RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,167771,00.html

Same old stuff...

It may be the "same old stuff" but to many of us it is an accurate and thought provoking commentary. Instead of a barrage of posts from the Iraq War apologists, we may need to be reminded of the follies of the past. Reminders of past history and past mistakes are not merely the "same old stuff" but, hopefully, lessons we should have heeded prior to embarking on this adventure in Iraq.

Jack

Yes, same ole stuff from this guy. He's never positive about anything.

If all was going well in Iraq we would not be having this conversation.
Hind-sight is of course 20/20. It's easy to see what shoulda, coulda, woulda happend if things had gone this way or that way.
So there was no lesson to "heed" before this war. All wars are different. I think you can appreciate that. After all, we had Korea before Vietnam. Were there lessons learned from Korea?
Maybe, but we can't tell by looking at the outcome of the Vietnam conflict. Were there REALLY lessons from Vietnam? You can't tell by the current issue.
Since we are there and we can't just leave; What to do now?
I have noticed how there seems to be very few people who will admit to agreeing with the invasion.
Did you agree?
Do you still agree?

Respectfully,
Mac

quote:

Originally posted by CorporalMcIntyre:
Yes, same ole stuff from this guy. He's never positive about anything.

If all was going well in Iraq we would not be having this conversation.
Hind-sight is of course 20/20. It's easy to see what shoulda, coulda, woulda happend if things had gone this way or that way.
So there was no lesson to "heed" before this war. All wars are different. I think you can appreciate that. After all, we had Korea before Vietnam. Were there lessons learned from Korea?
Maybe, but we can't tell by looking at the outcome of the Vietnam conflict. Were there REALLY lessons from Vietnam? You can't tell by the current issue.
Since we are there and we can't just leave; What to do now?
I have noticed how there seems to be very few people who will admit to agreeing with the invasion.
Did you agree?
Do you still agree?

Respectfully,
Mac

You make it sound like the shifting winds of fortune, "if thing had gone this way or that way". This isn't about the winds of fortune, it's about the lack of planning, the lack of situational awareness, corruption, ideology trumping military doctrine and just plain stupidity. The bad thing is you can't point at just one of the above...it's all of it! You can't tell the lessons learned from Vietnam by todays conflict because they have been ignored.
As to what do we do now? That's going to take greater minds than mine to salvage this situation, but I can tell you one thing; we can't afford to continue down this course. Our military readiness can't afford it and our economy can't afford it. Either we find a way to do it smarter, or we go down the road of the former Soviet Union. And we better damn well find that way soon!

COMMON SENSE WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN IRAQ BEFORE WE INVADED

quote:

Originally posted by CorporalMcIntyre:
Yes, same ole stuff from this guy. He's never positive about anything.

If all was going well in Iraq we would not be having this conversation.
Hind-sight is of course 20/20. It's easy to see what shoulda, coulda, woulda happend if things had gone this way or that way.
So there was no lesson to "heed" before this war. All wars are different. I think you can appreciate that. After all, we had Korea before Vietnam. Were there lessons learned from Korea?
Maybe, but we can't tell by looking at the outcome of the Vietnam conflict. Were there REALLY lessons from Vietnam? You can't tell by the current issue.
Since we are there and we can't just leave; What to do now?
I have noticed how there seems to be very few people who will admit to agreeing with the invasion.
Did you agree?
Do you still agree?

Respectfully,
Mac

Twenty two US Senators appear to be equipped with forsight, not hindsight...

Here's the speech of one of them. Seems accurate enough for me.

http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/byrd_speeches_2003febru...003march_list_3.html

Dave

What is the same about Vietnam and Iraq is that the leadership has come up with a strategy that makes it impossible for the American military to be victorious, but gets bogged down in a civil war/inurgency.

The President’s strategy in Iraq betrays the military and the American people because there is no victory possible under his plan. The military will not fail under his plan, but it also cannot be victorious.

The President has led the military into a situation where it is dependent on another country’s army and Parliament to be successful. It is not like they are under the command of the United Nations, but they do not control their own destiny.

It comes down to this – the American military can surge every-other year for a generation when violence gets out of hand and constantly be successful in keeping a lid on the violence. But if the Iraqis do not get their $h!# together, the MISSION can not be successful.

The success of America’s mission in Iraq depends on the corrupt officials that make up the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces, some of whom are also militia members who kill Americans.

Any mission given to the American military should depend on the success of America’s armed forces. Success for the military is victory over an enemy.

Al Qaeda could disappear from Iraq tomorrow and American would still be under the threat of attack from al Qaeda in Pakistan. There would be no victory over the enemy, just a set back while they reconstitute.

The other people that are killing Americans in Iraq are Iraqis (with some Iranian help). The militias in Iraq are all controlled by political blocks, divided along religious lines.

The plan is that eventually al-Sadr and his boys (along with the other dozens of militia, Sunni and Shia) are going to join the Maliki government and work to make Iraq a beacon of democracy in the Middles East. So we do not want to defeat them, just make them be peaceful.

There is no enemy in Iraq for the American military to be victorious over.

Under the current strategy set out by President Bush, there is no victory available in Iraq, just like none was available in Vietnam.

quote:

The most delusional meme of post-modern U.S. military culture is that America lost the Vietnam War on the home front. Nothing could be further, quite literally, from the truth. America lost Vietnam half a world away from the home front—in Southeast Asia, where it fought what has become the template for superpower entanglement in third world wars.

Yet many of Operation Iraqi Freedom’s most avid backers believe—or claim to believe—that America’s military can somehow achieve the “victory” in Iraq that eluded it in Vietnam if only the public gives it enough opportunity. These true believers have asked us for a seemingly endless string of six-month extensions, chances to get it right this time, until they sound like sulky children at bedtime who just want “five more minutes, Mom.”

We lost Vietnam for two reasons. The "Whiz Kids" Robert Strange McNamara (what's in a name?) and others who micro managed the war and refused to let it be won. Combined with the fact that uncle Walter Cronkite was hammering the home front daily with his own personal insights into why we were losing, while showing the body bags and taking off his glasses and wiping his eyes.

That and the fact that the will was never there for the government to do what needed to be done to end it. The North Vietnamese admitted as much after the fact. they were beaten until the American media and the leftist fanatics saved their bacon.

Nixon tried to win it with the bombing of the noth campaign and that of Laos and Cambodia. But our loss was everyone's gain right? Only 2 or 3 million or more died at the hands of Pol Pot and others after we left. But that was OK.

So dream on people. The same exact thing is afoot this go round.

Just remember the phrase "peace with honor." Get use to it cause it's coming.

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:

quote:

The most delusional meme of post-modern U.S. military culture is that America lost the Vietnam War on the home front. Nothing could be further, quite literally, from the truth. America lost Vietnam half a world away from the home front—in Southeast Asia, where it fought what has become the template for superpower entanglement in third world wars.

Yet many of Operation Iraqi Freedom’s most avid backers believe—or claim to believe—that America’s military can somehow achieve the “victory” in Iraq that eluded it in Vietnam if only the public gives it enough opportunity. These true believers have asked us for a seemingly endless string of six-month extensions, chances to get it right this time, until they sound like sulky children at bedtime who just want “five more minutes, Mom.”

We lost Vietnam for two reasons. The "Whiz Kids" Robert Strange McNamara (what's in a name?) and others who micro managed the war and refused to let it be won. Combined with the fact that uncle Walter Cronkite was hammering the home front daily with his own personal insights into why we were losing, while showing the body bags and taking off his glasses and wiping his eyes.

That and the fact that the will was never there for the government to do what needed to be done to end it. The North Vietnamese admitted as much after the fact. they were beaten until the American media and the leftist fanatics saved their bacon.

Nixon tried to win it with the bombing of the noth campaign and that of Laos and Cambodia. But our loss was everyone's gain right? Only 2 or 3 million or more died at the hands of Pol Pot and others after we left. But that was OK.

So dream on people. The same exact thing is afoot this go round.

Just remember the phrase "peace with honor." Get use to it cause it's coming.

We lost Vietnam for simple reasons, I agree at least with those conclusions.

We lost because the Vietnamese were home. We weren't. We lost because we weren't ready to mobilise the country for total war.

If we had, we would have won. And if we had won, we would be doing the exact same thing we are doing today; lining up to make trade agreements.

So we "lost," and are lining up to make trade agreements.

Those who claim that the Vietnamese were ready to surrender are depending on discredited fantasies. Make for good reading but are divorced from logic. Why would they possibly surrender? They had been fighting since 1940 - In other words, for over 35 years. Two million murderered by the Japanese, millions killed by the French - They were going to surrender to US? we had already leveled their country. Wasn't much more we COULD do to them.

But yes, total mobilisation, and a two million man army to invade would have done the trick...

And then, we could be doing what we're doing now.

Dave

I don't buy the idea that we lost the Vietnam War. It wasn't a loss--not strategically anyway. It was the Vietnam War that prevented Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Phillipines, Taiwan, South Korea, and maybe even Japan from turning Communist. And since the Vietnam War didn't kill Vietnam, it made Vietnam that much stronger so that it could successfully repel the Chinese invasion of 1975. And when the shooting finally stopped and left Ho Chi Min in charge, the Vietnamese--unlike modern islamofascists--were content to get on with their lives and not export terrorism elsewhere.

Dave, I appreciate your sentiments, but Not your summation. We lost Vietnam for the aforementioned reasons. That combined with the fact that no one has ever won a guerrilla war, by attempting to pacify the population while buying off the supposed leadership, while taking daily casualties via hit and run guerrilla tactics.

And the proof of that fact goes all the way back to the American revolution.

Scorched earth is the only way that you win against a motivated guerrilla army. US Grant and Willian T. Sherman proved that during the American Civil war. And the tactic hasn't been revisited by America since.

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:
Dave, I appreciate your sentiments, but Not your summation. We lost Vietnam for the aforementioned reasons. That combined with the fact that no one has ever won a guerrilla war, by attempting to pacify the population while buying off the supposed leadership, while taking daily casualties via hit and run guerrilla tactics.

And the proof of that fact goes all the way back to the American revolution.

Scorched earth is the only way that you win against a motivated guerrilla army. US Grant and Willian T. Sherman proved that during the American Civil war. And the tactic hasn't been revisited by America since.

That was My Summation, was it not?

The Vietnamses were prepared to fight forever. Why not? It's their home. The only way to be able to beat them is your method, which is the same as mine. Total mobilisation, two million (or more) man Army, invade the North.

Do you honestly think that it would have been worth it?

At the time, as Melvin Laird warned the American people, "We either fight them there or fight them in the streets of San Diego."

San Diego go Communist recently?

There is a trade boom with Vietnam in their ports, is this what you mean?

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Ol_Doc:

quote:

Originally posted by CorporalMcIntyre:
Yes, same ole stuff from this guy. He's never positive about anything.

If all was going well in Iraq we would not be having this conversation.
Hind-sight is of course 20/20. It's easy to see what shoulda, coulda, woulda happend if things had gone this way or that way.
So there was no lesson to "heed" before this war. All wars are different. I think you can appreciate that. After all, we had Korea before Vietnam. Were there lessons learned from Korea?
Maybe, but we can't tell by looking at the outcome of the Vietnam conflict. Were there REALLY lessons from Vietnam? You can't tell by the current issue.
Since we are there and we can't just leave; What to do now?
I have noticed how there seems to be very few people who will admit to agreeing with the invasion.
Did you agree?
Do you still agree?

Respectfully,
Mac

You make it sound like the shifting winds of fortune, "if thing had gone this way or that way". This isn't about the winds of fortune, it's about the lack of planning, the lack of situational awareness, corruption, ideology trumping military doctrine and just plain stupidity. The bad thing is you can't point at just one of the above...it's all of it! You can't tell the lessons learned from Vietnam by todays conflict because they have been ignored.
As to what do we do now? That's going to take greater minds than mine to salvage this situation, but I can tell you one thing; we can't afford to continue down this course. Our military readiness can't afford it and our economy can't afford it. Either we find a way to do it smarter, or we go down the road of the former Soviet Union. And we better damn well find that way soon!

You hit the nail right on the Head

Thank God the 8 years of the American Disgrace is coming to an end.
It is time for the Nation to Unite we will have to to surive as a nation.

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:

Scorched earth is the only way that you win against a motivated guerrilla army. US Grant and Willian T. Sherman proved that during the American Civil war. And the tactic hasn't been revisited by America since.

What about killing off the buffalo? And firebombing just about every Japanese city?

Moreover, the Confederate Army and the Japanese Imperial Army were, for the most part, regular armies with uniforms and units, and generals and all the rest. Moreover, the South and the Japanese aren't as well integrated into today's society because we beat them down, and starved them, and burned them alive--and I respectfully suggest that that's certainly not the "strategy" that should be employed in Iraq. It's ultimately about hearts and minds. Nobody likes seeing a foreign soldier on the street corner when one goes out to buy groceries; but seeing your family and neighbors disappear and get blown up by crazies is even worse. The way you drive out an insurgency is by making it safe for ordinary people--who only want to raise their families and make a living--to resist the insurgents. You do that by sweeping out the insurgents house by house, neighborhood by neighborhood--and then holding on to your gains so normalcy take hold once again. But that's a process that takes time--and casualties, unfortunately. For Huber to say crap like, "These true believers have asked us for a seemingly endless string of six-month extensions, chances to get it right this time, until they sound like sulky children at bedtime who just want “five more minutes, Mom.” is beyond asinine. Why is he on military.com? He belongs in the New York Times. . . .

quote:

It is time for the Nation to Unite we will have to to surive as a nation.

OK.
The clouds will part and the Lord will make his face to shine upon us.
Just like dat <snap>.
You crazy kids.

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:

quote:

The most delusional meme of post-modern U.S. military culture is that America lost the Vietnam War on the home front. Nothing could be further, quite literally, from the truth. America lost Vietnam half a world away from the home front—in Southeast Asia, where it fought what has become the template for superpower entanglement in third world wars.

Yet many of Operation Iraqi Freedom’s most avid backers believe—or claim to believe—that America’s military can somehow achieve the “victory” in Iraq that eluded it in Vietnam if only the public gives it enough opportunity. These true believers have asked us for a seemingly endless string of six-month extensions, chances to get it right this time, until they sound like sulky children at bedtime who just want “five more minutes, Mom.”

We lost Vietnam for two reasons. The "Whiz Kids" Robert Strange McNamara (what's in a name?) and others who micro managed the war and refused to let it be won. Combined with the fact that uncle Walter Cronkite was hammering the home front daily with his own personal insights into why we were losing, while showing the body bags and taking off his glasses and wiping his eyes.

That and the fact that the will was never there for the government to do what needed to be done to end it. The North Vietnamese admitted as much after the fact. they were beaten until the American media and the leftist fanatics saved their bacon.

Nixon tried to win it with the bombing of the noth campaign and that of Laos and Cambodia. But our loss was everyone's gain right? Only 2 or 3 million or more died at the hands of Pol Pot and others after we left. But that was OK.

So dream on people. The same exact thing is afoot this go round.

Just remember the phrase "peace with honor." Get use to it cause it's coming.

We lost Vietnam for simple reasons, I agree at least with those conclusions.

We lost because the Vietnamese were home. We weren't. We lost because we weren't ready to mobilise the country for total war.

If we had, we would have won. And if we had won, we would be doing the exact same thing we are doing today; lining up to make trade agreements.

So we "lost," and are lining up to make trade agreements.

Those who claim that the Vietnamese were ready to surrender are depending on discredited fantasies. Make for good reading but are divorced from logic. Why would they possibly surrender? They had been fighting since 1940 - In other words, for over 35 years. Two million murderered by the Japanese, millions killed by the French - They were going to surrender to US? we had already leveled their country. Wasn't much more we COULD do to them.

But yes, total mobilisation, and a two million man army to invade would have done the trick...

And then, we could be doing what we're doing now.

Dave

Dave you got this right Viet Nam has done very well for them selves . They have acted responsibility as a nation . They cleaned up Cambodia after we could not, slapped the crap out of the Chinese, and have done well economically. I just bought a shirt made in Viet Nam in the Ft. Polk PX

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:
Dave, I appreciate your sentiments, but Not your summation. We lost Vietnam for the aforementioned reasons. That combined with the fact that no one has ever won a guerrilla war, by attempting to pacify the population while buying off the supposed leadership, while taking daily casualties via hit and run guerrilla tactics.

And the proof of that fact goes all the way back to the American revolution.

Scorched earth is the only way that you win against a motivated guerrilla army. US Grant and Willian T. Sherman proved that during the American Civil war. And the tactic hasn't been revisited by America since.

Our Civil War was not a guerrilla war/COIN operation.

quote:

Originally posted by Motive25:

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:
Dave, I appreciate your sentiments, but Not your summation. We lost Vietnam for the aforementioned reasons. That combined with the fact that no one has ever won a guerrilla war, by attempting to pacify the population while buying off the supposed leadership, while taking daily casualties via hit and run guerrilla tactics.

And the proof of that fact goes all the way back to the American revolution.

Scorched earth is the only way that you win against a motivated guerrilla army. US Grant and Willian T. Sherman proved that during the American Civil war. And the tactic hasn't been revisited by America since.

Our Civil War was not a guerrilla war/COIN operation.

"Our Civil War was not a guerrilla war"


Did some one forget to tell
William Clark Quantrill that?

quote:

Originally posted by Locutisprime:
Dave, I appreciate your sentiments, but Not your summation. We lost Vietnam for the aforementioned reasons. That combined with the fact that no one has ever won a guerrilla war, by attempting to pacify the population while buying off the supposed leadership, while taking daily casualties via hit and run guerrilla tactics.

And the proof of that fact goes all the way back to the American revolution.

Scorched earth is the only way that you win against a motivated guerrilla army. US Grant and Willian T. Sherman proved that during the American Civil war. And the tactic hasn't been revisited by America since.

"Scorched earth is the only way that you win "

Yes that is how Hitler won WW2. I forgot he did not win. Did not work then and it will not work now. We can win but we have to have a draft and put at least 7-800,000 troops in for 5 or more years. I am all for it.