The killer doves, part 2
The liberals in charge of US war policy in Vietnam successfully were able to frame the debate as one between "hawks" and "doves." This was a grossly misleading analogy that showed their ignorance of military history and warfare. The libs decide to respond to the communist raiding strategy with what was in effect a counter raiding strategy. Anyone knowledgeable about military history knows that no one chooses a raiding strategy if they have the means or the will to use a more effective strategy--i.e. a combat persisting straegy where troops impose the military's will on a piece of real estate.
By choosing to respond with a raiding strategy--air raids in the North, air raids along the Ho Chi Minh Trail they in effect told the communist that they lacked the will to use a winning strategy. The winning strategy would have used troops to cut the communist supply lines and deny sactuaries. It would have used mines to block the communist harbor at Haiphong. Certainly the US had the means to undertake such a strategy. However, McNamara and Johnson tried to control the tempo of operations by never providing the troops requested in a timely manner, leading to a situation where more troops would be needed later. They were like the tailor who cuts the material for his coat too short and has to go back and patch more on. the coat is always ready too late and not as strong as it would be if adequate material had been provided in the first place.
For operations in Vietnam, the military also made some mistakes. They were hung up on a force to force ratio which gave their enemy the option of multiplying the number of troops needed by adding a few on their end. The proper ratio was one of force to space. If the military had been provided adequate troops to control the space they were in charge of, the enmey's adding troops would only make the US's job easier because the more troops they had, the more difficult it would be to avoid contact.
If the liberal Democrats who controlled war policy had been willing to have an honest debate over the use of a more effective strategy, they could have come to a conclusion early on that they should either take the political consequences of an early withdrawel, or commit the forces necessary to win. By doing neither they committed the US to a quagmire, then attempted to shift blame to the military or the "hawks."
You see the same dishonest now in the Kerry campaign. Rather than have an honest debate about whether his voting record on national security would produce the best defense for this country, we see instead demogogery about a challenge to his patriotism rather than face head on questions about his judgement. Unfortunately, Max Cleland, a triple amputee who accidentally blew off his limbs while picking up a stray grenade, has become a prop in this grotesque waving of the bloody shirt rather than an honest discussion of issues. This dishonesty in facing the issues ultimately is bad for the Democrats and they country. If they think cutting spending on defense and weapons systems and intelligence is the best way to go, they should at least be willing to tell us why.
The liberals in charge of US war policy in Vietnam successfully were able to frame the debate as one between "hawks" and "doves." This was a grossly misleading analogy that showed their ignorance of military history and warfare. The libs decide to respond to the communist raiding strategy with what was in effect a counter raiding strategy. Anyone knowledgeable about military history knows that no one chooses a raiding strategy if they have the means or the will to use a more effective strategy--i.e. a combat persisting straegy where troops impose the military's will on a piece of real estate.
By choosing to respond with a raiding strategy--air raids in the North, air raids along the Ho Chi Minh Trail they in effect told the communist that they lacked the will to use a winning strategy. The winning strategy would have used troops to cut the communist supply lines and deny sactuaries. It would have used mines to block the communist harbor at Haiphong. Certainly the US had the means to undertake such a strategy. However, McNamara and Johnson tried to control the tempo of operations by never providing the troops requested in a timely manner, leading to a situation where more troops would be needed later. They were like the tailor who cuts the material for his coat too short and has to go back and patch more on. the coat is always ready too late and not as strong as it would be if adequate material had been provided in the first place.
For operations in Vietnam, the military also made some mistakes. They were hung up on a force to force ratio which gave their enemy the option of multiplying the number of troops needed by adding a few on their end. The proper ratio was one of force to space. If the military had been provided adequate troops to control the space they were in charge of, the enmey's adding troops would only make the US's job easier because the more troops they had, the more difficult it would be to avoid contact.
If the liberal Democrats who controlled war policy had been willing to have an honest debate over the use of a more effective strategy, they could have come to a conclusion early on that they should either take the political consequences of an early withdrawel, or commit the forces necessary to win. By doing neither they committed the US to a quagmire, then attempted to shift blame to the military or the "hawks."
You see the same dishonest now in the Kerry campaign. Rather than have an honest debate about whether his voting record on national security would produce the best defense for this country, we see instead demogogery about a challenge to his patriotism rather than face head on questions about his judgement. Unfortunately, Max Cleland, a triple amputee who accidentally blew off his limbs while picking up a stray grenade, has become a prop in this grotesque waving of the bloody shirt rather than an honest discussion of issues. This dishonesty in facing the issues ultimately is bad for the Democrats and they country. If they think cutting spending on defense and weapons systems and intelligence is the best way to go, they should at least be willing to tell us why.
Comments
Post a Comment