The Vietnam moment

Councilman · Oct 31, 2009

FT.com / Comment / Analysis - The Vietnam moment

By Edward Luce
Published: October 30 2009 19:50 | Last updated: October 30 2009 19:50

Seven years ago, Dick Cheney proclaimed: “The Taliban is out of business, permanently.” Last week, the former vice-president came close to accusing Barack Obama of lacking the guts to “do what it takes” to win the war against the very same Taliban.

Some time in the next two weeks, Mr Obama is likely to bring months of agonised deliberation to a close when he decides how many more troops to send to Afghanistan. The number, which could be as high as the 40,000 recommended by Stanley McChrystal, the general in charge, will be analysed minutely for what it can achieve on the ground in Afghanistan.

But as Mr Cheney’s contrasting observations illustrate, the more influential war is being fought politically on the ground in America. Somehow, the compulsions of US politics have brought the candidate who electrified America by promising to pull out of Iraq to a position where many of his most ardent backers fear he may be about to get America into another Vietnam.

I confess that I sometimes make wildly outlandish statements just to piss a few people off. This is not one of those occasions.
To eliminate any and all comparisons to Vietnam it is necessary to decide not to let it by being determined to win and you can't do that with incremental steps as Obama is apparently considering. That is exactly what we did that made it impossible to win in Vietnam. Politicians limited the scope and even picked targets. Wars need to be fought to win with over whelming force to save lives on our side and civilians as well
Obama knows less about how to win a war than he does about fixing the economy which is nothing. He is listening most to people who know the least and giving lip service to the Generals. His whole trip to Dover was to throw off criticism and make believe he cares and is giving serious measured thought to the issue.
All he really cares about is the next party or trip to someplace he can be the center of attention.

Arch Enemy · Oct 31, 2009

Councilman said:
FT.com / Comment / Analysis - The Vietnam moment

By Edward Luce
Published: October 30 2009 19:50 | Last updated: October 30 2009 19:50

I confess that I sometimes make wildly outlandish statements just to piss a few people off. This is not one of those occasions.
To eliminate any and all comparisons to Vietnam it is necessary to decide not to let it by being determined to win and you can't do that with incremental steps as Obama is apparently considering. That is exactly what we did that made it impossible to win in Vietnam. Politicians limited the scope and even picked targets. Wars need to be fought to win with over whelming force to save lives on our side and civilians as well
Obama knows less about how to win a war than he does about fixing the economy which is nothing. He is listening most to people who know the least and giving lip service to the Generals. His whole trip to Dover was to throw off criticism and make believe he cares and is giving serious measured thought to the issue.
All he really cares about is the next party or trip to someplace he can be the center of attention.

The bold highlights a problem that reoccures, seemingly, with every war; How should authority be shared (within a war) between the civil sphere (politicians) and military sphere (generals)?

It's evident that Politicans are not Generals, nor do most of them have the requirements to make military decisions... however.. because we're a Republic our Senators and Representatives are the our voices.

If in wartime our Military is allowed to make decisions without Washington, then we hinder any sort of "Republic" notion that we boast. The biggest fear, especially with Vietnam, is that the military was able to swell troop forces without any oversight.

Generals and Military Leadership usually discusses or admits futility whenever they resign-- never on duty.

rathi · Oct 31, 2009

The problem with wars the Afghanistan and Vietnam is that it is not our military that matters, but the government we are trying to prop up. Our strategy is doomed unless we have a plan that lets Karzai actually get the power to rule the country by himself. That is a political goal, and an extremely challenging one to meet. We can deploy all the troops we like, but unless a non-taliban government can stand on its own, military power simply isn't going to be enough.

Arch Enemy · Oct 31, 2009

rathi said:
The problem with wars the Afghanistan and Vietnam is that it is not our military that matters, but the government we are trying to prop up. Our strategy is doomed unless we have a plan that lets Karzai actually get the power to rule the country by himself. That is a political goal, and an extremely challenging one to meet. We can deploy all the troops we like, but unless a non-taliban government can stand on its own, military power simply isn't going to be enough.

Agreed.

That and we are trying to legitimize a government when the people don't even.

apdst · Oct 31, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
The bold highlights a problem that reoccures, seemingly, with every war; How should authority be shared (within a war) between the civil sphere (politicians) and military sphere (generals)?

It's evident that Politicans are not Generals, nor do most of them have the requirements to make military decisions... however.. because we're a Republic our Senators and Representatives are the our voices.

If in wartime our Military is allowed to make decisions without Washington, then we hinder any sort of "Republic" notion that we boast. The biggest fear, especially with Vietnam, is that the military was able to swell troop forces without any oversight.

Generals and Military Leadership usually discusses or admits futility whenever they resign-- never on duty.

It's simple. The president tells his military chain of command what end result he is looking for and the military carries out operation in accordance with that intent.

Congress has nothing to do with strategic/tactical decisions.

rathi said:
The problem with wars the Afghanistan and Vietnam is that it is not our military that matters, but the government we are trying to prop up. Our strategy is doomed unless we have a plan that lets Karzai actually get the power to rule the country by himself. That is a political goal, and an extremely challenging one to meet. We can deploy all the troops we like, but unless a non-taliban government can stand on its own, military power simply isn't going to be enough.

That will enver happen, until the enemy no longer has the ability to wage war.

rathi · Oct 31, 2009

That will enver happen, until the enemy no longer has the ability to wage war.

If what you said was actually true, than we should leave immediately. Attrition is not a workable strategy against a foe who dictates when and where all attacks take place. We will run out of money and political support long before the Taliban are destroyed. The Russians failed in such a strategy, and we will have no greater success if we repeat their mistakes.

apdst · Oct 31, 2009

rathi said:
If what you said was actually true, than we should leave immediately. Attrition is not a workable strategy against a foe who dictates when and where all attacks take place.

It is if he consistantly loses ten times more fighters than we do.

We will run out of money and political support long before the Taliban are destroyed.

Not if we ramp up the violence against the enemy and cause his KIA's to double, or even triple.

The Russians failed in such a strategy, and we will have no greater success if we repeat their mistakes.

The Soviet Strategy was to kill everybody, not just the Mujahadeen and it was working, until American weapons and training caused a route of their forces. The biggest mistake that the Soviets made, really, was that they were trying to fight an modern armored war in the mountains. They failed to adjust to the enemy's new engagement techniques. It's ironic, that the North Vietnamese Communists invented modern un-conventional warfare and the Soviets never once attempted to draw on that knowledge to help the situation in Afghanistan.

rathi · Oct 31, 2009

It is if he consistantly loses ten times more fighters than we do.

Afghanistan has a population of 28 million people. Lets say 1% are fighters that we need to kill or 280,000. Keeping with your 10 to 1 kill ratio, we lose 28,000 soldiers. That is politically unsustainable, and would be far more costly than any terrorist attack upon us.

Not if we ramp up the violence against the enemy and cause his KIA's to double, or even triple.

Completely irrelevant. Such minor differences would not change the outcome.

The Soviet Strategy was to kill everybody, not just the Mujahadeen and it was working, until American weapons and training caused a route of their forces. The biggest mistake that the Soviets made, really, was that they were trying to fight an modern armored war in the mountains. They failed to adjust to the enemy's new engagement techniques. It's ironic, that the North Vietnamese Communists invented modern un-conventional warfare and the Soviets never once attempted to draw on that knowledge to help the situation in Afghanistan.

You seriously think that Soviets were routed?

apdst · Oct 31, 2009

rathi said:
Afghanistan has a population of 28 million people. Lets say 1% are fighters that we need to kill or 280,000. Keeping with your 10 to 1 kill ratio, we lose 28,000 soldiers. That is politically unsustainable, and would be far more costly than any terrorist attack upon us.

It wouldn't be necessary to every single one of them. Besides, as they lost combat power, the kill ratio would rise.

Completely irrelevant. Such minor differences would not change the outcome.

It's worked every other time it's been done. Why won't it work now? What are you basing your opinion on?

You seriously think that Soviets were routed?

Oh yeah, with their tales between their legs.

rathi · Oct 31, 2009

It wouldn't be necessary to every single one of them. Besides, as they lost combat power, the kill ratio would rise.

This isn't divisional level maneuvers, its small decentralized groups.

It's worked every other time it's been done. Why won't it work now? What are you basing your opinion on?

It completely failed in Vietnam, Algeria, and Afghanistan. It won't work because our enemy is numerous, they hold the initiative, and we cannot afford to sustain large numbers of casualties.

Oh yeah, with their tales between their legs.

Have you ever cracked a history book? The Soviets left after operations became too costly. To call it a rout would be a lie.

apdst · Oct 31, 2009

rathi said:
This isn't divisional level maneuvers, its small decentralized groups.

I understand that. Hence reason to overwhelm them with superior numbers and violence of action. Hunt them down where they live and kill them.

It completely failed in Vietnam, Algeria, and Afghanistan. It won't work because our enemy is numerous, they hold the initiative, and we cannot afford to sustain large numbers of casualties.

It didn't happen in any of those places, however it did work in WW2, WW1 and The Civil War.

Have you ever cracked a history book? The Soviets left after operations became too costly. To call it a rout would be a lie.

The Soviets incurred over a half million casualties. Not only did they retreat, because the war cost to much, but because they were losing people left and right to combat causlties and sickness. That's out of 620,000 Soviet troops that served during the entire war. No, calling it a route wouldn't be a lie. The Soviets got their asses handed to them, plain and simple.

rathi · Oct 31, 2009

I understand that. Hence reason to overwhelm them with superior numbers and violence of action. Hunt them down where they live and kill them.

Right, except they can hide in caves, mountains or even villages. We can't/couldn't find OBL in 8 years.

It didn't happen in any of those places, however it did work in WW2, WW1 and The Civil War.

Notice how all those foes were highly organized and faced us on the open field of battle, which is the complete opposite of the situation we face in Afghanistan.

The Soviets incurred over a half million casualties. Not only did they retreat, because the war cost to much, but because they were losing people left and right to combat causlties and sickness. That's out of 620,000 Soviet troops that served during the entire war. No, calling it a route wouldn't be a lie. The Soviets got their asses handed to them, plain and simple.

90% of the soviet "casualties" were soldiers who got sick from miserable sanitary conditions.Around 15k died and another 50k were actually injured. The soviets ended with a planned withdrawal, after the successful Operation Magistral. Calling it a rout is simply false. Dien Bien Phu is rout, both the USSR and US ended wars because they were simply not worth the cost.

apdst · Oct 31, 2009

rathi said:
Right, except they can hide in caves, mountains or even villages.

Then, we'll just have to go in and get them, or pump poison gas into the caves. Whatever.

We can't/couldn't find OBL in 8 years.

We can't find him because he's dead.

Notice how all those foes were highly organized and faced us on the open field of battle, which is the complete opposite of the situation we face in Afghanistan.

Irrelevant.

90% of the soviet "casualties" were soldiers who got sick from miserable sanitary conditions.Around 15k died and another 50k were actually injured. The soviets ended with a planned withdrawal, after the successful Operation Magistral. Calling it a rout is simply false. Dien Bien Phu is rout, both the USSR and US ended wars because they were simply not worth the cost.

No, Dien Bien Phu was a surrender...LOL!!!

Arch Enemy · Oct 31, 2009

apdst said:
It's simple. The president tells his military chain of command what end result he is looking for and the military carries out operation in accordance with that intent.

Congress has nothing to do with strategic/tactical decisions.

.

Military gets no say in the end goal?

and by nothing you mean... they determine monetary issues so they get to decide a heck of a lot more than you hope they do

apdst · Nov 1, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
Military gets no say in the end goal?

The military has most of the say, or should, anyway.

and by nothing you mean... they determine monetary issues so they get to decide a heck of a lot more than you hope they do

Congress's authority ends there. They have no authority to give orders to the military, concerning tactics and strategy. The only civilian that has that authority is the president. There are no members of Congress in the chain of command.

reefedjib · Nov 1, 2009

apdst said:
rathi said:

apdst said:

Hunt them down where they live and kill them.

Click to expand...

Right, except they can hide in caves, mountains or even villages.

Click to expand...

Then, we'll just have to go in and get them, or pump poison gas into the caves. Whatever.

Of course, they spend the winters and regroup in Pakistan, their sanctuary. Are we to go in and get them there? If not, we should head home.

apdst · Nov 1, 2009

reefedjib said:
Of course, they spend the winters and regroup in Pakistan, their sanctuary. Are we to go in and get them there? If not, we should head home.

I agree that if we're not going to fight the war right, we should leave, but leaving shouldn't be a solution to ending the war as some have suggested.

reefedjib · Nov 1, 2009

apdst said:
I agree that if we're not going to fight the war right, we should leave, but leaving shouldn't be a solution to ending the war as some have suggested.

I agree that "leaving shouldn't be a solution to ending the war".

So to carry the argument forward for entering Pakistan to address the sanctuaries, let's look at the diplomatic situation between the US and Pakistan.

From the current trip to Pakistan by Hillary Clinton:
Clinton in Pakistan encounters widespread distrust of U.S. -- latimes.com
Pakistanis confront Clinton over drone attacks - Yahoo! News
Clinton scolds Pakistan over inaction on al-Qaida - Yahoo! News
Clinton: Pakistan in danger - CNN.com

It doesn't look like Pakistan is going to invite us to join them against the sanctuaries - plural. Should we enter nonetheless?

What should we do?

apdst · Nov 1, 2009

reefedjib said:
I agree that "leaving shouldn't be a solution to ending the war".

So to carry the argument forward for entering Pakistan to address the sanctuaries, let's look at the diplomatic situation between the US and Pakistan.

From the current trip to Pakistan by Hillary Clinton:
Clinton in Pakistan encounters widespread distrust of U.S. -- latimes.com
Pakistanis confront Clinton over drone attacks - Yahoo! News
Clinton scolds Pakistan over inaction on al-Qaida - Yahoo! News
Clinton: Pakistan in danger - CNN.com

It doesn't look like Pakistan is going to invite us to join them against the sanctuaries - plural. Should we enter nonetheless?

What should we do?

We should totaly destroy Tally forces in Afghanistan, thereby concentrating them inside Pakistan, making them an easier target for the Paki forces and denying them any escape from Paki forces into Afghanistan. If we deny the Tals's ability to maneuver, we take away alot of their combat power.

MSgt · Nov 1, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
Military gets no say in the end goal?

Not since WWII.

reefedjib · Nov 1, 2009

Thanks, apdst! Let's work with this. Advantage: we don't have to invade Pakistan and create an additional mess.

1) "We should totaly destroy Tally forces in Afghanistan"
- takes a lot of troops engaged in COIN ops. Need intel. Good partnerships with the locals. Need a surge of forces. Anything else?

2) "concentrating them inside Pakistan"
- ok

3) "making them an easier target for the Paki forces"
- let's check out where the Pakis are fighting
Pakistan provinces/states/agencies:

Balochistan: Baluchistan province, Kalat, Kharan, Las Bela, and Mekran states

Federally Administered Tribal Areas: Khyber, Kurram, Malakand, North Waziristan, and South Waziristan agencies

North-West Frontier: North-West Frontier province, Amb, Chitral, Dir, Nagir Phulra, and Swat states

I've highlighted the ones I think I remember hearing about in the news. I am sure there are others like the ones in Baluchistan. Paki forces are in Swat. The Taliban forces entering AFG are in at least North and South Waziristan and North-West Frontier province. Khyber is where our supply lines are being attacked.

So, is Pakistan willing and able to go after these guys?

4) "denying them any escape from Paki forces into Afghanistan"
- So we have to secure the border. That is a tough border to secure. It is long, hard terrain, weather vulnerable. No vehicles. We need MORE troops.

5) "If we deny the Tals's ability to maneuver, we take away alot of their combat power"
- Does this apply to un-conventional forces? They can melt away since their attacks are non-linear.

apdst · Nov 1, 2009

reefedjib said:
1) "We should totaly destroy Tally forces in Afghanistan"
- takes a lot of troops engaged in COIN ops. Need intel. Good partnerships with the locals. Need a surge of forces. Anything else?

Agreed.

2) "concentrating them inside Pakistan"
- ok

OK.

3) "making them an easier target for the Paki forces"
- let's check out where the Pakis are fighting
Pakistan provinces/states/agencies:

I've highlighted the ones I think I remember hearing about in the news. I am sure there are others like the ones in Baluchistan. Paki forces are in Swat. The Taliban forces entering AFG are in at least North and South Waziristan and North-West Frontier province. Khyber is where our supply lines are being attacked.

So, is Pakistan willing and able to go after these guys?

"Able"?, yes. "Willing"?, maybe not as much, but I think if American forces did more to hamstring the Tallies, it might encourage pak forces to become more aggresive.

4) "denying them any escape from Paki forces into Afghanistan"
- So we have to secure the border. That is a tough border to secure. It is long, hard terrain, weather vulnerable. No vehicles. We need MORE troops.

There's no way to totaly seal any border, but if we can seal the border to the point that you take away the enemy's ability to effectively come and go, then you've achieved a great deal. IMO.

5) "If we deny the Tals's ability to maneuver, we take away alot of their combat power"
- Does this apply to un-conventional forces? They can melt away since their attacks are non-linear.

Any combat force has to be able to shoot, move and communicate. It's the pinciple of warfare and will never change.

reefedjib · Nov 1, 2009

apdst said:
"Able"?, yes. "Willing"?, maybe not as much, but I think if American forces did more to hamstring the Tallies, it might encourage pak forces to become more aggresive.

It would be awfully nice to have Pakis squeeze the Tallies from one district to another, while the US focuses on that part of the border, in order to conserve limited force. With the way the diplomatic situation seems to be going, that kind of coordination may be wishful thinking.

There's no way to totaly seal any border, but if we can seal the border to the point that you take away the enemy's ability to effectively come and go, then you've achieved a great deal. IMO.

Agreed.

Any combat force has to be able to shoot, move and communicate. It's the pinciple of warfare and will never change.

Ok, that makes sense. How does an insurgent Talli terrorist group move? The certainly engage either from a distance with IEDs, or en mass when they have the superior force.

apdst · Nov 1, 2009

reefedjib said:
It would be awfully nice to have Pakis squeeze the Tallies from one district to another, while the US focuses on that part of the border, in order to conserve limited force. With the way the diplomatic situation seems to be going, what kind of coordination may be wishful thinking.

I believe the diplomatic situation may improve if we are able to neutralize Tally operations in Afghanistan. Then, we could tell the Paks, "ok, we killed them all on our end, we'll block the exit door, while you mop them up on your end". It's hard to insist that the Paks do more, when we have a CIC that is considering doing less.

[/quote]Ok, that makes sense. How does an insurgent Talli terrorist group move? The certainly engage either from a distance with IEDs, or en mass when they have the superior force.[/QUOTE]

An un-conventional unit has to be able to maneuver, either to put themselves in a tactically adventageous positon over the enemy, or to escape a situation that isn't to their advantage, or move to a position where they can conduct recovery and reconstitution operations. They have to be able to move around to move and secure beans and bullets. If they can't re-supply, can't maneuver tactically, nor escape a bad scene, then it nothing but a matter of time before they're all destroyed.

The North Vietnamese were able to use Cambodia as a supply route and as sanctuary. The Tallies are doing then same thing in Afghaistan and Pakistan.

Councilman · Nov 1, 2009

rathi said:
The problem with wars the Afghanistan and Vietnam is that it is not our military that matters, but the government we are trying to prop up. Our strategy is doomed unless we have a plan that lets Karzai actually get the power to rule the country by himself. That is a political goal, and an extremely challenging one to meet. We can deploy all the troops we like, but unless a non-taliban government can stand on its own, military power simply isn't going to be enough.

The main focus of our being there must always be the same as the initial reason for going there. That being the capture of Bin Laden and the removal from power the Taliban. To keep the Taliban from ever returning to power and in doing so threatening not only the U.S. but the west in general is to destroy it completely and that can only be done with over whelming force. Once that is achieved the people will be more likely to fall into support of it's own government. Sadly when corruption is at the core of the government in power it complicates every thing and makes all progress problematic.
Karzai is and educated man who needs to be persuaded that it is in his best interest to clean his house of corruption or we as a government must make sure he is removed one way or the other. Sometimes the peace of the world out weighs anyone person. And I'm not saying to kill him. There are ways we could under mine his grip on power.

The Vietnam moment

Councilman

Arch Enemy

Familiaist

rathi

Count Smackula

Arch Enemy

Familiaist

apdst

rathi

Count Smackula

apdst

rathi

Count Smackula

apdst

rathi

Count Smackula

apdst

rathi

Count Smackula

apdst

Arch Enemy

Familiaist

apdst

reefedjib

apdst

reefedjib

apdst

MSgt

Read Some Books

reefedjib

apdst

reefedjib

apdst

Councilman