This is a excellent article. I think the author pointed out many truths of war and why it is so hard. Among the most glaring errors that I see in the current situation in Iraq was the invasion under false pretenses. The population as a whole does not support the President's war, and no policy can succeed without popular support.
Posts: 4332 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
There is more truth than poetry in this guy's report. I have often thought the same thing as he expresses in this: " The quantity and quality of manpower required may call into question the viability of the all-volunteer military." Certainly in WWII, we were a mixed bag with a lot of linguists, lawyers, clerks, and people educated beyond the requirements of today's volunteer army. And the requirements are dropping, as the current war drags on, in order to meet recruitment numbers.
The population as a whole does not support the President's war, and no policy can succeed without popular support
Exactly! The US Military won all major battles in Vietnam, but the war was lost on the home front. I don't think that you can support the troops and disapprove of their actions at the same time, it just doesn't work. We didn't lose militarily in Vietnam, the hippies and protesters eroded all of the support that we had, and we had to throw in the towel, and withdraw.
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
I don't think the hippies and the protesters lost the war, and I don't think that's what the author is saying. I think he says that the Generals should have learned from the French what kind of war they would face, they should have convinced the politicians that they needed to get the general public behind before launching it, and they should have been equipped to fight an insurgency type conflict, not "yesterday's war". Vietnam is not Europe. Also I think he means that we are repeating the same outmoded and unrealistic thinking in Iraq. I think he is saying that we shouldn't have got rid of General Shinseki because we didn't like what he told us, we should learn from our subordinates also and not just sucking up to the higher brass.
Just some thoughts; please feel free to correct me...
Lack of support for the war among the US population played a part in Nixon's reducing troop levels in Vietnam and "throwing in the towel" - but surely lack of support for the South Vietnamese government and the US troops among the Vietnamese population was more decisive. Similarly in Iraq, whatever protestors point out, the biggest obstacle to 'victory' is that the Iraqi government is not itself viable, and most Iraqis (outside "Kurdistan") want the US troops to leave. (In fact, 'victory' has not even been defined by the Bush administration - without a proper strategic vision of it, how can it possibly be achieved?)
Also as in Iraq, the soldiers in Vietnam could win all the battles they fought for as long as they fought, but with no realistic political strategy for that country they were never going to 'win'.
And what about support for these wars among the soldiers themselves:
'The U.S. entered the war in Vietnam with the most powerful military in the world, but within a few years this very same military was in a state of disarray, disintegration, and rebellion. This GI rebellion progressively undermined the ability of the U.S. to defeat the NLF and the North Vietnamese, and was certainly an important factor in Nixon’s decision to draw down troop levels. How could an army break down so quickly? “From the very beginning of the military escalation in Vietnam, soldiers began to question the wisdom of the conflict and acted to oppose it. They learned from the bitter experience of war itself,” writes historian Richard Moser.27 Soldiers were increasingly angered, according to historian Christian Appy, by the “contradictory ground” dividing “the official justifications of the war expressed by American policymakers and the war as it was actually lived by the soldiers.”28"www.isreview.org
Whatever some hippies were getting up to in San Francisco, surely the lack of morale in the conscript army had a more direct effect on the outcome in Vietnam. The US army in Iraq doesn't have the same morale problems, it seems, but it is - in terms of resources - arguably broken.
I notice one general is being more pessimistic/realistic in his assessement now - although (presumably to keep his job) he still leaves open the possibility of things somehow turning out OK at some vague point in the future; Blow to Bush as top US commander warns of worse to come in Iraq
I will stick to what I have said in the above post. We could have won a complete military victory in Vietnam if we were so allowed. We were fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. It has been said, that we fought a limited war with limited aims.
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
Originally posted by Scotty: I will stick to what I have said in the above post. We could have won a complete military victory in Vietnam if we were so allowed. We were fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. It has been said, that we fought a limited war with limited aims.
How would you know when you got there? What would a complete military victory look like? Would it be burned to the ground? An American-style democratic republic?
We could have won a complete military victory in Vietnam if we were so allowed.
Who didn't allow you? The hippies had no command authority over the US army. If a victory (whatever that would have looked like) was possible, and important, why would Nixon have caved in to hippies and protestors? If a complete military victory was possible, then surely defeat was the government's fault for not explaining the possibility of victory, and then sticking to it and pursuing it.
There's a similar political theme developing maybe in relation to Iraq - the 'stab in the back trap'. It's the idea that "we could have won if not for those pessimists...". But for that idea to fy, politically, there has to be an actual possibility of the US 'winning' in Iraq right now. There doesn't seem to be - every ballyhooed new initiative or breakthrough is met with increased violence and chaos.
The article is interesting in that it puts some of the blame for this chaos on the general staff - not just on the civilian idealogues who dreamed up the invasion.
How would you know when you got there? What would a complete military victory look like? Would it be burned to the ground? An American-style democratic republic?
I am not sure what it would look like, Frank. Maybe it is a good thing that we withdrew and took a loss. I don't know.
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
But the objective was to win the war, Scotty. The most important battle is generally the last one. Peter the Great and Alexander I understood that. Each defeated the best military of their day by understanding the logic of warfare.
Posts: 17279 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Some interesting facts that blows some of the myths about the Vietnam war and the men who fought there. BTW. this is recommended by the History channel.
The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) [Westmoreland] This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
