Skip to comments.The Basics of War and How the U.S. Went Wrong
Posted on 09/25/2012 3:46:18 AM PDT by RightSideNews
In view of the public frustration with a decade of largely unsuccessful U.S. war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impending cuts to the U.S. military budget, there is an active debate at present as to what military strategy and force structure should be fashioned for the future. Unfortunately, many taxpayers and most politicians are totally illiterate when it comes to the subject of warfare. (Judging from the dismal results in the last ten years, a similar conclusion might to drawn concerning the U.S. officer corps.) In an attempt to fill this critical knowledge void and perhaps raise the level of the on-going national defense dialogue, this essay is offered to provide the lay reader with an awareness of the basics of warfare. One qualifying note is that this essay will not deal with the morality of war or justification for going to war. While understanding just war theory is integral to the study of warfare, it is beyond the scope of this essay, which is intended to focus on the how of war, rather than the why of war. The appropriate place to begin a discussion of war is with the purpose of war as defined by Carl von Clausewitz in his masterwork, On War: WAR THEREFORE IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE INTENDED TO COMPEL OUR OPPONENT TO FULFIL OUR WILL . .
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
This is spot on.
One does not have to be a Military Historian or Combat Authority to realize that had we (mostly Johnson and to a degree, Nixon) had the "stones" (and not worried about Russia or China, without who's aid, North Vietnam could not have survived for 90 days) to cut all supply routes in the North, that little "war" would have been over in 6 months or less.
Worse yet (than that clueless, crook, RAT, Johnson picking targets from the Oval Office) was his ROE's which while not quite as bad as today's under Dear Reader, they were responsible from MANY casualties (not to mention the horrors of being a POW in North Vietnam for the survivors) of our brave pilots, to wit: he imposed "SPECIFIC" ingress and egress routes the pilots had to observe and consequently, the NVA, not being completely stupid, simply set up most of their SAM's and AAA along those "designated" routes, making for sitting ducks of our pilots.
Not since War II has the U.S. had the "desire" or "will" to win a Military Conflict and it has only gotten worse under this Islamic-appeasing, commie, Community Agitator, though W was not exactly my idea of a forceful, CIC who started out with good intentions after 9/11, but was led astray by advisers who suggested he not go for the jugular, less we "offend" Moose-limb countries.
Add to the mix a completely politicized (and wussified) Military Leadership, the chances of our defeating our sworn enemies (who have openly advocated our destruction)--ESPECIALLY if were UNWILLING to even "identify" him--is slim to none.
We'll that was pretty simple. The U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan were complete disasters because it's now 2012 and I still have no idea what "our will" was.
The ONLY way to rebuild a nation is to completely destroy that country... kill many, many citizens and destroy their Military and industrial powers... crush them so badly that when we do finally roll into their enclave... they will worship the ground we walk on... as we feed them and give them water... otherwise FAILURE.
I don't disagree with you -- but hey, let's face it ... World War II was the third major U.S. "imperial war" in less than 50 years. Three strikes and you're out, and I contend that by the time 1950 rolled around the U.S. simply could never justify the use of military force all over the globe. The whole purpose of the "half-assed war" approach is to manage these military campaigns in a way that is as politically palatable as possible. This means two things, first and foremost: (1) no compulsory military service, and (2) little or no disruption to civilians in the U.S., even in terms of alterations in our standard of living (e.g., "America is at war, while Americans are at the shopping mall").
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
...and leave it a smoldering crater
The risk was that the Chinese would have become directly involved a la Korea, but that would have been have to have been dealt with. The masses of the PLA would have had that awful terrain and the advantage we had in indirect fires against them and we would have prevailed, "if we had the stones".
The bigger and unmentioned questions were why we chose to fight on the cheap when the Communists chose that strategic area for a conflict and why our government chose to allow pro-enemy forces in this country to subvert our efforts. Even when we had identified the agents, the couriers, the funding, and the communications we didn't do a thing to any of them. Now some of those same traitors are honored members of our current government. I'd love to know what the real story was/is.
The US went wrong by electing a Marxist sissy to the presidency.
2. Exterminate anything and everything not wearing a US uniform.
3.Repeat and rinse.
Unless you are ready to KILL your enemy... Women, children, pets, infrastructure... Then you should not go to war. A “politically correct war “ with associated “caring” rules if engagement is folly and the ultimate oxymoron. Unless your enemy is destroyed, then he will rise again with revenge. On this issue, are you ready to 1. carpet bomb Tehran or 2. bomb only strategic military installations? If #1, then pull the trigger and don’t look back, if #2, just stay home and wait for them carpet bomb YOU! (Which will probably anger you enough for option #1... If there is anything left if you).
The whereabouts of Taliban are known but families protect them. All should be exterminated. PC is a losing proposition.
Destruction of the enemy is the only way to win a war. Releasing imprisoned warriors allows the war to continue.
Dead warriors can’t continue to fight and kill you
Forget Viet Nam. We let the politicians lose that one for us. (And millions of innocents died as a result; their blood is on the hands of the appeasers.)
But today’s guerilla wars should be fought by America the same way it is being waged by our enemies: asymmetrically. It makes little sense to send in uniformed troops, tanks, and bombers to destroy a few shacks. When we take out a ten-dollar mud hut with a $2 million cruise missile, who wins? Better we find and train elite killers who look, speak, and (god forbid) smell like Taliban and al-qaida, infiltrate their organizations and cities, and wage a war of terror against them. They blow up a building, a mosque goes up in flames. They kill an American citizen, half a dozen of them are found flayed and headless the next day. And throughout the weeks, their command and control personnel mysteriously vanish. Could it be that those rotting remains we found in the landfill are what became of Zawahiri?
We always have the traditional option — uniformed troops. But we fight fire with fire and we do it better than they do.
Pretty much how I see it... I agree.
Forbid the mere mention of the true enemy.
If you go to war, you need to bring a copy of Sun Tsu with you. If you don’t you will fail.
In one of the largest Ops of the Vietnam War, thousands of ARVN Troops entered Laos, just south of the 17th Parallel. Along Highway 9. Staggering casualties on both sides occurred. The US lost over 100 helicopters and had 500 others damaged. The North threw everything they had into the fight. They had no choice...
But instead, we sprayed Rainbow Herbicides all over God's creation. Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. We bombed everywhere. Engaged in the forced relocation of civilian population. Never a good thing.
We should have concentrated these assets along Highway 9, into Laos. Extend the "McNamara Line." Would have made far more sense than what we did, and are still paying for...
Until the document, and it's hosts are destroyed it will stand.
We are constrained by the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict. Our enemies are not. They are willing to do whatever it takes to win, we are not.
Johnny's a hero. A VC hero!
Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, in Vietnam. Photo displayed in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the \'War Crimes Museum\') in Saigon. The June 2, 2004
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.