Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SunkenCiv; MasterGunner01; 1010RD; Bratch; gusopol3; PapaBear3625; Smokin' Joe; lentulusgracchus
It’s a bit of a straw man headline.

I don't think so. I don't know who wrote it, McMaster or the NY Times, but war is man's most complex undertaking, IMHO. There's a reason that Sherman said "war is hell." If you don't make it so, you're unlikely to win.

US wars in the main combat phase are one thing — but occupation of a country with an insurgency will always turn into a war of attrition, and is best left to the locals.

Despite technological and tactical superiority, people get maimed and killed for nothing without the twin strategies of attrition and long term occupation. Witness Germany, Japan and South Korea, as imperfect as South Korea remains. That's the only way to really win, at least in American history. That's why World War I, Vietnam and Iraq were utter wastes. It's why Afghanistan will likely be another waste.

I write this while attempting to be a serious student of history. I graduated basic training on my 18th birthday. I went to Vietnam twice as an Army infantryman when I could have gone to the City College of New York while it was still tuition free in 1969.

I saw the World Trade Center burning from the Bronx on September 11, 2001. As a general rule, we no longer have what it takes to do anything beyond punitive expeditions because the left will undermine it, unless it's Clinton in the Balkans, or Obama in Libya. Witness Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm tired of my fellow citizens getting killed and maimed for nothing!

P.S. We got a stalemate in Korea because of geography and superior firepower. Korea's DMZ was defensible because Korea was a peninsula. LBJ's failure to appreciate the nature of that stalemate led to our follies in Southeast Asia where the commies got havens for their ground forces in North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

P.P.S. I recently heard, I forgot where it was, maybe on a Charlie Rose show or C-Span, that the Chicoms would not commit ground forces to Southeast Asia because our artillery units chewed them up so badly in Korea. It's what could be expected when you put your troops in mass formations, but has any one else heard that?

13 posted on 07/22/2013 1:15:21 PM PDT by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: neverdem
There's one reason why WW2 was the last “good war” — the Soviet Union was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany. When Germany invaded Poland it divided the country between Germany and Russia as part of the Von Ribbentrop-Molotov Non Aggression Pact. That pact lasted until Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941.

During the time between the German-Russian Non Aggression Pact and 22 June 1941, the American Left and CPUSA did everything they could to sabotage war supplies being shipped to the UK to fight Germany. After the German invasion the Left did a 180 degree turn and became one of the strongest backers of war supplies — especially to the Soviet Union. The Left also clamored for a second front to ease the German pressure on the Soviet Union.

Victory in Europe left Russia with a lot of Eastern Europe that Stalin did not want to give back and so the Russian troops stayed on and these Eastern European countries became communist states will allegiance to Moscow.

The American Left followed the Soviet party line: Western allies bad, Soviet Union and its captive Eastern states as good.

The American Left sees this country is the aggressor in everything we do. It undermines American interests every chance it gets. The Soviet Union is gone, so the American Left has made common cause with the Muslim Islamofascists. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Until there's a way to counter the American Left, America can never successfully win a war. The problem is that the U.S. State Department also undermines American interests because it is heavily penetrated by the Left. Neither SecState John F’ing Kerry or SecDef Chuck Hagel are the sharpest knives in the drawer. Neither has American interests in mind; they are surrender monkeys. Ditto for their bosses, Barry Obongo and Vallerie Jarrett.

14 posted on 07/22/2013 2:05:36 PM PDT by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Spot on analysis.


16 posted on 07/22/2013 3:37:55 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

The Chinese wouldn’t commit troops to Indochina because the Vietnamese didn’t want ‘em there, historically they are enemies. Also in Korea, the 2 million Chinese volunteers had dropped something like 500K casualties and there wasn’t much of an infrastructure for battlefield medics. The amphibious landing behind their lines, added to much better training on the UN side (firepower wasn’t too different, not least because of Chinese numerical superiority), caused a pretty rapid collapse of the apparent commie success. The Korean DMZ should have been established along the border with China, and I’d be surprised if that isn’t accomplished sometime in the next twenty years.

The reason the headline is a straw man is, there is no Easy War Pipe Dream — main combat really results in rapid success, but our armed forces shouldn’t be used as the local gendarmes. It has to be followed by effective local recruitment. After Saddam was found, he should have been given a televised drumhead trial and shot. All trace of his sorry ass should have been bulldozed or burned, and that televised. Iraq should have been partitioned to create independent Kurdistan (our Turkish “allies” and Syrian and Iranian enemies would have complained of course) and the rest left to a nice civil war. To reprise, the best part of a Muzzie civil war is, everyone wins.


18 posted on 07/22/2013 6:28:45 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
The Chicoms would not commit ground forces to Southeast Asia because our artillery units chewed them up so badly in Korea. It's what could be expected when you put your troops in mass formations, but has any one else heard that?

That's not how they write the history of their Korean tactics, whatever it's worth. They see themselves as successful in deploying huge numbers of light infantry that overwhelmed American forces by their decenhttp://bevinalexander.com/excerpts/korean-war/tactics-chinese-communists-korean-war.htmtralized control.

19 posted on 07/22/2013 6:54:41 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson