- This topic has 5 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is a thought I’ve been developing for some time: the death knell of any policy or military expedition a free socieity undertakes is the loss of strategic initiative; momentum, if you will.
We lost in Vietnam because the American public lost patience with our strategy and methods there. They lost patience because there were no discernible gains being made (or losses to be reversed.) There was no front line. The "search and destroy" tactic was ineffectual and discontent grew. Tactics were changed to "clear and hold" and "Vietnamization" which was a quantum leap improvement, but it wasn't in place long enough to know whether or not it could have "worked" to end the war--i.e. deter the North Vietnamese. I believe it might have, but it's all speculation no matter which way you cut it. Americans like forward progress, land captured, enemy units destroyed or captured, etc. In short, all the hallmarks of a successful military endeavor. Our personality isn't well suited to a seige mentality.
Likewise, when we withdrew from Vietnam, the South was at a natural disadvantage because they were "fighting not to lose" rather than "fighting to win" like the North was. They never had the strategic initiative, in other words. They never had a goal to strive for. It's almost a defeatist posture and one ill-suited to the American experience. I view this as the biggest flaw of our Vietnam strategy.
This is what worries me about Iraq. For the record, I supported the war, support the war, and will continue to support the war. I also get as tired as anyone of the tiresome and overwhelmingly irrelevant "Iraq=Vietnam" meme so popular in pseudo-intellectual circles, but I fear the same fatigue may be setting in among the public, even among the supporters of the war. We're not moving forward anymore (or so they think.) We've dug in and are static, the one thing Americans can't stand: non-action. We put up with comparitiverly massive casualty figures in both world wars because we knew progress was being made and it was tangible: land captured, ships sunk, bombing raids mounted, etc. Too many people fail to see the bigger picture and instead demand "action or come home," unspoken or not. Whatever real progress is being made in Iraq goes unreported but more significantly, misinterpreted as not "really" progress because the troops are not seen as rolling forward, front lines aren't being rolled back, enemy troops aren't surrendering, etc. We like to see action, movement, we despise waiting and being caught on the defensive.
Thoughts?Nemesis:
Women are voting in Iraq and Afghanistan and constitutions are in place where tyranny once ruled. Give the American people credit.....they understand that the war on terror is being fought overseas instead of in Anytown, U.S.A. and we are exporting democracy to nations who would never have known it otherwise. The people also understand that too much has been invested to turn back now. Vietnam was a war based on a flawed premise (the Domino Effect) and in a nation where strategic interests for the United States was a hard sell......in sum, who cared if communism took over Vietnam? Most Americans didn't even know the slightest thing about Vietnam or where it was, much less care about the plight of its people. Furthermore, Vietnam was such a foreign culture, we could not socially identify with the people of the region and when they tried, they just lumped them in the same category as the hated Japanese who even as late as the 1960's was hated by World War II veterans and others of that generation. The Middle East has oil....an American interest, and Israel which many Americans view as our best ally and the land of the Bible. We can culturally identify with this region and our cause is liberating people from bad religion and tyranny....a concept far easier to grasp than a political science theory based on faulty premises. Does this help? ❓I’ll be the first to admit that Iraq and Vietnam are little, if anything, alike in geopolitical terms. However, I don’t have the confidence you do in the public that they’ll put up with what they perceive to be inaction and a defensive posture; things they rightly hate.
Remember, I'm not saying progress isn't being made. I know as well as anyone that it is. I'm saying the perception is that we're not doing anything because this is somewhat of an unprecedented way for America to fight a long term conflict. They perceive that we may have lost the strategic initiative and that is fatal to the war's prosecution. IF the people don't like it, they won't stand for it.I think that it’s the same political division responsible for the Bork fiasco that is pushing the Iraq=Vietnam comparisons. Today, wars are fought on many levels – hardly just the physical battlefield anymore. Psyops has existed in some form since the days of Sun Tzu and Alexander the Great, but I would imagine that it has not been until modern times (20th Century) that psyops really took off as its importance was realized. It’s one way to help win a war.
Another way is through domestic political processes; change the political sway of a country and support falls out from a war. I think it's entirely possible to win a war by doing this, whether you are a foreign enemy of an administration or an internal enemy. What better way than by identifying the current Iraq war with Vietnam, a war which is considered, at least in the public eye, as being one which was a losing effort? While there are some similarities (exercise with uncertain end date in sight), there are many more differences.When a war last as long as they do people lose faith in the war and what it represent, it just like the in the east with the war everyone was 4 it but know their views are changing! Once again hot topic in history and one the will be debated in the long run!
As a corollary, think about the Civil War: the North won, first and foremost, because they were fighting for a singular goal: the reunification of the nation. The South, much like South Vietnam after our withdrawl, was literally fighting not to lose. They weren’t fighting to conquer the North but the North (in both cases) was fighting to conquer them and impose their system on the South. This is what I mean by strategic iniative: what you are fighting for.
The public rightly wants us to be moving forward and imposing our will on the conquered (a crude way to put it, I admit.) Right now, the side with the strategic iniative (as defined above, i.e. the side fighting to establish itself as THE power in a nation or region) is the insurgency. I know as well as anyone the insurgents and terrorists are losing more and more everyday and will ultimately be defeated, but they are the only side (or so it seems) with an agenda. We're fighting so that the Iraqis won't lose, which is a posture the American public despises; they can't help it. We like action and stasis is anti-thetical to our way of life. Most people are naturally opposed to such a situation. However, this has been made all the worse by the fact that the media is so anti-war and the administration hasn't done the best job (to put it mildly) of selling this war to the public.Interesting comparisons between Civil War North/South goals, North/South Vietnam goals, and Iraq/insurgency goals. I’m wondering if this could be drawn out some more.
For example, the goal of Iraq it to become self-governing and essentially to "impose" its will on the country (sounds bad, but this is merely another way of creating a land of laws). From my understanding, the goal of the insurgents doesn't appear to be any form of government, but the downfall of the established government. In this sense, the insurgents have an easy task; they try to create chaos with small numbers of men and don't have to worry about governance.I am interested whether you think that a national goal is more important than a goal for the leaders of that nation. Is it more important for the people of a country to have a goal and support it (and the people fighting for that goal) than it is for the leaders/rulers of a country to have a specific goal and work to complete it?
The situation you describe is a fundamental question of politics in a leadership change, and I imagine that even the Greeks debated this kind of question. The will of the people is dependent upon things that they perceive, which is not always a complete picture. It can also shift easily because of propaganda, moments of extreme emotion, and so forth. It also may be impractical. Leaders have a better view of what is practical because they have a more complete view of resources, capabilities, and other assets which are necessary to achieve a goal. However, they can be corrupted and can forget about their constituents which they serve.In the end I think that it is a balancing act; the national goal is important, but it should be pursued in terms of the goals of the rulers. Of course, the rulers' goals should be made in light of the national goal. Expecting the national goal to be pursued at all costs can lead to impracticability and lead to anarchy; expecting the rulers' to complete their own goals without regard for the national goal can lead to totalitarianism.
I am interested whether you think that a national goal is more important than a goal for the leaders of that nation. Is it more important for the people of a country to have a goal and support it (and the people fighting for that goal) than it is for the leaders/rulers of a country to have a specific goal and work to complete it?
In a representative democracy, both are important, but at base I'm gonna have to choose the people. What is happening now is the "leaders" (i.e. Congress) are becoming skittish about our Iraq goals because they stilll have the Vietnam syndrome; they're worried about what the people will think about Iraq and are trying to beat the curve so to speak. This feeds the voters concerns and fears and pretty soon it becomes a circle of doubt and anxiety that bleeds over into loss of morale and eventual abandonment of the mission. However, the public (defying my expectations) has remained remarkably steadfast in its support for the Iraq venture and is bucking the political trend of worry and fretting. So it just goes to show the power of the people is paramount because even if a majority of the political class is opposed to something, they dare not defy the wishes of the people if the people consider it to be important enough. Or if they do, they risk losing their jobs, the worst fear of every politician.
