mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 29, 2019 3:15:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 29, 2019 11:09:48 GMT
Did you read some of the comments underneath? One held no punches, I have pasted it below, but I must make clear, this is not my work, so if anyone disagrees with it, don't shoot me! The US military is designed for total war, not for peacekeeping, guerilla warfare or dealing with insurgencies. Compare America with Britain for example. Britains post- ww2 experience has been the winding down of an empire and fighting for peaceful transitions for ex-imperial possessions.
With the exception of Israel/Palestine Britain has been very successful in Borneo, Malaya, Northen Ireland, Oman, Aden, The Falklands, Sierra Leone, Kenya. And mainly because they know that hearts and minds is crucial. For a country that prides itself on it's big heartedness Americans make terrible peacekeepers - they just shoot too much.
In Vietnam American areas of operation were rarely pacified. Australian areas were. The Australians would go out and stay out, take the fight to the enemy, sleep out on deep patrols, harrass the enemy constantly whilst simultaneously providing free medical help for the locals, working in construction and food provision.. If the Australian success in Vietnam had been duplicated through U.S areas and ARVN areas the war would have been won.... as it was in Malaya by Commonwealth troops. Americans by contrast would use B52s against insurgents which was guaranteed to piss off the locals.
They employed torture and village burning. Due to conscription the army was large but unprofessional. "Search and destroy" missions would reign terror on local populations but then yield territory back to the enemy directly afterwards, not holding any ground taken which destroyed the morale of the troops who had to fight for the same bit of jungle day after day.
This foolish tactic of not maintaining and pacifying gains made victories hard to measure, so the body count was introduced, a shoddy effort to create a sense of success by number of deaths inflicted in an environment where too many civilians were counted amongst the dead. Politically this was disastrous. Sadly the lessons of Vietnam have not been learnt and we see similar operations in Afghanistan with similar results. Disillusioned troops and angry locals.
The Taliban will succeed because they don't have a schedule. it's their country and they know that America will eventually give in. Unfortunately that's the lesson of the last 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 29, 2019 14:37:31 GMT
Don't disagree with a single word Ian. Malaya was the model of success, and we here in the United States have completely ignored its lessons.
Have not watched the Nimitz Lecture yet Mac, but seeing how the guest speaker is Tom Ricks I have no doubt that he will be scathing in his evaluation of U S Military leadership and rightly so.
In the War of the Flea, one must first find the the correct flea collar for the dog that wears it, then wear it until the need has past, then remember which brand you bought when you again need it.
|
|
