5
5
0
There's a great line from a Rambo movie that reflected how Vietnam Veterans felt after the Vietnam war. "Are they going to let us win this time?" The Gulf War not withstanding, America has done poorly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely, just as there were in Vietnam, there are many complex reasons for this. I've written and spoken about what Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have in common--poor leadership from the White House, the wrong strategies, and bad rules of engagement. I firmly believe that no war, save all out nuclear war, is unwindable. America's problem in the post Vietnam War era is that we are unwilling to go the distance and commit the resources necessary to win wars. We won the Gulf War because we employed the doctrine of "overwhelming force." In Iraq and Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, we tried to apply "just enough force" to provide for an exit strategy. Compounding this problem, the rules of engagement stifle the troops. No one wants to stick their neck out for an exit strategy. The situation in the ME and in South Asia may be too far gone to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but when will we learn what it takes to win wars? History is replete with examples. Our generals and admirals know them well. Our political leaders who have never served in the military and the American People, apparently, do not.
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 13
Definitely yes!!! Like Vietnam and the 'hearts and minds BS' that he incidentally apologized for before this death. Too little, too late and the likes of our Vietnam and Vietnam-era Veterans of which I come from the latter.
(2)
(0)
I believe what happened was the National Government discriminated against the Sunnis who probably had legitimate grievances. ISIS which is Sunni left Syria to unite with a friendly population in Sunni held areas.
(2)
(0)
WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS: One of our problems is victory is predicated on winning the hearts of minds of locals. We are hoping that loyalty from the people will bolster support for the military and government, but that can not be achieved with a weak military, corrupt government, or stronger tribal loyalties.
SAFE HAVENS: If we do not challenge the insurgents where they live, then they will always have a place to find safety and a staging area, as they refuse to fight a decisive battle.
FIGHTING INSURGENCY: Our strategy never changes. We bring in a large conventional force with three goals: rebuilding a country, rebuilding the military, and installing a democratic government. Throw in the kinetic fight and we have a lot going on with lots of human capital and money. I call this the maximum approach.
There are more ways to fight insurgencies. The British used Infantry Regiments to fight insurgencies. They would often live, eat, and sleep with the locals. Their goal to look for and kill insurgents in their territory was a notable tactic. Peru used the Anvil and Hammer method. The local militia fixed the insurgents and the regular army finished the job. What is painfully obvious is that we are incapable of adjusting to win.
SAFE HAVENS: If we do not challenge the insurgents where they live, then they will always have a place to find safety and a staging area, as they refuse to fight a decisive battle.
FIGHTING INSURGENCY: Our strategy never changes. We bring in a large conventional force with three goals: rebuilding a country, rebuilding the military, and installing a democratic government. Throw in the kinetic fight and we have a lot going on with lots of human capital and money. I call this the maximum approach.
There are more ways to fight insurgencies. The British used Infantry Regiments to fight insurgencies. They would often live, eat, and sleep with the locals. Their goal to look for and kill insurgents in their territory was a notable tactic. Peru used the Anvil and Hammer method. The local militia fixed the insurgents and the regular army finished the job. What is painfully obvious is that we are incapable of adjusting to win.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next