There are still millions of people who remember the Vietnam War and how it was managed by the president. The Vietnam War began in earnest when president John Kennedy put 16,000 advisors into South Vietnam to help the regime there deal with an uprising by local Communist rebels who were supported by the North Vietnamese government. That was the "original sin" when it came to Vietnam, although most liberals chose to ignore that fact and Kennedy's involvement as time went by. After all, Kennedy was a liberal icon and his reputation couldn't be sullied by connecting him to the war in Vietnam. The heavy American involvement in fighting in Vietnam, however, began under the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. Johnson managed to up the number of American soldiers in Vietnam from 16000 in 1963 when he took office to about 550,000 in 1969 when he left office. Under Johnson, however, the increase in soldiers was done gradually. Every few months, Johnson would announce another increase in the troop commitment. There was even a term coined for the practice: "escalation". American force numbers increased slowly upwards as if they were on an escalator.
In 1963 and 1964, America had overwhelming military power compared to the Communists in Vietnam and their supporters in North Vietnam. Johnson, however, chose not to use all that power. Instead, he kept trying to use just enough power to overcome the enemy but no more than that. As a result, each time the USA increased its strength in Vietnam, it did not deliver a knockout blow. Instead, the enemy was given time to react to the new American forces and to take measures to overcome their new power. Meanwhile, back in the USA, the support for the war began to erode as it passed four years of fighting without any sign of ending. Indeed, it took the presidency of Richard Nixon before American leadership began to unleash the full weight of US military force on the enemy, but that was coupled with a withdrawal of much of the US force made necessary by the loss of support for the war at home.
How could such a mess transpire with regard to a subject as important as a war? The answer is that the Vietnam war was run by politicians and "experts" out of the White House rather than allowing the military to control things. Johnson had advisors who were sure that they could calibrate the number of troops needed to win without going overboard. They did not understand that in war, the goal is not to have a proportionate response, but rather a disproportionate response that quickly overwhelms the enemy. Had the Pentagon been allowed to seen major forces into Vietnam at the start of the war, it might have ended quickly with the defeat of the Communist forces. We'll never know for certain, of course, because the Pentagon was not allowed to run the Vietnam war but had to instead run a political war calculated by the "experts" at the White House.
After Vietnam, much was written about the need for the use of overwhelming force to win battles. During Desert Storm, America sent half a million men along with huge allied forces to oust the Iraqis from Kuwait. That ground war took less than five days to complete. The lesson of Vietnam had been learned.
Now we once again have a president and "experts" in the White House who are running military strategy and messing up royally. The latest announcement by president Obama that he is sending 250 more troops to Syria is in the sad tradition of the escalation moves during the war in Vietnam. No sane person could believe that 250 troops will really shift the equation in fighting ISIS. There's just not enough of them. All that has happened is that we now have an additional 250 American targets at which ISIS can take aim. The reports have leaked out that the Pentagon does not support this latest escalation as the proper strategy, but Obama is ignoring that opposition.
When he was elected, Obama was often touted always being the smartest one in the room. Clearly, that was just a phony image created by the press. Nevertheless, it is sad to realize that not only is our president a delusional fool, but also that he is likely to cost us massive battlefield losses by putting American troops in harm's way without the full backing of the US military. How many dead and wounded will it take before Obama decides to increase forces in Syria again? And when that increase comes, will it be just a few hundred or a few thousand more?
The lesson of history is clear. If American military forces are going to be engaged in battle, it is incumbent upon the USA to us overwhelming force against the enemy. Doing anything less than that results in MORE casualties and a lower chance for victory. Obama needs to consider this lesson. Sadly, he just won't.
In 1963 and 1964, America had overwhelming military power compared to the Communists in Vietnam and their supporters in North Vietnam. Johnson, however, chose not to use all that power. Instead, he kept trying to use just enough power to overcome the enemy but no more than that. As a result, each time the USA increased its strength in Vietnam, it did not deliver a knockout blow. Instead, the enemy was given time to react to the new American forces and to take measures to overcome their new power. Meanwhile, back in the USA, the support for the war began to erode as it passed four years of fighting without any sign of ending. Indeed, it took the presidency of Richard Nixon before American leadership began to unleash the full weight of US military force on the enemy, but that was coupled with a withdrawal of much of the US force made necessary by the loss of support for the war at home.
How could such a mess transpire with regard to a subject as important as a war? The answer is that the Vietnam war was run by politicians and "experts" out of the White House rather than allowing the military to control things. Johnson had advisors who were sure that they could calibrate the number of troops needed to win without going overboard. They did not understand that in war, the goal is not to have a proportionate response, but rather a disproportionate response that quickly overwhelms the enemy. Had the Pentagon been allowed to seen major forces into Vietnam at the start of the war, it might have ended quickly with the defeat of the Communist forces. We'll never know for certain, of course, because the Pentagon was not allowed to run the Vietnam war but had to instead run a political war calculated by the "experts" at the White House.
After Vietnam, much was written about the need for the use of overwhelming force to win battles. During Desert Storm, America sent half a million men along with huge allied forces to oust the Iraqis from Kuwait. That ground war took less than five days to complete. The lesson of Vietnam had been learned.
Now we once again have a president and "experts" in the White House who are running military strategy and messing up royally. The latest announcement by president Obama that he is sending 250 more troops to Syria is in the sad tradition of the escalation moves during the war in Vietnam. No sane person could believe that 250 troops will really shift the equation in fighting ISIS. There's just not enough of them. All that has happened is that we now have an additional 250 American targets at which ISIS can take aim. The reports have leaked out that the Pentagon does not support this latest escalation as the proper strategy, but Obama is ignoring that opposition.
When he was elected, Obama was often touted always being the smartest one in the room. Clearly, that was just a phony image created by the press. Nevertheless, it is sad to realize that not only is our president a delusional fool, but also that he is likely to cost us massive battlefield losses by putting American troops in harm's way without the full backing of the US military. How many dead and wounded will it take before Obama decides to increase forces in Syria again? And when that increase comes, will it be just a few hundred or a few thousand more?
The lesson of history is clear. If American military forces are going to be engaged in battle, it is incumbent upon the USA to us overwhelming force against the enemy. Doing anything less than that results in MORE casualties and a lower chance for victory. Obama needs to consider this lesson. Sadly, he just won't.
No comments:
Post a Comment