Walter Cronkite, and the conventional war was eventually lost to the NVA.

Iraq is an artificially unified country. The conventional war there was completed with success in short order. Building a new government has proved to be more difficult than anticipated. The various factions fighting against the new government, and against the US, are notable in that there is no unifying force among them, each having its own agenda often antithetical to the others', and suggesting that left to their own devices they'd fight each other in a full-out civil war if not for the Iraqi government and the coalition which still is needed since the rebuilding of the Iraqi forces has been slow and limited, and in this regard it's been similar to the constitution of the South Korean army in the days before that war, though for different reasons.

The three are quite different. It's funny how some people say we don't learn from history, like using Vietnam or Korea lessons would pertain directly to Iraq. That's just too simplistic.

In Korea and Vietnam we we're fighting the spread of Communism spread by the Chinese and Russians. The differences are that in Korea we were supporting the south against the threat from the north. You only need to look to North Korea today to see what we protected them from. N. Korea is a bit player compared to what they may have turned into. In Vietnam we took over from the French, supporting a government that didn't really have the support of the people. There are parallels to Iraq in that it was impossible to tell friend from foe walking down a city street. The other similarity is that the foes were supported from an outside force. The difference in Iraq is that there are many opposing forces, some native Iraqi and some imported foes with various supporters all having separate end goals. Iraq is like a many headed monster that can be attacked one head at a time whereas Vietnam was one big monster. In Iraq we need to chop off the heads faster than new ones can pop up or grow back. There are similarities between the relentlessly negative coverage between Vietnam and Iraq but many people have come to distrust the mainstream media. The anti-war movement was much stronger for Vietnam, probably fueled by resentment against the draft among the young. There are also more people now who will stand in defense of the mission in Iraq. People who did the same during Vietnam were severely abused (by people who would normally wish to be thought of as protectors of liberty and free speech). Vietnam could have been won but it's pretty obvious that leaving there, while it affected our collaboators, did little to affect our personal and national well-being. Iraq can be won and it's important that we do so because of its pivotal role in the Middle East dynamics.

Very little; all are (were) stupid and doomed-to-fail policies based on lame ideology rather than brains, and executed by pathologically selfish and greed-mongering nitwits.

=====

edit --

Korea and Vietnam also "were based on false accusations and fabricated evidence". Ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

====

edit--

OK (even though there was no authority for such action until passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), but can’t you also argue then, that the Bush administration viewed Ahmed Chalabi as leader of the (legitimate) Iraq government in exile, and made a commitment to him (them) before invading?

And, we have a public commitment to Taiwan; but does anyone really believe it is worth a war with China?

It’s all a big rat’s nest with uncertain boundaries and no indisputable defining moment; but I’ll concede the point.

In Korea we had a UN mandate. In Vietnam there was no mandate. In Iraq, a mandate was debated, but we didn't wait for it to be issued.

In Korea and Vietnam, we were in a proxy war against the USSR and China and defended our allies in the South against communist expansion from the North. Iraq had no external support and the issue of expansionism had been decided in the Iraq/Kuwait war.

All three were virtual dictatorships all around. In Vietnam we supported an unpopular one, in Korea we supported a popular one and in Iraq we opposed a popular one.

All three countries were the result of boundaries superimposed by others. Korea was split by us and the USSR after WWII. Vietnam was split by the French. Iraq was created by the British and French after WW1.

The Korean war was conventional. Vietnam started as unconventional and became conventional. Iraq started as conventional and became unconventional.

None of these nations ever posed a real threat to US security and none of these wars were popular with the American people. Israeli security was a major concern in Iraq, but they could have taken then out at any time without our help. No war is ever popular with the people who live on the battlefield.

Are you kidding me!Since I am a Vietnam, era veteran and my father fought in the Korean War,well lets see the 1950s the 1960s&70s and fast forward to the year 2003,and you ask what is different between the three that the US,has been and,is involved in I think this speaks for it self don't you!

Main difference is that there is an economic interest here, whereas in both Korea and Viet Nam, the ostensible reason was Communism, and we had no economic interest in either.

With Iraq, there are economic interests that won't see much press...but the oil field contracts that US companies have secured ought to be worth billions to them. Good thing our treasury could come to the aid of poor oil companies so they could get those contracts nailed down.

Not a lot of difference. All where politically motivated. Only Bush and his cabal of five where going to go to war at any cost and don't give a damn what you or I think or the money and aggravation it has cost. Sadam Hussein was an impotent dictator and was no threat to us. Afganistan on the other hand should have been our focus, and we should have stopped at nothing to defeat and kill Ben Laden when we had him in our sights. And now the pin-headed Bush wants to start a war with Iran! The guy is a total idiot.

Korea and Viet Nam were not based on a President's need to take revenge on a dictator who tried to assasinate the President's father.

You could actually argue that Iraq is MORE justified than Korea and Vietnam.

To me, the difference is that with Iraq, we had a treaty with a government that guaranteed unfettered access for WMD inspections. This treaty was violated by Saddam. Therefore, the administration concluded that a man who had already violated the territorial integrity of two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait) would threaten our interests and stability in the region. Even the POSSIBILITY of Saddam producing WMDs was unacceptable. The burden of proof was upon him to prove peaceful intentions.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if we redefined our "interests", saved lives and money, got our people home. put bleeping big walls around ourselves, and let the Middle East figure itself out.