'Nam for dummies
President Bush went to Vietnam, and of course had to answer questions about Iraq.
From the Chicago Tribune:
“Asked what lessons the war in Vietnam offered for the war in Iraq, Bush's response suggested a need for patience and determination—a nod toward the U.S. decision to abandon Vietnam after a protracted and unsuccessful war there.’We'll succeed unless we quit,’ Bush said.”
Faith in our ability to win by determination is not remarkable.
What I find remarkable is going to a country we fought, and saying that the lesson of that war is that we would have kicked their ass if only we had stayed.
And as long as we are on Vietnam, did I miss something? Did they change the history books when I was off having a beer and watching Family Guy?
I could have sworn that the lesson of Vietnam was that you can not defeat a guerilla army with conventional forces if the guerillas have the support of the population. I could have sworn that the lesson of Vietnam is that the U.S. was arrogant and failed to understand why THEY were fighting, and so we could not defeat them. I could sworn that the lesson of Vietnam was that American troops are most effective when they have a clear and honest reason to fight (witness WWII vs. Vietnam).
Or maybe the real lesson of Vietnam is that Henry Kissinger can give VERY bad advice.
posted by The sane one @ 9:08 PM
1 Comments:
I believe a lesson from 'nam would be - it's difficult to beat a fanatical enemy in guerilla fighting when the local population is supportive of that enemy, and your population is against the war.
Also, I believe, in a way, Dubya is correct about 'nam (patience). You see, the NVA (that's the North Vietnamese Army) had a particularly sound strategy. It's an old strategy - as old as Sun Tzu.
Their strategy was to fight when conditions were favorable, and not to fight when conditions were not favorable (they were patient fighters). Favorable conditions might be - advantageous terrain, or attacking from an ambush, etc. Unfavorable conditions might be being outnumbered 10-1.
Now that might seem like a very simplistic strategy, but it's important for military leaders to understand when to fight and when not to fight.
The South Vietnamese soldiers understood this as well.
U.S. military units, however, tended to attack, regardless of the prevailing conditions. Take "Hamburger Hill" for instance. The conditions were unfavorable, yet the U.S. attacked anyway. Sure, the hill was eventually taken, but the cost in lives made it a Pyrrhic victory.
I believe, had the U.S. military leaders (officers from the top all the way on down to the individual unit leaders) of the time understood this simple maxim, the outcome may have been different.
This is not to say that fighting differently in a guerrilla war will claim victory by itself. The U.S. also would have had to sway the opinion of the local populace.
My parting shot - similarities between 'nam and irak:
1. Guerrilla war.
2. Sagging U.S. public support
3. some local population support for the guerrillas.
Post a Comment
<< Home