Open Letter to America

From: Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Recently, I was asked to look at the recent events through the lens of military history. I have joined the cast of thousands who have written an "open letter to Americans."

Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it. This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers.

In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary.

Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II. These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated "the moral is to the physical as three is to one." Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing - better said anxious?to give their lives for their cause.

In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S.of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us.

We must not fear them. In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only "superpower" (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent "counter-terrorist" organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional "body snatch," (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens.

Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare; there will be no clear "centers of gravity" to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft?this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs.

Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned. Although we hope that Usama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but! also less audacious "sand in the gears" tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities.

These attacks are designed to hit us in our "comfort zone" forcing the average American to "pay more and play less" and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order. Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail.

Everyone I've talked to in the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain.

Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy

Great post. But, there's one piece missing from his formula for success, and it must come before all the others. Obviously, we must ask ourselves if this is indeed a war worth fighting. There must be a brutal calculation of the cost vs. the benefits of fighting such a war. Sure, we lost 6,000 Americans in the first strike, but would we find the war acceptable if we foresaw the cost as being 30,000 Americans? 50,000 Americans? What will we be truly gaining from such a war? Are our goals even attainable---in reality.

The author mentions Vietnam, and it's a great example. Not only did we decide that the war was not worth the cost, but Vietnam fell anyway to the Communists, and Cambodia tragically followed. In the coldest terms, every American who died over there died in vain. We as a nation accomplished none of our objectives and lost our youth.

I don't believe that we truly have any other option. What is the price of not fighting back?

Perhaps there'll be more hits on us, a few hundred here, a few thousand there. Perhaps there'll be a really big hit, though that is unlikely given past performance.

Other options: Increase domestic security. Cut immigration from the middle east. Withdraw from the middle east. Cut support for Israel. Seems to me there are lots of options besides launching a ground based guerilla war on untold many fronts.

Fomenters of war always present it as the only option. But as we saw with Vietnam, it isn't. Do you remember the war propaganda for Vietnam? It, too, was the only option.

I do not consider protecting Vietnam from the Communists with a direct attack on the U.S. as comparable situations.

"Perhaps there'll be more hits on us, a few hundred here, a few thousand there. Perhaps there'll be a really big hit, though that is unlikely given past performance."

And this is acceptable to you? At which point do we decide to stand up for ourselves and our right to exist?

I do not consider protecting Vietnam from the Communists with a direct attack on the U.S. as comparable situations

No? Well, the one cost us 6,000 while the other cost us, 20,000? 30,000? More? I don't know, frankly, but I do know that it was much, much more. So, I guess the situations aren't comparable. And to refresh your memory, we weren't protecting the Vietnamese from Communism; we were protecting America from the Communist tide sweeping the world. It was them or us. Their explicit goal was our destruction. Remember? Just like militant Islam.

And this is acceptable to you?

No. 6,000 isn't acceptable, and 60,000 isn't acceptable. So, what's your point? Throw some bodies at the problem? Wouldn't any solution other than war be preferable? Do we have so little imagination?

Other options: Increase domestic security.

That's a necessity, not an option.

Withdraw from the middle east. Cut support for Israel.

Run out on an ally and friend to appease a group of people who use violence instead of dipomacy? Do you really think that the Taliban is a nice little religious sect only wanting to be left alone? Perhaps they started out that way but now they are a group of various nationalities that run drugs throughout the world.

It's hard to imagine calling Israel a friend. A more realistic term would be dependent. We puffed up that regime during the cold war in our schizophrenia to stop communism on untold many fronts (kinda like our proposed war on terrorism---it's them or us crap). They are sustained alone by our money and weapons---they are pawns, not friends. And in return we are spied upon, they sell weapons systems to our enemies, and we've been beaten because of our support. Cut them loose; no need for armageddon today.

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.