Vietnam, Iraq et al

[Brian Abraham]

As a ex lead slick pilot of an assault helicopter company during the Vietnam war games I get some what Peed off by the media’s (and some Ppruners) assertion that the military lost the war. Nothing is further from the truth, as a reading of “Unheralded Victory” by Mark W. Woodruff will show. Various book reviews,

Unheralded Victory provides incontrovertible proof that the United States won this war, from the vaunted 1968 Tet Offensive–in reality a shattering defeat that decimated the Viet Cong–to Linebacker II, the final knockout blow that forced North Vietnam to the table. Make no mistake: our warriors in Vietnam were victorious. It’s time America sat up and took notice.

…makes a compelling argument that American tactics and operations flowed logically from military strategy, and that we enjoyed greater success in that regard than is generally given credit by most Vietnam commentators. His thesis is simple: while the American political base at home was never solid enough to wage a protracted war in Southeast Asia, the war effort in theater was far from the quixotic venture to which many have relegated it in hindsight. Within the constraints imposed by the political environment of the day, the conflict was fought with a high degree of professionalism and competence…

James L. Jones, General, U.S. Marine Corps, from the Foreword
Mark Woodruff’s book is an inspired – and long overdue – re-examination of the scoreboard from the much-disputed Southeast Asian War games played by a generation of Americans who served in Vietnam. He has said – and tellingly supported – for that generation of maligned vets what they have screamed into the deaf ears of their countrymen for the past two decades. We won the war on the battlefield…only to lose it in the political arena. Woodruff clearly and trenchantly separates a bad war from the good warriors who fought it. It’s about damn time. From my position as Hollywood’s top Military Advisor, I’m going to spend some time shoving this book under the turned up noses of a whole platoon of screenwriters and directors.

Dale A. Dye, Captain, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret), Technical Advisor for Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, and Forest Gump
Mark Woodruff's Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973, is a refreshing look at America's experience in Vietnam. Many a combat veteran of that orphaned war has asked, "What defeat? When I left Vietnam we were winning." Woodruff examines the major battles and declares them all American victories; examines common wisdom on Vietnam and declares much of it false or flawed. Unheralded Victory deserves careful study by a wide audience and a spirited debate on Woodruff's conclusions.

Joseph L. Galloway, Senior Writer U.S. News & World Report co-author: We Were Soldiers Once... and Young
As we are forced to relearn every few years, victory in war can be as difficult to define as peace can be to achieve. In Unheralded Victory, American-born Australian author, Mark Woodruff presents a clear and compelling case detailing an allied military victory over the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam War. Far from the commonly seen portrait of allied forces as dispirited, drug-ridden, and self-defeated, the author points to tactical victory after tactical victory by the allies. He shows the allied forces as well-trained, well-equipped, and in general well-led.
From small engagements to main force battles, the author paints a picture of consistent allied victory over the forces of the North. Nobody should be misled, the author acknowledges that these victories were costly and bloody for the allies, but they were even worse for the North Vietnamese and their allies. He further investigates the myths and popular stories that have over time grown into unchallenged fact, and finds that much of the commonly accepted folklore of the war and its aftermath have little or no basis in reality. Unheralded Victory does not seek to rewrite history – the allied forces did leave, senior American military and political leadership made mistake after mistake, South Vietnam did collapse under the onslaught of the North Vietnamese forces, American geopolitical goals were thwarted -- but the author does challenge the popular concept that the conduct and performance of the allied troops on the ground was substandard. Well written and complete with maps, diagrams, and illustrations, Unheralded Victory is a book not to be missed by the thoughtful and serious reader.

But what would I know. See http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/general/ranhfv4.html

I was called out in the middle of the night along with the rest of the company to go to the aid of a outpost which was in the midst of a heated battle. On arrival at the scene we found the outpost consisting of some two hundred men, women and children (the Vietnamese soldiery had their families on site at their postings) totally decimated. What was galling was the perpetrators sitting on the canals opposite bank giving us the bird. The canal was the border between provinces and to be able to hit the bad guys required the approval of the province chief. Because we were in the adjoining province they knew they were safe.
And then the drivers of A-6, A-4, A-7 and F-4 etc could not take out a SAM site during its period of construction because a Russian engineer may be on site. You could only hit it when it was operational and shooting at you.

Those of you giving of your best in the sand box at the moment I fear will probably be on the receiving end of the same welcome and perverted history. Some of us who have walked the same walk remember our past and salute you for your commitment and dedication – however ill led by your political masters.

Sas - what comments have you to make?

[ZH875]

1. Put all politicians from all sides against a brick wall.

2. Obtain best rifles/guns from all sides.

3. Point rifles/guns at politicians.

4. Open fire (using single aimed shots, and no more than is necessary)

5. Declare Peace for all.

6. Elect some other useless, self centred, corrupt people into the political arena.

7. Declare war on as many countries as possible every year.

8. Repeat until corruption ceases and money is spent on the people, and not used to line fat cat pockets.

[Tourist]

Is this another US attempt to rewrite history again? Next thing we'll be haring how well the Franch did in WW2!

You got your asses handed to you by a bunch of peasants.

Man up and accept it, learn the lessons, don't let it happen again.

[Tombstone]

Is this another US attempt to rewrite history again? Next thing we'll be haring how well the Franch did in WW2!

You got your asses handed to you by a bunch of peasants.

Man up and accept it, learn the lessons, don't let it happen again.
Tourist,

you are coming across as an arrogant, superior on this thread, who seems to think he could have done a better job all on his own.

Wars are never fought solely on the battlefield, politicians will always intervene and move the goal posts every day.

The US armed forces threw their might at the conflict and lost, mainly due to the fact that the Pentagon had one armed tied behind its back for most of the war and partly due to the troops not having the right kit.

Picture any other military force in the same predicament and tell us who you think would have actually beaten the North under the same political constraints. Struggling a little with an answer?

Oh and it's 'French' not 'Franch'...

Brian,

I suspect that you may be correct about the situation over in Afghanistan & I for one do not envy the AH or SH crews.

As far as books go on your experiences out in Vietnam, I have read quite a few but found most of them to be a little gung ho. 'Chicken Hawk' on the other hand, is one of the best military aircrew accounts I have ever read.

I shall get onto amazon today and order 'Unheralded Victory'. If it offers half of what 'Chicken Hawk' does then it will be a good read!

[Brian Abraham]

Tourist - Thanks for such an erudite analysis. Loafer would seem such an apt description.

PS I'm a bloody Goddam Australian and proud of it and bloody proud of my service with both the US Navy and US Army. Had I the oportunity to serve with the Brit Navy, Airforce, Army or any other force serving in the name of your sorry a55 I would be proud. Your such a sorry M***** F***** (sorry mods) I'm afraid I dont include you part of the human race - not until you you change that loafer tag. And learn to bloody well spell.

[pr00ne]

The USA LOST in Vietnam, principally because they should never have been there in the first place. They were also defending the indefensible, had no idea who or why they were fighting, totally failed to explain the reasons for the war to the US public and the wider world at large, had no real strategic goal, constantly lied about the scope and tactics involved, committed a conscript Army to fight a war they didn't understand, used wholly inappropriate tactics and failed to realise the PR war the North Vietnamese were waging from day one.

A great nation in total turmoil for no reason whatsoever.

Tragedy.

[A2QFI]

While USA was fighting for 'freedom' abroad, it was found necessary to shoot protesters (exercising their freedom) at Kent State University. Twisted logic there!

[Jimlad1]

I'll accept the US argument that they "won" Vietnam when I see US textbooks accepting that the US revolution was only "won" due to significant assistance from the French.

[Brian Abraham]

A2QFI - As the British Army found it necessary to shoot protesters during WWI.

[SPIT]

If the US won the war in Vietnam ???? How come the commies are in charge and the whole country is now ruled from Hanoi !:mad: :mad:

[brickhistory]

I'll accept the US argument that they "won" Vietnam when I see US textbooks accepting that the US revolution was only "won" due to significant assistance from the French.


?Que? What are you raving about? I've never seen a US history textbook or commercial history book that DOESN'T mention the immense help provided by the French, particularly their fleet. The whole colonial delegation, led by Franklin and others, to Paris to beg for French aid was a major reason why we won.

We didn't win Vietnam for a host of reasons, but I really can't see how you can tie the two together.

[Tourist]

I think you will find that you mean "you're" or "you are" such a sorry muddy funster

Learn to bloody well spell Brian before you get picky.

Whilst you are at it, think about "your" classification of me as sub-human a little. Is that the sort of attitude that breeds places like Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo perhaps? Or would you take it a step further and just go for the final solution.

Excuse me for asking, but does the word loafer mean something else in your part of the world? In mine it just means I like to not work very hard.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Good skills fella's 12 posts and it's degenerating into yet another brit v septic match up, any bets on how long it takes senseless to introduce NI into the fray:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[A2QFI]

A2QFI - As the British Army found it necessary to shoot protesters during WWI.
Apart from the fact any such events would have taken place 60 years apart and in very different political climates ie UK was under threat of invasion, USA was not, are you able to actually tell me what British protesters were shot during WW1, when, where, by whom and on whose orders? I am not saying it didn't happen but I can't find any record of it so far.

[corsair]

Tourist and others, you are talking rubbish. Obviously, ignorance of subject doesn't deter you from commenting.

Brian is right, militarily the US was winning in Vietnam and the war could have been won. But it was lost in the hearts and minds of American citizens and politicians. The Vietnamese knew this, they knew all they had to do was to hang on until the Americans tired of the war. They were prepared to take as many casualties as needed. The Viet Cong were virtually destroyed in 1968, defeated militarily. After that the NVA were used almost exclusively but in every encounter with the Americans they lost. Then they were bombed to the negotiating table. They made an agreement and the Americans withdrew. But they were only biding their time. In 1975 they invaded again knowing the Americans wouldn't interfere.

But in truth the Vietnamese people lost. I was there recently, while it has come on economically many Vietnamese now realise they worst thing that happened to them was winning the war. It's still a Communist state and is a lot poorer than it could be. And strangest of all there is talk of allowing the Americans to use Camh Ranh bay naval base again. You see, China is their real enemy. They fear them. I never heard a bad word against the Americans while I was there. But the French and the Chinese came in for a lot of stick.

Of course most comments like we see here are driven by the current trendy and ignorant anti-Americanism we see everywhere these days. Every A*****e with a half baked opinion thinks they are being so bloody clever. :yuk:

[The Gorilla]

I think he's doing the usual American thing and bringing us all back to the Irish question of 1916, how tiresome. Only the Americans can believe that they won Vietnam, have improved things in Afghanistan and rescued the eye raquis!
To much Hollywood methinks!!
:ugh:

[sonicstomp]

Irrespective of the heroism and professionalism of those that fought in the conflict, and indeed the various successes at the tactical and operational level, the war cannot (alas) be described as a victory....

The US led coalition's strategic objective was to prevent South Vietnam from becoming communist and thus (via the domino theory) expanding the influence of Soviet-led communism in Asia.....

The eventual unification of the country under a communist government in Hanoi after the coalition withdrawal surely indicates a defeat at the strategic level.

I am however open-minded, and am prepared to be persuaded otherwise...

[brickhistory]

Apart from the fact any such events would have taken place 60 years apart and in very different political climates ie UK was under threat of invasion, USA was not, are you able to actually tell me what British protesters were shot during WW1, when, where, by whom and on whose orders? I am not saying it didn't happen but I can't find any record of it so far.


Sorry, obviously another glaring deficiency in American history textbooks; exactly WHAT invasion threat did Britain face during WWI?

Oh, and Kent State was a case of Nat'l Guard troops (bit like your TA in some respects) being used as crowd control by the local authorites. It was NOT federal policy. Unfortunately, the young, inexperienced platoon commander and a couple of Guardsmen fired when not needed. Tragic, but not government policy. So, let's leave the herrings (red or otherwise) in the sea, shall we?

[SASless]

Well now....one has a good lie in and awakes to a battle royale about old wars!

In response to Brian's question inviting me to provide my view on the Vietnam War.....here goes.

The politicians lost the war for us with vast help from our military leadership in Washington.

Our military forces in the field bested the enemy at every encounter of any size. We had an overwhelming amount of fire power that ultimately could not be beaten no matter the numbers of people the Vietnamese were willing to sacrifice.

The Politicians invoke rules of engagement, held back from taking the war to the North, ignored sanctuaries, and prohibited the use of unlimited conventional weapons and tactics to defeat the North Vietnamese.

Our senior military leadership lacked the moral courage to demand the freedom of maneuver and offensive actions required to defeat the enemy, and in some very noted cases put their individual careers ahead of their moral obligation to the very troops they commanded.

Simply put, the mistakes made were simple. We never invaded the North, we never mobilized the Nation for "War", and we set so many limitations on our conduct of the war that we in fact became our own worst enemy.

The important thing to me is to remember those that were lost and wounded by that war and to validate their service by separating the political from the real. My comrades, just as those of Brian's, served honorably with great gallantry and performed feats on the field of battle that deserve respect.

History has shown the critics of the war and its conduct seldom are able to do that, thus doing dishonour to a great many people who deserve better.

As a side note......I strongly endorse ZH's position....with one addition. Bayonet the wounded after the shooting stops!

[Reach]

I'd say the American public learnt from Vietnam to seperate the war from the warrior. Whatever people feel about the war in Iraq, few doubt the heroism of those fighting it.

Until I read Tourist's post I had no idea how bad disrespect for vets had got in the UK.

SAS - I disagree with your last point. Leave em where they lie.

[Two's in]

Wars can seldom be won against ideology or cultures, so even if you accept that the US could, and did, win most military engagements, the Vietnamese people did not have the same perception of "winning" as the lap-dog sycophantic leadership in Saigon (who were busy extorting, embezzling and every US dollar for their own ends). When 90% of the population lives in huts and grow rice, they don't have the same perception of the communist threat as the lard-assed, thieving politicians whose role is to keep those people repressed and take the money. On the other hand, those politicians were very threatened by communism. All they needed was a naive World power to step in and prop up their corrupt regime in the name of eradicating communism. The rest, as they say, is history, albeit being rewritten every day. The US Military fought largely with honor, dignity and courage under spineless, unfocused, leadership, both political and military. Very few people who understand the military question that point, but it is a huge leap to migrate from honor, dignity and courage to "winning" what was an unwinnable conflict.

There is a renewed political interest in Vietnam because of the current situation in the Iraq and the Middle East. If the detractors and mud-slingers keep saying 'we are getting into another Vietnam" the most effective way to deflect that criticism is to change the perception of what Vietnam actually was. Sow enough seeds of doubt, and pretty soon the accusation loses its punch. With an election coming up in November, it's never too early to get your retaliation in.

Joe Stalin was one of the earliest protagonists of "if the history doesn't fit, change it" and its amazing how many capitalist governments have adopted his policy. Of course, the main difference is that no-one questioned Stalin or they ended up in some gulag with no trial, legal representation or ...

[SASless]

Tourist,

Now that I have had a cup of coffee and rubbed the sleep out of my eyes.....and read back through the posts with some improved cognition, I have a couple of questions for you.

You suggest we got our asses handed to us by some peasants or words to that effect. Upon what standards are you evaluating the "peasants"? Was it the quality of the anti-aircraft defenses over the North, their fighter aircraft, their logistics train that operated in four different countries, their intelligence ability enhanced with Soviet intelligence assets and data, or was it the NVA with its infantry divisions, regiments, artillery units, and tanks?

I assume you think the North Vietnamese effort was in reality a grass roots home grown insurgency that used cross bows and spears to take on the US Military which just was not the case.

Most Brits will suggest we should listen to the Malaya success story as that worked out well for you. I think any fair assessment of the two conflicts will show that Vietnam was not a Malaya in any way. The Brits were not confronted with the scale of conflict that existed in Vietnam nor did the insurgents have the quantity or quality of assistance from foreign powers as did the North Vietnamese. For sure, I have never heard of British ships unloading cargo for the use of the insurgents as happened in Haiphong.

Simply stated Tourist, I find your views without substantiation or merit. Perhaps you might find some credible data somewhere to corroborate your statement.

[wg13_dummy]

Tourist,
Now that I have had a cup of coffee and rubbed the sleep out of my eyes.....and read back through the posts with some improved cognition, I have a couple of questions for you.
You suggest we got our asses handed to us by some peasants or words to that effect. Upon what standards are you evaluating the "peasants"? Was it the quality of the anti-aircraft defenses over the North, their fighter aircraft, their logistics train that operated in four different countries, their intelligence ability enhanced with Soviet intelligence assets and data, or was it the NVA with its infantry divisions, regiments, artillery units, and tanks?
I assume you think the North Vietnamese effort was in reality a grass roots home grown insurgency that used cross bows and spears to take on the US Military which just was not the case.
Most Brits will suggest we should listen to the Malaya success story as that worked out well for you. I think any fair assessment of the two conflicts will show that Vietnam was not a Malaya in any way. The Brits were not confronted with the scale of conflict that existed in Vietnam nor did the insurgents have the quantity or quality of assistance from foreign powers as did the North Vietnamese. For sure, I have never heard of British ships unloading cargo for the use of the insurgents as happened in Haiphong.
Simply stated Tourist, I find your views without substantiation or merit. Perhaps you might find some credible data somewhere to corroborate your statement.


But you still lost, right?

[SASless]

Define "lost" WG.

Do you mean in a military analysis or a political analysis, viewed from a short-term view or long-term view, while our troops were in country or after we had withdrawn and Congress had cut off funding to the South Vietnamese?

What if one applies a view that Vietnam was one of the wars against Communist expansion stemming from the end of WWII, and we consider that Communism has been defeated and democracy/captitalism is flourishing? Did we win or did we lose?

One thing is for sure, the Cambodian people and their horrible experience with Communism proved we were right to fight against Communism. Perhaps George Patton was right when he opined we should whip the Russians while we had the military to do it with.

Take whatever position you care to WG.....but at least make it an intellectual position that rationally considers issues beyond trying to score points in an unsophisticated style of debate. If you cannot identify the real issues involved and put them into a historical context, then I feel your argument is too narrowly based to fairly address what really happened.

We withdrew while in control of the battlefield and turned the fighting over the the Vietnamese. They were defeated two years or so after we withdrew our troops.

The sad story is our politicians then withdrew the support the Vietnamese needed to to defend themselves.

Thus it would appear one could say we both won and lost, once again depending upon where you draw the boundaries of the discussion.

What say you WG....what is your analysis of the situation....how you care to frame the discussion....throw it out to us and lets see where you are coming from?

[wg13_dummy]

Define "lost" WG.

Did you successfully complete the mission?

[Maple 01]

My vote FWIW is with SASless, the US mil in country were winning, it was the politicians and the senior officers that played politics back home that lost it. If you're going to start a war just let the mil get on with it and don't be tempted to bugger around with ROE, off limit targets and proportional force :yuk:

[SASless]

Define "mission" WG....what do you think it was?

[wg13_dummy]

Define "mission" WG....what do you think it was?

You tell me. You've got all the answers.


Maple 01. Certainly seems that way. Armies win wars, politicians lose them.

[SASless]

Maple,

A critical analysis of the Vietnam War could summons up untold numbers of mistakes, miscalculations, false premises, bad intelligence, poor leadership, improper priorities. In that regard, it was no different than any war in history.

One thing we did do right was learn from it to a great degree. The sad thing is over time we began to forget those lessons and the mindset that prevents them from happening again but then is that not the story of warfare down through the ages?

We can take the current war we are engaged in and see drastic mistakes as well. One must acknowledge that Armies are forever training to fight the last war all over again but invariably are confronted with an altogether different war than the one trained and planned for.

I have no doubt at all the British Military is no different than my own in that regard.

One example of what I mean....just today on the Telly...scenes of Israeli armoured units motoring into Lebanon with the reliable old M2 Browning .50 Cal mounted machinegun on top of the vehicle....and the gunner completely exposed without any shield or armor to protect him. Have we not proved beyond all doubt in Iraq that is a very effective way of losing people that is easily mitigated by a bit of steel or bullet proof glass?

[Wiley]

Brian Abraham mentions Joe Galloway’s “We Were Soldiers Once... and Young”. Most have probably seen the movie, but even if you have, let me highly recommend the book, if only to give Mel Gibson some credit for sticking so closely to the true story.

What the movie doesn’t show is what happened over the next three days, when the relieving force went about as close to being totally wiped out as any large American unit ever did in that war. (You didn't win that one, guys.)


I think Admiral Fisher RN had it right way back in 1905 when he said words to the effect that “Moderation in war is an imbecility. Hit hard, hit first.”

I can’t help but think a lot fewer people end up dead that way rather than our current madness where we call in the NGOs and the UN before anything is resolved to feed everyone on both sides until they’re strong enough to get at it again – and again and again ad infinitum.

I f the Battle of Stalingrad was to be fought under the same set or rules as Kofi and his mates insist all wars are to be fought today, it would still be dragging on to this day – and ten times as many Germans and Russians would have died with no clear cut result in sight.

[SASless]

Wiley,

The film was Hollywood's idea of the fight...the story line was fairly accurate but the ending was over the top.

The Book is as good an account of a fight as I have read. The author was there, he lived it, and tells a very good account.

The event you mention has been revisited by a young soldier in that battalion, name of Jack Smith now deceased, son of Howard K. Smith the famous news broadcaster. Smith was an enlisted infantry soldier in that unit and was wounded during that action. His account of the fight is heart-stopping.

http://www.mishalov.com/death_ia_drang_valley.html

The full account of how the LZ X-Ray fight and the subsequent yomp to LZ Albany that got over-run by the NVA is worth study by anyone interested in tactics. The ambushed column was in pretty much an administrative route march configuration with totally exhausted troops who had just finished an intense multi-day fight at X-Ray. There were serious mistakes made by the BnCo and higher commands that set the unit up for disaster.

I would recommend spending some time studying that campaign if one is in the military today. There are parallels to current fights that bear study.

http://www.virtualwall.org/units/IaDrang.htm

Also...you do know that one of the Platoon Leaders engaged in the X-Ray fight was British by the name of Rick Rescorla. Read of his valor and excellent leadership. He died in the WTC attack on 911 while saving lives rather than leaving his post and exiting the building. There is now a monument to him at the Fort Benning Infantry School.

[Tourist]

SASLess

Vietnamese = 95% peasants
Soviets = 90% peasant

US went home.
Communists in charge in Vietnam.

QED

[kms901]

If the end of the Vietnamese War had been Russian and Chinese "advisors" being airlifted of the roof of their Embassy's in Hanoi, whilst under fire from American troops, you would have won. It wasn't so you didn't.

[Ali Barber]

The political control was abysmal and led to many "defeats" because the US wasn't allowed to hit obvious targets that would have led to defeating the enemy's centre of gravity (whatever that was - the North Vietnamese were in it for the long term having been promised independence to Ho Chi Minh for their support during WW2 and already having seen off the French). The US may have won the few set piece battles, but there were many more insurgent-type activities that they could not prevent and eventually drove US opinion against the war. There is no doubt that the US lost, the majority of their troops fought bravely when given the opportunity, and the way the troops were treated was disgraceful. I think the way they were treated goes a long way toward explaining the way their forces are revered today - almost a guilt trip for those that managed to dodge the draft by taking extended holidays in Canada, etc.

[eagle 86]

It has been my fervent hope for many years now that the US elect an "isolationist" as President. I would like to see the US disengage from all world theatres including that cess-pool of political correctness, the UN. Tourist et al who are clearly not deep thinkers or researchers, holding only populist, simplistic views of world events, would soon come screeching for help when the world around them descended into anarchy.
GAGS
E86

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

An isolationist US Pres, what a billy bonus for the rest of the world:ok:

When you consider that the main focus of the worlds bad guys is to destroy anything with a US tag maybe you guys should take a ten year back seat:hmm:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alochol induced

[brickhistory]

When you consider that the main focus of the worlds bad guys is to destroy anything with a US tag maybe you guys should take a ten year back seat:hm

Fair enough sentiment; whom would you have replacing us? Anyone that could do a better job (not that we want it, but rather we seem to be the only ones who can afford it)?

Remember when the UK was the world power? Lots of folks resented you and your imposition of your ways. Took a while, but they did do a pretty fair job of reducing your influence to irrelavance. No doubt we will wind up at the same address (that's what happens to powerful states throughout history), but probably not for a while longer. Feel free to partner up with anyone else....

[eagle 86]

abiw,
I think you will find that most of the hotspots across europe, africa, middle east, the sub-continent, asia and the pacific have been caused by one lot of locals with certain religious/political views versus another lot of locals with opposing views.
That's why I seek an isolationist pres - let these nasty little arseholes go at it without outside intervention - hopefully they would significantly reduce the world's population so that us good guys can get on and enjoy life without being bothered by them and their distasteful attitudes.
GAGS
E86

[SASless]

You are welcome to play through ABIW....take the lead dear boy and welcome to it. One small problem however, you can talk the talk but you do not have the wherewithal to walk the walk. Whack another One Thousand Million pounds off yer MOD budget next year and even the talking will diminish to a whisper.

Do you have the ability to retain the Falklands if the Argie's come back house hunting again?

Unfortunately we are the Superpower currently thus it falls to us by default. In time the Chinese will assume that burden from us and then we can join in with the naysayers as well.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Sensless,

Like the sun coming up in the morning your arrogance is so predictable, although with no mention of NI in your post I am just a little surprised :ugh:

Eagle your sentiments are spot on and I see absolutely no fault with your thinking:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[wg13_dummy]

Took a while, but they did do a pretty fair job of reducing your influence to irrelavance.

I think we did that ourselves.

For what it's worth, most of the countries that were influenced by the British Empire were quite happy with our involvment. Once we had outstayed our welcome, we moved out and let them govern themselves. Some of those countries flourished, others didn't. Simplistic I know but Empires have a shelf life. Whats the date on yours?

Have you heard of the Commonwealth? 52 nations are still happy to have a friendly connection with the old Empire.

I'm the first to agree the UK is a shadow of it's former self. Successive governments have ensured that what values and standards we used to hold dear are being erroded away. We critisice our leaders, you just seem to fawn and follow yours, especially if the are from the Republican camp.

Eagle, I have to agree with you on your remarks regarding letting some of the feckers get on with it. It's all too often an excuse to get involved due to the domino effect and waving the humanitarian flag when quite often its the strategic and natural resource issue thats the truth for going in.

[SASless]

WG,

Perhaps you moonlight as a script writer for Hollywood? The British Empire turned the colonies loose when you outstayed your welcome?

Let me get this straight, the Lady of the House breaks your dinner plate, and that is when you pack your kit and go looking for different digs, and you call that leaving voluntarily?

That is what you are saying, right?

[N Arslow]

Unfortunately letting "them" get on with it is unlikely to happen because of our revered capitalism - afterall where does industry's oil come from (without which economic growth cannot be sustained apparently) and moreover - where would all those defence companies earn their revenue - and these corporations are the players that uphold Western politics (or is it politicians) so, sadly, interfering by others in the affairs of third parties will continue for much longer yet. Of course, fair trade and honest corporate management may arrive with incorruptible politicians...

...and pigs flying.

[eagle 86]

NA,
All I am saying is the US/West not get involved militarily and the only aid supplied being lots devices for death and destruction (standfast WMD) ergo parts of the defence industry will still do quite well. Oil will still be supplied because these countries will need funds to support massive purchases of said weapons. When the dust settles and these peoples have been transported back to the stoneage us good guys move back in - long live colonisation.
GAGS
E86

[LynehamMuppet]

4. Open fire (using single aimed shots, and no more than is necessary)

I have to disagree i think an M60 on full auto is called for... Hell anything that will fire hot lead at politicians at more than 1000 rounds per minute is fine by me.

can you tell i'm pissed/pissed off?

[brickhistory]

Simplistic I know but Empires have a shelf life. Whats the date on yours?

Have you heard of the Commonwealth? 52 nations are still happy to have a friendly connection with the old Empire.

We critisice our leaders, you just seem to fawn and follow yours, especially if the are from the Republican camp.

Eagle, I have to agree with you on your remarks regarding letting some of the feckers get on with it. It's all too often an excuse to get involved due to the domino effect and waving the humanitarian flag when quite often its the strategic and natural resource issue thats the truth for going in.

US shelf life? If you use 1945 as the start of our run, if it's 100 years then it'll be a fair run. Technology seems to speed up the shift from one controlling system to the next - Pharonic dynasties - 5,000-ish years, Romans - 1,000 or so, Ottomans - 500, Britain - 200-ish. Us now, followed by China? India?

52 countries in the Commonwealth, 50 states plus assorted territories and protectorates still relatively happy with us. Let's call it a draw. Y'all did good in some things in your Empire, some not so much. And how exactly is that different from us?

Fawning on our leaders? Umm, you do remember the Clinton years? How about the flak that Reagan caught (turned out he was right on a lot of things)? Seems Nixon got a bit of bad press, even revered leader GWB seems to get a negative mention in the media now and then. Sorry you don't like our current incumbent, but no vote = no opinion that matters, thanks. Frankly I wish Bush had stuck to the harder line, "You are either with us or against us." Appeasement simply doesn't work.

I'd love to pull the drawbridge closed and let the world carry on, only that's unrealistic. Also seems that if we, the US, are isolationist, then the snipers come out for not doing enough. If we intervene, different snipers. So which is it then?

[Maple 01]

Lots of folks resented you and your imposition of your ways. Took a while, but they did do a pretty fair job of reducing your influence to irrelevance.

True and they were mostly American. If Truman had spent as much time worrying about the Soviets pre 1947 as he did trying to dismantle British influence he might have been some use, but let's face it, it wasn't even about bringing liberty and justice to the masses was it? Nah, all about extending uS domination. However, the power vacuum created by US enforced 'decolonisation' had to be filled with something - hello Communisum! By 47 even Truman could work-out who the real bad-guys were, but too late for the eastern Europeans, much of Africa and SE Asia.

So to fill the gap we got the east/west polarisation with the US as the self-appointed guardian of the 'free world' which kept things fairly quiet. (if you exclude Korea, Vietnam etc) Then, what do you know? The Sovs throw in the towel and all the ugly nationalism and religious division bubbles to the surface. The US is left as the world’s only superpower and can throw their weight about through the UN, militarally or via trade embargos or whatever economic weapons it chooses, however, this omnipotence comes at a price.

The US wanted to be 'top dog' and they are, and international hatred is the price you pay - enjoy the world you've created and thanks for taking the role of world policeman off us!

[brickhistory]

True and they were mostly American. If Truman had spent as much time worrying about the Soviets pre 1947 as he did trying to dismantle British influence he might have been some use, however, the power vacuum created by US enforced 'decolonisation' had to be filled with something. By 47 even Truman could work-out who the real bad-guys were, but too late.
So to fill the gap we got the east/west polarisation with the US as the self-appointed guardian of the 'free world' which kept things fairly quiet. (if you exclude Korea, Vietnam etc) Then, what do you know? The Sovs throw in the towel and all the ugly nationalism and religions division bubbles to the surface. The US is left as the world’s only superpower and can throw their weight about through the UN, or via trade embargos or whatever economic weapons it chooses, however, this omnipotence comes at a price.
The US wanted to be 'top dog' and they are, and international hatred is the price you pay - enjoy the world you've created and thanks for taking the role of world policeman off us!

Well done, Maple01. Pretty accurate, concise summary. Can we resign now?

[SASless]

Hey now that is a new one.....the end of British influence is Harry Truman's fault? Please do enlighten us on that one will you? This is getting good now! Harry is the one who caused the end of the British Empire?

I do believe you will find it was Franklin Roosevelt that considered the British colonial system more of a threat than the Soviets and worked to diminish the political power of the British. Truman in many cases reversed decisions and positions set by Roosevelt and thus aided the British in that regard.

I thought Ghandi, the Mao Mao, and lots of other folks had more to do with that than Harry?

[Brian Abraham]

1. Bike in back yard. Two kids. Fight
2. Tasty bird in pub. Two studs. Fight
3. Resources. Two countries. Fight
4. Religious differences. Two protagonists. Fight
5. Ethnic differences. Two protagonists. Fight
6. Political differences. Two protagonists. Fight

Sorry if I've left your fight out.

Question - Which are the mature and which the childish.
Answers on the back of a postage stamp please.

[Maple 01]

Hey now that is a new one.....the end of British influence is Harry Truman's fault? Please do enlighten us on that one will you? This is getting good now! Harry is the one who caused the end of the British Empire?
Not his fault as such, the Empire had been in decline since, oh, pick a date, I’d go about 1901 South Africa but the policy of bleeding the UK dry financially 1939-45 (Franklin Roosevelt) speeded things up (Lease lend, Bretton Woods Agreement etc). You can argue all day about the good points of America’s foreign policy at the time, and they were many, but one of its key elements was the of reduction Britain’s wealth and influence, a thread that runs back to the Monroe Doctrine

But it was a little too successful – pre-war the UK was a major creditor, post-war she was skint and a major debtor – some economists have pointed out that from a purely financial angle Britain would have been better-off going down the route of isolationism 1939-45. The UK was the only country to pay back its war debt – suckers! We shold have defaulted like everyone else.

Truman continued the pressure and as I say, until 1947 was more worried about the reintroduction of the colonial powers into their former possessions rather than 4 million Soviets under arms in Eastern Europe.
I do believe you will find it was Franklin Roosevelt that considered the British colonial system more of a threat than the Soviets and worked to diminish the political power of the British. Truman in many cases reversed decisions and positions set by Roosevelt and thus aided the British in that regard.
Yes, but only after 1947, Churchill and Attlee in the UK and many others in the US finally managed to convince him where the true threat was coming from.

I thought Ghandi, the Mao Mao, and lots of other folks had more to do with that than Harry?

As someone pointed out, empires have a shelf life, and they seem to be getting shorter. The impoverished UK couldn’t prop up Greece and Turkey post war and America had to pick up the task to prevent either going Communist - the beginings of containment.

Ask what was the French experience in French Indo China – the US panders to the anti-colonial proportion of the population making them all sorts of offers and promises if they’ll fight the Japanese, then, using financial powers does its level best to prevent the return of the French, eventually, the Truman doctrine kicks in and the policy towards colonial powers swings 180 degrees, Truman realises that no-matter how much the US dislikes Empires (unless its there own of course – manifest destiny anyone?) they are better than Communist rule, bit late in the day seeing the bad guys now have the training, weapons and motivation. Massive aid then flows to the colonial power, but too late the genie was out of the bottle.
Then guess what? The French fold and the US has to step in leading to the shambles we all know and love, and all this can be traced to America’s immediate post-war policies

[Tourist]

So, just to confirm.

The US lost in Vietnam.
Big time.

[FormerFlake]

Maybe our American cousins should read "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of The American Empire" by Niall Furgeson

Written by a Scot, so hardly British biased.

[BenThere]

Since 1776, Americans have found the concept of "empire" inimical. See the Truman discussion and the American insistance on ending European colonial empires above. Therefore, the concept of such an entity as the American Empire is not a rational construct.

But going along with the hypothetical, I wouldn't agree it has yet fallen. Still wishful thinking on the part of the noble Scott, Mr. Ferguson.

[Maple 01]

Therefore, the concept of such an entity as the American Empire is not a rational construct.

It has been argued that America does have an empire, just because the word 'empire' is an anathema to the American people doesn’t mean the concept is to governments of both political hues . I'd give refs but it's too hot - look at the Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba (all right, pre Castro) Porto Rico etc

The US lost in Vietnam.
Big time.

er....yes, and no. IMO US ground forces were starting to win after Tet 68 and would have finished the job if it wasn't for the home front collapsing and the loss of the will to win caused by politics, the media and anti-American propaganda deseminated through the 'free world' by the left and other fellow travellers

[SASless]

Puerto Rico and The Philippines with some other locales came to us by means of a war with Spain just prior to the turn of the century. It might well be argued that was the American attempt at being a "colonial" power per the standard definition.

We fought a war against the Philippino Insurrection which lasted about two years then in time scheduled a return of total sovreignity for the late 1940's. World War Two intervened or it probably would have happened sooner.

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth state and has rights of US statehood should they vote for it.

The Monroe Doctrine is what guides our activities in Cuba, Central, and South America. We have no colony there but we do intercede in the area whenever it is felt our National Interests demand so. Too often it has been to promote business reasons vice pure "National Security issues". USMC General Smedley Butler was quite vocal about that concept.

I believe it is a fair statement to say we do not hold onto other lands after fighting wars there. We might certainly base troops in foreign locations but it is not as occupiers but for the need of support of mutual defense obligations we take on.

[Tombstone]

Maybe our American cousins should read "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of The American Empire" by Niall Furgeson

Written by a Scot, so hardly British biased.

Is that to suggest that Scots do not consider themselves British?

[FormerFlake]

Is that to suggest that Scots do not consider themselves British?

From my experience, only when it suits them (:mad: rare)

[West Coast]

I'd also love to see an isolationist President elected, leave the unimportant part of the world to ABIW and the muppets of the left. I'm sure the UN would do your cause proud wilts.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

God bless Team America Westy, where would we be without you:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Tourist]

Maple.
Winning a war is Binary.
Yes
or NO

starting to win is not enough, and a whole country wages war, not just the military.

It appalls me that people are trying to call Vietnam a win, and it dishonours the memory of those that died bravely trying.

Once it is considered a win, the politicians who lost the Vietnam war can stop being ashamed of the diservice they did their military.

Admit it was lost, and remember why so that it does not happen again. Don't try to "spin" it away for gods sake.

[West Coast]

I think you're far more important to team lefty than I am to team America.

[Tombstone]

Durka Durka.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Don't Tomb, humour is not strong in the West one:p

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Maple 01]

Maple.
Winning a war is Binary.
Yes
or NO

Well, yes, the simplistic answer is you either win or lose; however, as usual it's a bit more complicated

Who won WW2? The US/UK/Soviet Union/France? Well, in theory yes, but look a little deeper - UK became a weak economically shattered worn-out backwater and was/is beholden to its former colony (see Suez for decline of British power) the French went the same way

Germany/Japan lost but due to political expediency (Japan anti-communist bulwark/Korea, West Germany anti-communist bulwark/NATO ally) economies rebuilt, economic miracles etc

But my point over Vietnam is that although it was s defeat for US foreign policy the Mil didn't lose the war, the politicians did, by 1975 there were so few US advisers about that you could never call the fall of Saigon a US military defeat. By the time the communist flag flew over North and South the ARVN were on their own (Vietnamisation) call it a sell-out if you will. The Victory of the North was pyretic though as they got to ‘enjoy’ 30 years of communism and are only just recovering – strangely enough I head an interview with an ex-Viet min bloke that wanted the French back!

I think if you look at it the last field defeat of the US armed forces was some time in 1812, can't remember who inflicted it mind......:O

[Brian Abraham]

a whole country wages war

Tell that to a Viet Vet or the boys currently doing their bit and I'm sure they'll have the best belly laugh they've had in a long time. Tourist, as Maple 01 suggests you are being rather simplistic. In war there are no winners, only losers.

It appalls me that people are trying to call Vietnam a win, and it dishonours the memory of those that died bravely trying.

It appalls me that people are trying to call Vietnam a military lose, and it dishonours the memory of those that died bravely serving.

And I'm not sure that politicians are capable of feeling shame. I'd need some convincing.

I served and came home in one piece, my brother served and came home in a box with 5 AK rounds as souvenirs. :{
Vale Rick.

[eagle 86]

The whole country DOES NOT wage war - this is particularly true of conflicts lately. Tourist, I was there just after TET '68 and I can assure you that for the next year it was quite clear that, militarily, the war was all but over. The war was lost on the streets of New York, Washington, San Francisco, Sydney, Melbourne etc - lilly livered politicians driven by polls, influenced by over-educated, under-employed drugged up delinquents with simplistic, unresearched views such as you and your ilk hold. Rather the pollies should have displayed the same courage as the 50,000 Yanks, 500 Oz/Kiwis and other allies who perished in the conflict.
Yes the North did eventually "win" but they beat the politicians not the troops.
GAGS
E86

[SASless]

Maple,

It wasn't New Orleans.

[brickhistory]

SAS,

Give 'em their due, they did torch the White House.

[ORAC]

War of 1812 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812) Perhaps what is known as winning the battle, but losing the war. Which might actually be a good simile for Vietnam...

While the War of 1812 had little direct effect on Great Britain, it was highly significant in Britain's North American colonies, where it had been a matter of national survival. The war united the French-speaking and English-speaking colonies against a common enemy and in some pride of being largely successful in repulsing the more numerous invaders, giving many inhabitants a sense of nationhood as well as a sense of loyalty to Britain. It is estimated that, at the war's beginning, perhaps one third of the inhabitants of Upper Canada were American-born. Some were United Empire Loyalists, but others had simply come for cheap land and had little or no loyalty to the British Crown. However, many felt the common threat of invasion. For instance, Laura Secord was an American immigrant to Upper Canada, but she did not hesitate to make her arduous trek to warn the British forces of a pending attack by her former country.

It is also important to point out that, when the United States attacked British North America, most of the British forces were engaged in the Napoleonic Wars. This meant that British North America had minimal troops to defend against the United States, who had a much larger (though poorly trained) military force. For most of the war, British North America stood alone against a much stronger American force. Reinforcements from Britain did not arrive until 1814, the final year of the war. The repelling of the stronger American force helped to build unity in British North America. This was most notable between the French and English divisions in Upper and Lower Canada.

This nationalistic sentiment also caused a great deal of suspicion of such American ideas as democracy and republicanism, which would frustrate political reform in Upper and Lower Canada until the Rebellions of 1837. However, the War of 1812 also started the process that ultimately led to Canadian Confederation in 1867. Canadian historian Pierre Berton has written that, although later events, such as the rebellions and the Fenian raids of the 1860s, were more important, Canada would have become part of the United States if the War of 1812 had not taken place, because more and more American settlers would have arrived and Canadian nationalism would not have developed.

[SASless]

Indeed....pretty effective way of getting the rats out of the place. Shame we did not consider inviting them back during Bubba's reign.;)

Maple, we might consider the Bataan and Corregidor as the last time....or when the Koreans/Chinese pushed us back to Pusan. Maybe the Kasserine Pass fight would count.

Certainly the Naval battles over Iron Bottom Sound near Guadalcanal as well. The Japanese certainly deserve credit for their night surface battle successes.

Just as any country, we have had our defeats in battle as well as our successes.

[ORAC]

So, when do we start sending funding for the Hawaii nation (http://www.hawaii-nation.org/) independence party. :ok:

[Tourist]

You are missing my point, which is that there is more to winning any war than just military prowess.
The US military may have, on the whole, been winning their section of the Vietnam war, but America as a country let their boys down.

The whole picture, ie Military, Political and Social is what matters, and what it takes to win a War.

And at the end of the day, I will say it one more time.

You did not win the Vietnam War.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

You can say it till your blue in the face Tourist but "they" wont admit to it:p

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[eagle 86]

Tourist, abiw et al,
If you read MY posts I think you'll find I never said we won - just explained to you where/how we lost. Rest assured this is the weakness of the West - fickle public opinion - a lack of backbone - the East knows this - empires come and go - the West is going - our grandkids will not live in democracies - Western religions will only exist in small pockets - Islam is where Christianity was 1000 years or so ago - Islam's version of the Crusaders are on the march and there is nothing the West, with it's present attitude, can do to stop them.
As I have said before your view of the world is far too under-educated and simplistic.
GAGS
E86

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

"As I have said before your view of the world is far too under-educated and simplistic."

Gosh how clever you are:ugh:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[eagle 86]

abiw,
Must be well past your bed time over there or are you just into your third bottle of gin!
GAGS
E86

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Nope sat in my Norwegian hotel room, 1hr 30 to transport then off back to UK being so pleasantly patronised by your good self:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[eagle 86]

ABIW,
Your contribution to this debate consists mainly of one liners with very little demonstrated original thought - not a lot there to show erudite, researched opinions. Although I do recall you agreeing with me in an early post - were you fair dinkum or are you a fence-sitter willing to follow like a puppy where you perceive the strength lies?
GAGS
E86

[Tourist]

I am enjoying the irony of being told that my view of the world is Under-educated and simplistic by an Americanhttp://bestsmileys.com/lol/5.gif

http://bestsmileys.com/signs11/10.gif

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Fence sitter moi:rolleyes:

Or is it maybe, as you so politely pointed out, I am just too stupid to join in with you clever guys:p

Or maybe like Tourist I think you guys got your butts kicked and you, and a couple of other spin merchants in here are unable to man up and take it on the chin:rolleyes:

Or maybe I just love baiting westy and senseless, which is not a very difficult thing to do:E

Which one do you reckon:ok:

It is more than a little ironic Tourist, when you consider most Americans dont even own a passport!!

Off for brekkie and daring do's look forward to reading this thread from the comfort of home, with a df beer, 15 hours or so from now!

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[eagle 86]

ABIW,
I say again - I have never claimed we won - but for the year I was there the empirical data demonstrates that, militarily, we were well and truly on top.
I have never said you are stupid - you hold simplistic views - this does not mean you are simple - your demonstrated inability to join in with anything other than one liners indicates, perhaps, a lack of knowledge of the subject.
What sort of booze are you on in Norway?
GAGS
E86
PS Tourist - read carefully my posts - even for you the evidence is there that I am not an American.

[Skunkerama]

I think that if you had lost blood sweat and tears in a war, seen good friends die, been riduculed upon returning home and seen horrific sights that still might haunt you. To have some jumped up forum fighter laughing at you and what you went through might get you seething. Perhaps if you had lived through the era and served in that war you might have a better understanding of what happened.

I think that Tourists and Wilts baiting to be a bit weak and although I have taken the odd pop at Sasless and co I think they have taken the high ground and are defending it rather well against childish fools. Just because your favorite film is Platoon (because you can quote every line) doesnt make you an expert.

[eagle 86]

Skunk,
They are mere amateurs!
GAGS
E86

[brickhistory]

It is more than a little ironic Tourist, when you consider most Americans dont even own a passport!!

Puh-leeze! This one has been done to death! We are blessed to live in a very large, geographically and climate diverse country so we don't have the need for passports as those who live in small countries all jammed together.

If I want my drunk senseless week in the sun, I don't have to go to Majorca, I can just drive/fly to South Padre or Daytona, thus no need for the passport (I have one BTW). The 'well-traveled' Brit and/or European myth justs weakens your stand on other subjects. At least come up with something original vs. the "stupid Americans, never see nothing, go anywhere." It's been done already!

(Oh, and I still hold that the strongest measure of how a lot of Brits regard our blessed-in-so-many ways country is in the ratio of British passports traded in for American citizenship as compared to the other way around.)

[BenThere]

During Pax Britania how many Brits outside of the navy were well-travelled cognoscenti? They were mostly slurping gruel thrown them from the feudal manor.

Americans today who have a need for a passport have them.

Americans have earned a fair number of kudos in virtually every field of endeavor or science. I view attacks on our moronic component, which I don't deny exists, as being reflective upon us all as a variation on penis envy.

Congrats to Tiger and Floyd, who representatively proved Americans can often compete on European turf, despite the vaunted competition Europeans sometimes assert only they can provide.

Count Nobel prizes, patented innovations, or any measure you like, and try to tell me with a straight face I should skulk around in embarrassment. I'm not buying it. Now engage me in a credible debate and I'll consider and respect your view.

[West Coast]

Wilts doesn't participate in credible debates. Look to the majority of his posts and you will see a slash and run technique. Simply baiting. You have both brought up valid points that prove an equal comparison of passport holders is not realistic between the UK and the US.

[SASless]

It was an interesting situation, doing a Combat Assault followed by an aircraft recovery lift, and listening to the radio traffic as Mankind set the first boot down on the Moon. I know Armstrong and Aldrin had a different perspective on the war at that time than I did in that they were looking down on the entire planet. Not bad for a bunch of folks that tried to make Saltwater Tea.

[brickhistory]

C'mon, guys,

Let's give some credit where due, they did do a lot of things well once upon a time; including having the first ones who'd had enough and sailed over here!

[Skunkerama]

Can't blame them, have you ever been to Plymouth? You'd rather emmigrate to Lebenon than stay in Guz.

[nigegilb]

Don't mean to spoil the fun, but would you gentlemen agree that recent experience in Iraq and to a lesser degree Vietnam highlight the limitations of the use of overwhelming military advantage when faced with peoples of a wholly different culture, ideology and religion. Surely it indicates that some countries should be allowed to solve their own problems over time and that super powers should exercise patience and restraint rather than the liberal use of overwhelming military force.

You Americans might have the greatest military force in the World but it does not appear to solve many problems.

[SASless]

Nige,

I believe you miss the point entirely.

It is when we do not use the overwhelming power to utterly destroy the enemy's ability and will to fight, that we make the mistake.

The last war we did that in was WWII. We set out with the goal of obtaining complete surrender of the Axis powers and waged all out war until we had acheived that. Since that time, if you look at every conflict since then in which we have been involved in beyond perhaps Panama and Grenada, we have not done that. Today we see the results of taking half measures such as Korea and Iraq. We do ourselves no favors by holding back and showing "restraint". If we are to fight these wars, then we need to gear up, mobilize the nation, and unleash all the power, military, economic, and political, we have to defeat the opponent(s).

War should be the last resort and only used when no other solution can be found, but once we engage in war, we should do it like the old days.

[brickhistory]

You Americans might have the greatest military force in the World but it does not appear to solve many problems.

Nigelb,

I can agree to this part of your post. With the other bits, I'd have some differences.

For example, overwhelming military advantage is always something I'd want if the civilian leadership and the country said, "Time to go to work." And it can work if said country has the stomach to absolutely obliterate everything in its path. Not how Westen democracies tend to fight post-WWII. Nor would I want that.

Re Israel providing recruits; didn't Hzb start the current little match? If so, doesn't that play into your "countries solve their own problems over time?"

Also, if we move off the Iraq/Vietnam comparision into the ME, shouldn't we move to the current threads on that subject?

[Skunkerama]

Isnt one of the problems the fact that the countries involved were merely the battlefield for a war against a far bigger foe?

Vietnam was a battlefield for a war against Communism soviet russia and china.

Iraq is a battlefield for a war against extremist Muslims.

If either war was fought against the indiginous population then it wouldn't last very long. But as it is being fought against groups that are paid for, recruited within and supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc etc then it is a wee bit more difficult.

How long would either war last without external funding like the CIA in Afganistan in the 80's?

[Tourist]

SASLess,
For once we are are entirely in agreement.
I heartily second your last post

[SASless]

Nig,

When one seeks to destroy the enemy one should do it without restraint or hindrance and utilize overwhelming combat power. The grand victory you proclaim in GW2 was not as you describe. It was a brilliant feat of arms to roadmarch the distance the troops did and overthrow the government. It was done with barely enough troops and logistics to sustain the effort.

That portion of the war defeated the organized military resistance. The follow-on troop deployment was a disaster...there simply were not enough of them nor of the correct skill set to accomplish the "occupation" of the country and re-establish the security apparatus and infrastructure of the country.

Thus, we see the continuing violence there compounded by the presence of external forces and terrorist groups.

I firmly believe the US and UK along with many other governments have allowed their military forces to shrink to a size that makes us vulnerable to attack and prevents us from deploying that overwhelming force needed to win wars in an effective manner.

Consider now the concern shown by UK military personnel about the lack of aircraft, ships, and manning to support what deployments that are on-going now. Anyone should be able to discern the truth that we do not have the necessary military forces we so desparately need in this war on terror.

[Echo 5]

Americans have earned a fair number of kudos in virtually every field of endeavor or science.
Oh really !! Well what about this for achievement. This was composed originally as a dig at the English but you Septics should also take note:
Wha’s like us?
DARN FEW AND THEY’RE A’ DEID
The average Englishman in the home he calls his castle, slips into his national costume - a shabby raincoat - patented by Chemist Charles Macintosh from Glasgow, Scotland.
En route to his office he strides along the English lane, surfaced by John Macadam of Ayr, Scotland.
He drives an English car fitted with tyres invented by John Boyd Dunlop, Veterinary Surgeon of Dreghorn, Scotland.
At the office he receives the mail bearing adhesive stamps invented by John Chaimers, Bookseller and Printer of Dundee, Scotland.
During the day he uses the telephone invented by Alexander Graham Bell, born in Edinburgh, Scotland. At home in the evening his daughter pedals her bicycle invented by Kirkpatrick Macmillan, Blacksmith of Thornhill, Dumfriesshire, Scotland.
He watches the news on T.V. an invention of John Logie Baird of Helensburgh, Scotland and hears about the U.S. Navy founded by John Paul Jones of Kirkbean, Scotland.
Nowhere can an Englishman turn to escape the ingenuity of the Scots.
He has by now been reminded too much of Scotland and in desperation he picks up the Bible, only to find that the first man mentioned in the good book is a Scot - King James VI - who authorised its translation.
He could take to drink but the Scots make the best in the World.
He could take a rifle and end it all but the breech-loading rifle was invented by Captain Patrick Ferguson of Pitfours, Scotland.
If he escaped death, he could find himself on an operating table injected with Penicillin, discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming of Darvel, Scotland and given Chloroform, an anaesthetic discovered by Sir James Young Simpson, Obstetrician and Gynaecologist of Bathgate, Scotland.
Out of the anaesthetic he would find no comfort in learning that he was as safe as the Bank of England founded by William Paterson of Dumfries, Scotland.
Perhaps his only remaining hope would be to get a transfusion of guid Scottish blood which would entitle him to ask —
Wha's like us?
by T. Anderson Cairns, Lanarkshire
Now, what has the good old U.S. of A actually given for the benefit of all mankind?

PS. Shame about John Paul Jones but we cannot be expected to get everything right.

[BenThere]

Great Scot

I checked my list, Echo, and all I've got left is chewing gum, disposable diapers, the repeating rifle, and a man on the moon.

Cheers,

[Echo 5]

Great Scot
I checked my list, Echo, and all I've got left is chewing gum, disposable diapers, the repeating rifle, and a man on the moon.
Cheers,
Ah but............did you actually put a man on the moon cos some cynical journalist recently claimed that he actually landed somewhere in Arizona. :confused:

[SASless]

....and the Internet....afterall Al Gore invented that, right?

[brickhistory]

Echo5,

Great post! To your list, may I add one of the most famous Scottish characters ever? That's right, the intrepid "Scotty" from Star Trek, played by a ................................Canadian!

And the most recently famous book about Scottish accomplishments, "How the Scots Invented the Modern World," written by .........................wait for it...........................an American! :E

And how'd that whole Darien thing work out?

As for the staged moon landing in AZ, nope, couldn't happen. The Lunar Lander still had its hubcaps and hadn't been spraypainted by Hispanic gangs yet!

[Echo 5]

brickhistory,

And the most recently famous book about Scottish accomplishments, "How the Scots Invented the Modern World," written by .........................wait for it...........................an American! ...........Please elaborate somewhat. Who was the author and is it a pi$$ take ?

And how'd that whole Darien thing work out?.........Are you referring to that plonker of a singer ? Well, we all have a cross to bear !! On second thoughts I think his name was Darius....but still a plonker.

Glad y'all take the banter in the good natured way it was intended.

[ZH875]

As for the staged moon landing in AZ, nope, couldn't happen. The Lunar Lander still had its hubcaps....Proves it wasn't filmed in Liverpool as well!:)

[brickhistory]

"How the Scots Invented the Modern World" is a pretty good light history of how some of Scotland's finest changed the modern world, either through their invention, their reshaping of theology, etc. Was a best seller here, don't know about the rest of the world (well, I'm American, you don't expect me to care beyond my own borders, do you?!:} )

Darien was a Scottish expedition to establish a colony in now-Panama. England did all it could to hinder the expedition, fearing it might compete with their trade monopolies. In good Scottish fashion, most of the Scot population dug deep and put up their life-savings to fund the project and make a rude gesture to the English.

Unfortunately, poor leadership, disease, and being unprepared for tropical life absolutely devestated the attempt. I don't remember the stats, but most died, a few left. A relief expedition the next year failed as well. All was lost.

The end result was an already poor Scotland was absolutely destitute. Some have estimated that half of Scotland's wealth was lost in the disaster. Hence, the Union Act was passed.

[Echo 5]

Thanks brickhistory. I must get some further reading on that.

[scribbler614]

I'd suggest 'Nam raises a far more relevant question for today's warriors than point-scoring over 'were the U.S. military up that task in the field 30 years ago?'
I'm prepared to accept they were - and have little time for the sneerers who weren't there - but when the final whistle went in '75 the wrong team was cheering.
If the history books end up saying the same about the 'war on terror' , err, that won't be good.:sad:
For sake of argument, let's accept:
1. In a no-holds barred war of annihalation in Vietnam (which they didn't get to fight) the U.S. mil would probably have finished first, and
2. They couldn't fight the war on their terms, their politicians were d1ckweeds and public support at home dribbled away into the long grass...

...then the question is, can today's generation do better with the messy string of operations it seems we can look forward to?
The so-called war on terror has broad similarities to 'Nam.
* Western forces are streets ahead in technology.
* But they'll probably be hamstrung by restrictive ROEs, messy international politics and concerns over proportionality. Some would say that's what makes us the good guys, but it's a pain in the frontline.
* The enemy are militarily medieval - but not stupid. They will learn, and fight to their strengths, they're patient, motivated, ruthless and don't have ROEs.
* Getting even more kinetic on their sorry ar5es may kill them but won't achieve final victory.
* Politicians are not all we would want them to be.

So, in years to come many on this forum can expect to be fighting nasty little fights with both hands tied behind their backs and scarce resources, sent into battle by a shower of elected human rights lawyers against ruthless baddies who don't obey the rules, while public opinions veers between uneasy and downright hostile.
Still, it's a living.

Anyone see any sign of politicians getting smarter, mil budgets doubling, the ill-defined enemy lining up in rows wearing Al-Qaeda T-shirts and advancing to contact across open ground, or the public getting over their misgivings? Me neither.

Question: can we - on both sides of pond - do better today than final result in Vietnam?
If the answer's 'no', there may be trouble ahead.
:eek:
SASless, agree with most of your posts, but the following worries me:

''It is when we do not use the overwhelming power to utterly destroy the enemy's ability and will to fight, that we make the mistake.
We do ourselves no favors by holding back and showing "restraint".''

Strikes me the baddies are like sneaky little judo fighters who will use your strength against you. Witness Taliban in Helmand - forcing they way into locals' homes, launching attacks on Brit Paras from them, then withdrawing as artillery and airstrikes flatten said homes, killing civilians. Result? Locals hate and blame the British (see The Times, Tue July 26th, p33). It's not fair, but it works.
Out-bombing them isn't enough. We have to outsmart them.

[SASless]

Scribs,

If we had overwhelming power....to include mobs of nasty acting goons that could saturate the rural areas and deprive the Taliban of that tactic then those houses would be immune from just what is happening now.

As long as the enemy have the initiative we are bound to lose in whatever we try to do. We have to maintain that initiative and have the bad guys reacting to our tactics....not the other way around.

[Skunkerama]

Or you could get really nasty and go for all out war by attacking their religon, religous property and anything that they believe in untill they stop (probably never once you've stirred up that little ants nest).

Get it over and done with and give the bird to the liberal media and the outcry.

Doubt it would work but it is just an idea.

[BenThere]

A new 'black ops' strategy, recruiting and funding thousands of infiltrators, spies, and demolition experts from all the ethnic origins to wreak havoc on all the sources of the current unrest is called for; kind of what the CIA used to do before it was dismantled and became a de facto bureau for the New York Times.

This is assymetric war, similar to Viet Nam in many respects. We can't fight it successfully in the nation state armed forces tradition, as we saw then and are seeing now. Quite a few mosques and madrassas need blowing up and their vicious, hate-monger mullahs dispatched with lard-soaked bullets and rusty knives.

So that doesn't make us any better than they are? So what! I want to survive and win this one, not make friends with a cult that hates me for what I am. They are a curse and a cancer on what should be an increasingly prospering, peaceful world. Anything we can do to destroy them should be done as we ultimately have no other choice.

[scribbler614]

SASless - can't fault your reasoning.
Agree there'd be clear benefits from flooding such areas with boots on the ground.
What really worries me is that HMGovt shows no sign of comprehending the scale of what they've got themselves into in Helmand.
Apols if this is drifting away from airpower a bit, although helicopter support for that mission is v. relevant.
Current 'green' infantry force in Helmand: 600, plus a few.
Reinforcements recently announced: 250 infantry.
Size of Helmand: 4 x Wales (but fewer sheep / male voice choirs)
Population of Helmand: well over a million
Current UK helicopter force: 10 with room for passengers - 6 Chinook, 4 Lynx
Two more Chinooks on their way, including one scrounged from Falklands, leaving no military helicopter at all in South Atlantic.
Our overstretched infantry can no longer maintain target of 24-month tour interval.
My point being, SASless - and a rather gloomy one - that if Govt won't stump up the cash and allow the numbers needed for your preferred strategy, our boys still have to do their best when sent on these ops.
And if we ain't got the numbers to do it right, hapless commanders still have to come up with a plan.
In darker moments I fear the only thing that will cause politicians to wake and smell coffee is if things go badly wrong. God forbid.
:(
The spottiest history nerds among you will know that tomorrow is 126th anniversary of Battle of Maiwand, fought just a few miles away from Sangin, in which 2,500-strong British column got soundly whipped by rag-tag band of local fuzzy-wuzzies, suffering almost 1,000 dead.
Excuse the melodrama, but that place has been a problem for a long, long time.
Thoughts with everyone fighting the good fight out there. Stay safe. :rolleyes:

[nigegilb]

Problem with military threads is they don't get past all out war or limited war ie the only option considered is to what degree of war one should consider.

Now then scenario 1 :

Dictator, sand pit, sitting on oil.

Action: War in name of nasty dictatorship and WMD, replace with good old democracy. End result thousands dead and close to anarchy.-Iraq

Scenario 2 :

Dictator, sand pit, sitting on oil.

Action: Word in the ear, nuclear secrets handed over, oil advisers sent with blessing of UK Govt, lots of juicy contracts, nobody killed, dictator still in power, no sign of democracy- Libya.

If, If, If, we had tried option2 with Iraq, flooded country with UN, NGO, oil advisers, tried the big stick and carrot. We would have had influence in the region, a bulwark against Iran, troops freed to sort out Afg properly and US able to put Iran back in the cage. No shots fired. Logical?

[SASless]

Scribs,

In General Westmoreland's book (sounds of loud expectoration heard) he recounts going back to President Johnson and telling LBJ (sounds of regurgitation heard) we needed 165,000 more troops to have any hope of succeeding in South Vietnam and without those troops we would only incur more dead and wounded. LBJ said it could not be done politically....Westmoreland saluted and returned to Vietnam to pack up his desk in anticipation of his promotion to Army Chief of Staff. More of us died and were maimed....the outcome is known.

Sounds familar doesn' it?

[scribbler614]

All too familiar, SASless.
I wonder if UK commanders are having similar conversations? Just have to trust that they are.
Guess they must have had - a bit - as more troops on way, but numbers look tiny from here.

Ben There, your ruthless approach has a pleasing simplicity about it. A few more years of bombing spectaculars in Western capitals and the voters might just catch up with you.
Trouble is, I humbly suggest, our real battle is to help moderate and peaceful Islam to overcome mad and violent Islam. (Unless we're into wiping out all Muslims, that is. In which case count me out)
Blowing up mosques, lard-soaked bullets and the rest just won't do it, I fear.
War on terror would be oh-so much simpler if it would, but it won't. A Western precision bomb flattening a mosque, however nasty the occupants, means more suicide bomber recruits, longer queues at the training camps, etc.
That's what 9/11 was really about, surely? Bin Laden wasn't worried about thinning out the number of office workers in Manhattan, he wanted to provoke A WAR. And he got one. Two, in fact, and counting.
Any talk of a real clash of civilisations, with a fight to the death between Muslims and the rest of us, is dribbling, babbling madness.
I don't know how many billions of Muslims there are, and I admit I haven't asked them all, but I'm pretty sure most of them are more worried about getting on with their lives in peace than about establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate state and exterminating all unbelievers.
They should be our allies in the war on terror - unless we make enemies of them. Unfortunately that doesn't take much doing.

[BenThere]

Scribbler, I'm certainly not advocating precision weapons against mosques, nor warfare against all Islam. My beef is with the Jihad cult within Islam, a subset, so to speak.

Mullahs who preach murder and mayhem, who facilitate the recruitment and funding of terrorists and terrorism against innocents who don't share their faith, need to be identified and silenced. They are genocidal fetishists whose movement endangers all of us, including other Muslims. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to fight and destroy them.

My other point was that clandestine operations would be more effective than a USAF precision strike on their centers of operations. A mosque used as a military or Jihad site has lost its protected status.

I have no problem with Muslims, in fact I endorse them, who want to live in peace and tolerance with non-Muslims.

[Skunkerama]

Arent clandestine operation usualy the cause for a lot of the crap that goes on?
If you look at a lot of the dictators or distastefull things that have happened in the last 50 years, it is normal to see the letters CIA involved in there at the start. I'm sure MI6 or whoever are just as bad.

[Skunkerama]

For christ's sake.

Although I do believe that Blair and Bush should be seriousley f*****d over for their lies to get us into Iraq.

But I think that the families of servicemen and women should accept that their loved ones volunteered for military service and that it was their decision to join up in the full knowledge that at some time their lives might be in danger.

It's the same kind of crap that you get in recruit training. Little Timmy's mother phones up the Adjutant asking why little Timmy was on the phone the other night in tears because the nasty Sgt made him run up and down beasting knoll. All of a sudden beasting runs are not allowed. Can't even call the little recruits "Nods" any more.

[scribbler614]

Judicial review - an anagram of 'lawyers getting rich'. (If you spell it a bit wrong).
A sensible judge will probably tell them they can't have their public inquiry, eventually, but it'll take weeks to get there, at several thousand pounds an hour, and we're paying.
And if they do get their inquiry, it will cost millions and satisfy nobody.
Only way to take leaders to task over a crap war is to vote them out at the next available election. Err....:ugh:
I feel very much for bereaved relatives, but am I alone in lamenting this new culture where some seem to feel they're not doing the right thing by their late loved ones unless they start a campaign group and chain themselves to the gates of Downing St?

Ben There, we're agreed:

''Mullahs who preach murder and mayhem, who facilitate the recruitment and funding of terrorists and terrorism against innocents who don't share their faith, need to be identified and silenced. They are genocidal fetishists whose movement endangers all of us, including other Muslims. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to fight and destroy them.''

Quite right. But it's an oh-so tricky task to shut them up without making things worse, isn't it? Those Muslims do love their martyrs, after all.
Maybe you're right and clandestine ops are the answer. Don't know enough to judge.

[nigegilb]

scribbler a lot of British people (millions) think the Iraq war was illegal and that many people have lost their lives unnecessarily. This case is about the abrupt change of mind by the Attorney General on the eve of war. It amounts to a sheet or two of A4 paper. Remember the Chiefs of Staff would not commit to the war until its legality was confirmed. That is how important this piece of paper is. Tony Blair could spare reluctant tax payers the cost of court if he published the advice. He will not. Would you care to add up the cost of the war to date and compare it to these legal fees? Cut the relatives some slack. What we are seeing is an inevitable reaction to a bad war. I hope the politicians are listening.

[scribbler614]

I hear you, nigegilb.
I'm not unsympathetic towards the relatives, don't get me wrong - I've met and spoken to many of them, and I think they're (mostly) sincerely angry people with a point to make. I'm no admirer of the basis of the war, based on what we now know.
I'm just sceptical about the value of these big set-piece public inquiries.
They cost the earth, but that's not the real problem.
The Government of the day gets to set the terms of the inquiry and choose their tame judge, and at the end of the day the findings don't change anybody's minds, and everyone claims they were right all along.
Hutton was a whitewash. On the day he published his findings most of the media who had sat through the whole sorry performance were left wondering whether he'd been listening to the same evidence.
That's why the whole prospect seems a bit depressing.
Lord Goldsmith didn't get that job without being able to worm his way into or out of most things. Strongly suspect putting him in the witness box would be about as enlightening as asking his dog what happened.

[nigegilb]

Thanks for that, I completely understand your point. I just want to see what Goldsmith wrote on that paper. Interestingly the press speculation about the death of David Kelly is mounting again, partly due to the inadequate performance of the judge. What caught my eye about this latest news is the Lawyer Phil Shiner. He has been involved in some controversial cases. I think this could still be an interesting journey.

Cheers,

NG

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Like Nige I would really love to know what was on the peice of paper, and also and what convinced Blair etc that they could pull the wool over the eyes of the British public in the manner they employed.

My biggets problem is that at age 48 time is not on my side as I will be long gone before the REAL truth as to why we went into this conflict is revealed:}

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Echo 5]

brickhistory,

Sorry, I missed this one................Founder of the U.S. National Parks..........
John Muir, born in Dunbar, Scotland.:)