Terrorism Discussion V2

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Ender Sai, Mar 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. IceHawk-181 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2004
    star 4
    Ender, I never characterized the use of force as a deterrent to terrorism, I characterized force as a means to eliminate/kill/expunge from society all persons and states currently involved in the indiscriminate and genocidal murder of civilians for ideological statements.

    ?Is it more important to kill UBL and 100 al-Qaeda fighters, or to dry the resource well up??

    That is a good question.
    Assuming that each of those 100 al-Qaeda fighters only hits a marketplace around breakfast time, and therefore their cumulative death toll would only be around 1,000 to 2,000 civilian casualties, I would say in the short term?

    ?kill the terrorists themselves, yes.

    It?s an ignorant philosophy, I know, I pray you will continue to lecture to us on why having to killing terrorists is a failure.



    Let us assume for a moment that your economic welfare programs for Terrorist supporting states would work.
    (Despite the fact that the infusion of $8 Billion in international assistance has done nothing to slow-down terrorist activities in Afghanistan.) And that somehow the United States and the world community could provide jobs for ~40% of the Iran people and ~50% of the Afghani people?

    How then do we deal with the estimated 20k-100k fighters in Iraq who kill women and children as a matter of course?
    Or the Taliban insurgents?

    I take it we sit down and convince them the err of there ways, presenting a future of hard-work in a capitalistic society?

  2. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    And after we've had a real life CounterStrike game which will make you very happy, as those men are killed, how do you deal with the aftermath? That which convinces fence-sitting-but-tempted young Muslim males of the righteousness of the cause and the inherent evil of the west, and to take up the arms and ideals of their martyred brothers?

    Kill them too. Yes, kill them all, it works! Look how safe Israel is!

    o_O

    Tell me Icehawk, is the most effective treatment, in your opinion, for gangrene to cut the gangrenous tissue off wherever it pops up?

    Is it best to stop people from feeling pain if they have cancer?

    Or is it better to remove the gangrenous limb and start remission?

    You advocate nothing more than the former, with no consideration of the latter.

    I made it clear numerous times prior to the Iraq war you were going to have a terrorist problem. Any fool can - though most neocons, being fools, didn't - read local media in the Arab world and see the constant message from Imams that America means to take over the MidEast. They could see the American invasion of Iraq would simply vindicate that claim, and it would lead to a rise in terrorist violence. Of course, Dr Wolfy wasn't having a bar of this - he wanted war for years and years, and told Congress that Iraq would be such a happy haven for democratic processes and freedom-loving, terrorist hating peoples that you'd need no more than a few thousands (i.e. <10,000) troops for security duty following Saddam's collapse.

    The writing was on the wall, all 12ft of it, in six languages and with a miniseries coming soon to HBO. But we went the military option, because bombs and guns and killing Aaay-rabs will make America safe.

    How, we don't know, but they still could! [face_worried]

    And of course, if you asked these bigger questions, why, you were just plain evil. Those terrorists could kill a baby, and why would you not want to kill them before they killed a baby, E_S? Do you hate freedom that much?

    I point to Ireland, noting that the economic prosperity dried up the number of young bodies with nothing to do (hence, joining the IRA) and people said, "But there was diplomacy!" - yet they have no consideration for why it was after Ireland's boom that peace became possible.

    I point to Saudi Arabia, and nobody wants to talk about it because talk, and oil, are cheap. Nobody can tell me why the popularity of extremism rose in Saudi Arabia proportionate to the decline of per capita earnings, of course.

    So really, Ice-Hawk, what I guess bugs me is not that you and many others think tactically, and badly at that. It's the high horse you don't deserve to ride that gets me. Your policy has been a categoric, demonstrable failure in every imaginable circumstance. Iraq? Check, but that was hamstrung from the beginning by the neoconservative bloodlust and idealism. Israel? Check, and check, and remind me who killed Rabin? Afghanistan - we threw money at them with little direction. Public servants in Afghanistan still lack housing. Electricity? Ha! Infrastructure? Ha! Iraq was a far more entertaining exercise in vicarious warfare.

    Icehawk, you cannot show me your policy working, and you cannot deny that recruitment for terrorist organisations thrives when a lack of prosperity is found. Developing basic infrastructure creates jobs, which creates more jobs to serve that professional class. The more jobs you have, the lower unemployment, the lower unemployment, the less kids going into Mosque and hearing how blowing Americans and themselves up was what God just told the Imam must be done on the phone that very morning.

    It will never eradicate terrorism, but you cannot eradicate it so you manage it. It's long term, and lacks the self-satisfying rhetoric of killing a bunch of people, but it depends if you want results or the appearance of wanting results.

    E_S

    EDITS: Speelung
  3. IceHawk-181 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2004
    star 4
    Yet again with that Liberal Intellectual Elitism, take care of which party you classify as ignorant of history, and which person.

    If you are quite finished with your sensationalized rhetoric, let us analyze a real-life historical incident involving American occupation forces and a terrorist-insurgency. (Not the personal theory of a graduate student, mind you.)

    In the closing years of the 19th Century the United States was engaged with Emilio Aquinaldo, Miguel Malvar, and the Filipino ladrones.

    Following the conventional military defeat at the hands of the American armed forces, with the Filipino army shattered, and the prospect of an on-going American occupation, the Filipino militants turned to guerrilla warfare. The militants allied themselves with local ladrones, traditional bandits, and struck American forces wherever they could.

    Aquinaldo and Malvar understood guerrilla-warfare and tactics, aiming to undermine American morale and hopefully influence the upcoming election of 1900 in favor of an anti-Imperialist Democrat, the insurgents engaged in battle throughout the Philippines.

    They engaged in small-numbers, utilizing hit and fade tactics, and beginning an engagement only when they could win. Whenever they found themselves outnumber they would retreat, stow their weaponry, and pass as civilians.

    The Filipino insurgents also practiced, ?exemplary punishment on traitors to prevent the people of the towns from unworthily selling themselves for the gold of the invader.?

    The insurgents employed terrorist activities to punish civilians who were benefiting from exactly the type of economic aide you are counseling. The establishment of barrios with shadow governments capable of punishing, harshly, ?traitors? gave the insurgents and ever present terrorist effect on the people.

    General Macarthur was given command of this situation, tasked with establishing a government, and brining the insurgency to its knees.

    He advocated benevolent programs such as the Filipino Federal party which gave civilians a means to check and overpower the influence of the barrios.

    However, Macarthur also issued General Orders No. 100, a general ethical code of conduct in war.
    Uniformed armies fought wars and militant guerillas were subject to imprisonment, deportation, and execution.
    Macarthur continued to increase troop strengths, employ local units to help hunt down insurgents.

    MacArthur transferred civilian control over to the new Filipino government and began to execute insurgents under Order 100.

    Near the end of the war General Bell kept some 4,000 troops securing the provinces, fighting the last insurgents like Malvar, destroying crops and livestock to deny insurgents resources, and even rounding up 300,000 civilians into concentration zones for control.

    The end result was $400 million spent, some 4,200 American KIA and nearly 3,000 WIA.
    20,000 Filipino soldiers were killed including thousands of civilians who died from diseases fueled in part by the closeness of the concentration camps.

    The action was not politically savvy or entirely photogenic, with portions of the war bordering on cruel and barbaric.

    Yet the end result was the defeat and surrender of every major insurgency group and a Philippines, which provided the strategic aims that America had sought when they purchased the island.


    As the insurgents in the Philippines held out hope that their tactics would influence the election of an anti-War Democrat in 1900 in the guise of William Jennings Byran, so to do modern Terrorists hold out hope for people like you, who reduce terrorism to an academic debate where the answer is not to treat war as war, but as yet another social problem to be fixed with money.

    My theory is a combination of benevolent social action combinded with merciless military pacification.

    Wholly unacceptable to modern liberal strictures about decency in war, I know.

    However, the war was won, the soldiers came home, and the strategic aims of the conflict were achieved.

    This is my historical example, I
  4. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    What in the sam hell do you call the posts I gave you?

    You want more, let's talk the entire history of Palestinian-Israel warfare.

    Let's talk Opeartion Entebbe, aka Operation Thunderbolt, Thunderball, and retroactively Operation Yonatan.

    Israel's Sayeret Matkal were sent to free hostages from Entebbe Airport in Uganda after Palesitian militants hijack the plane.

    The date for this was 4 July 1976.

    Can you please tell me, Icehawk, how many hijackings occured, if any, after this date by Palestinian militants?

    Can you tell me if the operation carried out by SE reduced terrorism by Palestinians against Israelis in a measurable way?

    Let's also talk Libya, 1986. After airstrikes by US forces on Tripoli, international terrorism literally subsided...

    For about six months.

    Purely military solutions fail, IceHawk, and talking about the apparently non-Imperial US' imperial past does nothing fromt he modern world except illustrate that you can obfuscate like the best of 'em.

    Plus, calling me al iberal is amusing. For starters, I think both the left and right in America are hopeless basket cases, and you have seemingly no idea about little-l liberalism. :)

    E_S
  5. IceHawk-181 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2004
    star 4
    Given some long-duration dialectic between the two of us I have little doubt you would reveal much of your personal politics as American Liberalism, or at the very least hold a spurious connection with its policy in many cases.




    Economic expansion seems to coincide with declining terrorist activities in your studies, and it is your theory that one is the cause of the other, I understand this.

    I also understand the concept of a cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument and the tendency to seek over-generalized rules for social behavior.


    I clarified the details of my theory of the elimination of terrorism in the preceding reply, a combination of benevolent social action and merciless military pacification.

    Even William Mitchell understood that air power needed to act in conjunction with ground forces to achieve strategic objectives. Air Strikes, Cruise Missile Assaults, even limited tactical incursions by ground soldiers do not suffice.

    Military pacification requires an entrenched and mobile military force of substantial size and capability that is able to both occupy and defend pacified regions, force insurgency groups to constantly maneuver, and pacify the rest of the affected territory.

    As was proven in the Filipino-insurrection and in the Tet-Offensive, insurgency groups that chose to fight conventional battles with the American military are doomed to utter devastation. Ergo, they shall avoid such battles at all cost, requiring Macarthur-pacification strategems.


    You seem to be having difficulty differentiating Strategic planning and Tactical operations.

    The Entebbe raid in Uganda on July 4, 1976 was a Tactical operation with the sole strategic aim being the retrieval of the hostages. The operation was an unparalleled success, its only fault being the unfortunate loss of three hostages.

    The Entebbe raid was never meant to act as a deterrent against future hijacking attempts, at the time of its inception it was a tactical operation designed to retrieve the hostages without forcing Israel to release over fifty terrorists.

    Yet somehow the raid failed to accomplish a goal it never sought?

    Perhaps you would like to address the ever-present insurgency groups that operated against American forces in the Philippines until Macarthur?s forced withdrawal in World War II?

    According to your theory the only result of Macarthur?s strategy would be the creation of more Filipino-insurgents.
  6. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    icehawk, it is hilarious (in a sad sort of way) to watch you attempt to educate a man who has a graduate degree in this field of study, and who is well-read and spoken on the issues. your attempt to pigeonhole him into a "party" is laughable, especially given that ender is australian. you write him off as a "liberal", when he is in fact anything but (and doesn't really fit into any easy placement). like santa, perhaps the evil liberal boogeyman travels wherever he needs to go.

    i'd much rather ender save his energy and time responding to more knowledgable and thoughtful people. that would be much better for both him and the forum itself.
  7. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    It's worth noting that aside from the vacuous nature of American politics which makes me eternally grateful to be a Commonwealth citizen, my objection to unions and protectionism would leave me at too great an odds with the Democratic party. Also, I know this concept is shocking to the core but American politics is a unique breed which really isn't found elsewhere amongst the 95.5% of the population that is not American. So really, you shouldn't be using it as a normative yardstick for comparing the politics of others.

    Ah, so really, we should just view the entire Israeli counterterrorism pursuit as a string of successes, rather than a devastating strategic failure? What a brilliant idea. So we ought then abandon the notion of the war on terror, which could be argued to be suffering from a strategic cataract, and instead focus on the "tactical" success.

    I also think it's commendable you look just to Tet and not to the ignominious defeat of Allied forces in Viet nam to make your point. Spendid work, good sir.

    Whilst you're certainly right that Entebbe or whatever one wants to call it was indeed, an operation devised solely to rescue hostages it still forms part of the broader Israeli counter-terrorism package, aka what to do with the Palestinians.

    Similar operations carried out, which showed the reach and resolve of Israeli forces, failed as much as the current offensive, or the invasion of Lebanon in the 1980's, to resolve the Palestinian issue.

    Violence subsided briefly when Rabin and Arafat (I love the irony of terrorist with a Nobel peace prize, don't you?) looked to be forming an understanding, but of course we know what happened next.

    But I must say, rose-tinted goggles do indeed make a more palatable history. No, no, no, Vietnam wasn't a failure - Tet showed that guerillas will lose against US forces(1). And an obscure campaign from the 19th Century, well outside the framework of globalisation and trans-state/sub-state actors, is indeed not obfuscating.

    Of course, the (over) reliance on military resolutions in Afghanistan and Iraq are best viewed in the tactical, not strategic context - bugger winning the war, we've got a battle here!

    E_S
  8. IceHawk-181 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2004
    star 4
    Long-post....I need to sleep [face_coffee] [face_coffee] [face_coffee]


    Knight Writer, I have been searching for a proper response to your tangential diatribe, and have failed to conceive of one suitable for my argument.

    I have decided on this?
    Appeal to Authority
    That Enders is an educated man has absolutely no bearing on the logical validity of his arguments.

    That will suffice, your attack on me notwithstanding.[face_shame_on_you]



    The Tet-Offensive did demonstrate that insurgency groups are devastated in conventional battles against First World Military forces such as the United States. The 1,536 to 45,000 cumulative death ratio speaks to that fact most clearly. As it does the Easter Offensive essentially devastated the Viet Cong, hindering their ability to continue on with new operations.

    Enders, where in my post did I declare Vietnam a Strategic victory, or claim Israel, was winning the conflict, and where did I establish multiple tactical victories equate to a strategic victory?

    If I am not mistaken, I made none of these claims, and you are responding to issues I never brought up.
    For the record?
    Vietnam as a war was a Strategic Failure, as a tactical engagement in the overall Cold War, a possible success.
    Tactical victories do not directly equate to strategic victories.
    Neither Israel nor Palestine is close, or ever has been close, to a strategic victory.
    Also, as I pointed out using Mitchell, tactical operations are not useful without a real war effort.



    It is good to know that the tactics employed in the formative years by General of the Army Douglas Macarthur have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on modern warfare, as they are obviously useless in a world of growing economic interdependence.

    You are kidding correct?
    The tactics of Roman Legions to coral Hannibal, Alexander?s method of governorship throughout his empire, the particulars of his cavalry movements, the stand of King Leonidas and the 300 against the Persians, the battle of Salamis, Alexander?s mole at Tyre, are all studied by command officers in the American military and by strategic theorists as meaningful demonstrations of command.

    General Macarthur is one of the greatest military heroes in American history as well as a strategic and tactical genius in the minds of many.

    His stratagem in the Philippines, which was essentially generalized rules about objective priorities and forcing enemy maneuvers, is as valid today as it was then.

    Macarthur and Bell?s pacification strategies were adopted, some would say very incorrectly, with the Hamlet system in Vietnam.

    As a historical military example, Macarthur?s operations in the Philippines were a much-needed definition of how to fight small wars.

    A topic so important that the United States military spent great time and effort to go through various publications of a Small Wars Manual, based in great part on counter-insurgency strategies like those employed by the General.

    Also, you seem to be missing the point entirely.

    Military pacification is to deal with existing insurgents/terrorists, while benevolent social welfare programs such as those you are advocating are meant to prevent the rise of new ones.

    Ironically, we began this argument when I agreed social aide was instrumental in removing terror.:oops: o_O



  9. IceHawk-181 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2004
    star 4
    Essentially, that seems to be one of my major problems with the current policy.
  10. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Short on time, so I might say I think KW was talking about you distilling my arguments down to mere leftist drivel, which is insulting and inaccurate.

    E_S
  11. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    The Tet and Easter Offensives were a success?? I'm sorry, but didn't the US retreat out of Vietnam? Can one seriously choose the Vietnam conflict as proof positive that the US can effectively combat insurgencies? That's laughable.

  12. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    Not at all Che, if you basically shave the rest of the war and those uncomfortable, annoying "losses" then in a single, isolated context Tet showed the US could beat a guerilla army.

    We should avoid bigger picture analysis, because then Ice-Hawk's entire point falls to pieces. Millions of tiny pieces.

    E_S
  13. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I'd think you'd have to further distill the goals of Vietnam down.

    The US's involvement in relation to South Vietnam didn't ultimately accomplish its goal (To keep two separate countries intact)

    The US's involvement in relation to the US's goals was anything but a failure, and if nothing else it showed the USSr that the US did believe in Domino, and would do just about anything to keep it from happening.

    How one looks at it is dependent on the notion of proxy battles occuring under the cold war umbrella.

    Throw in the social changes occuring within the US, and it's more complicated than "winning or loosing."
  14. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    Plus the insurgency in Vietnam was of a wholly different nature-AQ doesn't have a superpower providing funding/weapons. Nor is there an equivalent of the NVA.
  15. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Ender
    Also, I know this concept is shocking to the core but American politics is a unique breed which really isn't found elsewhere amongst the 95.5% of the population that is not American.

    Wouldn't that be a case of American Exceptionalism?

    o_O

  16. IceHawk-181 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2004
    star 4
    I fail to understand this myopic infatuation with my argument that Vietnam is proof-positive American can win counterinsurgencies.

    Apparently neither Ender or Cheveyo actually read the text of my reply past the words ?Vietnam? and ?Tet Offenisve.?

    I never said this, you two did.

    Try something novel, both of you, and actually read what I wrote.

    I am quite sure you will find various instances where I made sure to characterize Tet as a tactical success and never once did I declare the counter-insurgency strategies and tactics in Vietnam wholly successful. Indeed I believe I characterized them as a misapplication of the lessons from the Filipino-pacification campaign.


    I never made claim that Vietnam was proof-positive of a successful counter-insurgency stratagem and therefore I cannot be attempting to cherry pike evidence in support of an argument I never made.

    And Ender, it is you who is ignoring the entire Strategic and Tactical significance of the entire Filipino-insurrection simply because it most perfectly illustrates my point about military pacification and challenges your point of view.

    You have attempted the use of a Red Herring and Straw man debate tactic and have provided nothing more than an cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument to support your personal theory of unitary causation and solutions.

    All the while refusing to even address a true Historical example of American counter-insurgency forces in a foreign land over a multi-year period?

    ?Apparently because any pre-globalization event is unsuitable and immaterial for a debate.

    Conveniently eliminating every American conflict from the Barbary Pirates to the Philippines, the Cuban insurrection, and the Nicaraguan insurrection in which America was exemplary in its counter-insurgency effectiveness.

    Obviously, you only want to talk about Vietnam in the context of historical examples, and despite the fact you are apparently ignorant of the strategic and tactical incidents of that conflict.

    For the record, the Tet Offensive of 1968 devastated the Viet Cong forces, killing literally half or more of it?s 80,000 man army, and injuring countless more. The defeat was of such magnitude that General Westmoreland even requested an increase in troop levels so he could begin large-scale Counter Offensive Operations.

    Tet devastated the majority of the VC insurgents and forced the NVA to act as the prime targets of the American military, which just so happened to have wiped out the two NVA detachments that had attempted to support the VC?s failed Easter uprising...


    Perhaps I will try this in another way, as you are clearly ignoring my arguments, let?s focus on yours.

    Tell me, upon what criterion did you establish the variable you claim to be declining in relation to increasing economic well-being in your Master?s thesis. What statistical data were you comparing increasing Per Capita GDP to?
    Also, how did you councel that existing violent militants be dealt with in accordance with your desire not to kill them?



    EDIT: Minor gaffe
    I stated in another Reply that it was Douglas Macarthur who initiated the pacification strategies in the Phillipines. That Douglas was roughly 19 years old at the time and obviously not a General means I meant Arthur Macarthur, his father. [face_flag] [face_flag] [face_flag]

  17. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    For the record, the Tet Offensive of 1968 devastated the Viet Cong forces, killing literally half or more of it?s 80,000 man army, and injuring countless more. The defeat was of such magnitude that General Westmoreland even requested an increase in troop levels so he could begin large-scale Counter Offensive Operations.

    it was such an incredible defeat that... the united states backed out of vietnam in virtual defeat by 1974-75?

    wait a minute...
  18. DarthQuellonis Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 22, 2005
    star 4
    The Tet Offensive ended, with the US public thinking the US wasn't invincible anymore, after the Vietcong reached the heavily fortified citadel, Hue. It was more a propaganda victory for the Vietcong than a attrition victory for the US. Ender, I think your point falls into tiny pieces, if you were so "educated" in the field of counter-insurgency, fight the insurgents, do you little tactics. The fact of the matter is, your wrong. Al-Qaida can't be destroyed in the way you speak of through non-action. They also can't be destroyed by destroying their funding. Bin Ladin is not so much a ringleader as he is a spirit to Mujahed forces. There are numerous examples that support this, don't PPOR, because I'll give you a long list of instances when fighters in countries like Somalia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, just to name a few places where fighters detonated themselves in the name of Osama bin Ladin and Allah.

    You need to drop the logic that cutting off their economy, and spy programs are going to work, Osama has had his assets frozen, yet the Taliban guerillas practically own southern Afghanistan now. Al-Qaida is still using Soviet weaponry, which they looted from the recession of Soviet interests. The Mujahed aren't dirt poor, they get money because they aren't punks, they're doctors, profesors, engineers.
    You look at it from a staunch view, why don't you expand your knowledge base and actually get results. Words are useless, actions aren't. You don't achieve anything by arguing over the internet, try solving the world problems...
  19. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Tet was a success . That's one of the things that gets lost in the whole strategic pattern of the war.

    IceHawk is right.

    edit:
    DarthQuellonius
    The Tet Offensive ended, with the US public thinking the US wasn't invincible anymore, after the Vietcong reached the heavily fortified citadel, Hue. It was more a propaganda victory for the Vietcong than a attrition victory for the US.

    That is also true. But I think Icehawk addressed the differences between tactical and strategic.

    Our perceptions of the enemy was way off. They weren't supposed to be able to mount such an offensive, we thought.

    In that way, they did win. As you noted, they won through propaganda: by smashing our false assumptions about them.

    Tactical win. Strategic loss.


  20. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    but the war was still lost, showing again that inside the box thinking, the kind of thinking that says that if you kill enough terrorists, the problem will go away, is simply not going to get the job done.
  21. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    So did the Indians lose the battle of Little Bighorn?
  22. DarthQuellonis Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 22, 2005
    star 4
    Ah, now you say start attacking the economic problem. Well when you do that, they'll say they don't want "infidels" messing with their economy, and the conflict goes on and on... The difficult part about the conflict is that nearly no one can combat them correctly, because we don't care to let go of our own views, to see how they work and look at the world.
  23. IceHawk-181 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 1, 2004
    star 4
    Actually, the militarily speaking, Vietnam was lost by President Johnson, not by General Westmoreland.

    Westmoreland & the Joint Chiefs wanted the unabridged Operation Rolling Thunder to commence, allowing for complete engagement of every strategic and logistical target being utilized by the Viet Cont and North Vietnamese Army throughout North Korea, Laos, and Cambodia.
    The Joint Chiefs and Westmoreland wanted to strike supply shipments as they entered North Vietnam from China and the Soviet Union, before they got anywhere near the militants.
    The Joint Chiefs envisioned a possible ground strength nearing a million combat soldiers; Westmoreland consistently made requests to increase field strength beyond 600,000.

    President Johnson, considering military men boobs who nothing but ?spend and bomb? ignored them.
    He prioritized targets to minimize political backlash.
    He refused to allow the closing of Northern ports being used by Chinese and USSR ships to supply the war.
    He refused to allow Operation Rolling Thunder to be launched in it?s original status.
    He refused to heed the JCS and General Westmoreland?s calls for increasing troop strengths.
    He refused to allow major incursions into North Vietnam by ground forces.

    Do we begin to see the picture?

    The insurgency achieved a political victory through the public reaction to Tet and increasing causalty figures.
    As is the aim of all insurgent groups, they maintained the war of attrition until they were either all dead, or the other Amry gave up and went home.

    We lost Vietnam because we chose to retreat based on political fallout.

    If you believe we lost a single major tactical engagement, you'd be hard pressed to supply an example of one.

    As the saying goes, we lost Vietnam when we never failed to win a battle.[face_not_talking]

  24. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Just like the US Civil War. The CSA won most of the battles, but the Union wore them down(well, that and did score some impressive victories in the South late in the war).

    IceHawk
    President Johnson, considering military men boobs who nothing but ?spend and bomb? ignored them.
    He prioritized targets to minimize political backlash.
    He refused to allow the closing of Northern ports being used by Chinese and USSR ships to supply the war.
    He refused to allow Operation Rolling Thunder to be launched in it?s original status.
    He refused to heed the JCS and General Westmoreland?s calls for increasing troop strengths.
    He refused to allow major incursions into North Vietnam by ground forces.

    Do we begin to see the picture?


    Yeah, that sounds alot like W. Bush.





  25. EMRYS_FARSEER Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 9, 2001
    star 1
    Ender_Sai, I'd like to go back a couple of pages to a point you made regarding the building up of economies as a method of decreaseing terrorism. I believe that there will always be that element within the terrorist community that is not motivated by economics but rather by religious fervor. That being said, if one were to actually attempt to rebuild these various economies, how could you do so and insure that those funds would not go into more lavish palaces, etc., instead of into the infrastructures that the people truly need?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.