Category: WAR

How we fight todays wars without resolve

September 1862 the confederate army has moved north into Maryland with its first major invasion of the North.  They will meet at Antietam Creek as the north called it, or Sharpsburg per the south.  The first major (large) battle in this era of modern warfare that emphasized the new rifled musket but continued with the old battle line approach.  On the 17th of September the two armies met and battled for a single day. The result, Americas most costly day ever, 22,717 dead, wounded and missing.  Famous locations were ingrained in historical minds forever.  Dunker Church, Burnside Bridge, Millers Cornfield, and the Sunken Road.  In 1862 Mathew Brady opened and exhibition of his famous photographs in New York called The Dead of Antietam to show a curious public the horrific scenes of war.  For the first time the media has on full display the horrors of war.  Not clean, as from public view, but nasty, mean, dirty and unforgiving.   

Living here in the south, William T. Sherman, known by his troops as “Uncle Billy”, has a bad taste even today in the year 2021.  After Uncle Billy took Atlanta, he received his orders from Grand and from November to December moved south cutting a swath 20 miles wide of burning and destruction with two wings of Cavalry.  Kilpatrick’s on the left and Slocum’s on the right towards his march to the sea bringing the concept of total war to the population and culminating in his taking of Fort McAllister and then the capture of Savannah, Georgia on December 21^st.  During this march to the sea Sherman implemented his SCORCHED EARTH policy of TOTAL WAR.   In later years he would make the famous statement “WAR IS HELL”.

It is truly unfortunate that politics play such an instrumental role when it comes to our military.  It is no longer and arsenal of democracy when we drop Thors Hammer, but instead a pesky fly swatter.   The public and our elected leaders have come to believe that war is clean and surgical.  As William Tecumseh Sherman once said “WAR IS HELL”.  I watched on FOX the other day when a missile strike was made in Afghanistan and non-combatants, children, were killed by the strike.  Everyone, both parties, were shocked and incensed and wanted to find out why this happened and who is going to pay for the error.  It’s war everyone, and it’s cruel, nasty and dirty.   No one seems to understand that this is what war is, a nasty business and casualties like this happen and will continue to happen.  It’s the nature of the beast since the dawn of time.   If one thinks these occurrences can be controlled they are in for a very rude awakening. 

These surgical beliefs go back to the Vietnam era.  I believe these surgical attitudes towards war is due to the ability of our rapid communication infrastructure to relay to the world at large what is going on the battlefield in real time.   Military leaders are on edge to make war as clean as possible as the public is watching and grading them on their civilian casualties.   Unfortunately, this is a double edge sward.  WWII was most likely the last war where Generals or a military central command made the decision regarding strategic operations in leu of politicians or civilian authority.   At the time of WWII, the mission was predominant and field correspondence or journalists were there to report the conflict.    McArthur was fired by Truman because MacArthur would not follow what the president wanted from a political perspective and not militarily and the fear of angering the Chinese.

Vietnam became the first war fought and conducted in the media.  The day’s events were being submitted hours after being filmed to the world at large with American casualties being displayed every night.  The White House’s directives to the military regarding operations was in direct relation to what was happening in the media.  For the first time the media (reporters or correspondents) had a direct impact on how the administration was conducting their operations.  This was a huge impact and curtailed the military in its operations or to limit the carnage that was viewed at home.  Images of civilian casualties or non-combatants paid a huge influence on how the war was conducted.   Politicians were so worried about political fallout that it effected their decision making in regards how to conduct the war.  Vietnam was never about winning but a holding pattern at the 16^th parallel. 

Afghanistan was not about winning, but holding the Taliban at bay until the Afghan army could handle the situation.  Nation building never ends well when you still have an enemy to deal with.  The end result Afghanistan is exactly where it was 20 years previous, except for the modernization of the cities with the Taliban and their cohorts receiving the best military equipment it could never be purchased or stole.

Not since WWII has there been a political leader that was willing to state the issue and the resolve needed.  George Bush the younger came close to it after 9/11 but still came up short.

There was a comment that stated “you cannot bomb an ideology”.  The hell you can’t, because it has been done and we did it.  It’s not pretty, its nasty, mean and very dirty, but you need the resolve and will to use a level of violence and brutality that today’s generations cannot fathom.  They had suicide bombers back then, they were called kamikazes.  We were not worried how many civilians were killed when Dresden in Germany was bombed into oblivion. 25,000 civilians killed.  Curtis LeMay did not worry when he fire-bombed Tokyo and killed 100,000 civilians.  No, there was a will to win, to stop it so it could never return.  To make them quit.  Back then we had leadership, resolve, resources and determination.  Until we have this resolve it will never quit.    Today we are concerned about everyone’s feelings would be hurt.

AMERICAS MISTAKES WE HAVE NOT LEARNED

by Lauren Zanolli

What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to “a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate.” Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that “it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it.”

In January of 1973, President Richard Nixon approved the Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger, which implemented an immediate cease-fire in Vietnam and called for the complete withdrawal of American troops within sixty days. Two months later, Nixon met with South Vietnamese President Thieu and secretly promised him a “severe retaliation” against North Vietnam should they break the cease-fire. Around the same time, Congress began to express outrage at the secret illegal bombings of Cambodia carried out at Nixon’s behest. Accordingly, on June 19, 1973 Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment, which called for a halt to all military activities in Southeast Asia by August 15, thereby ending twelve years of direct U.S. military involvement in the region.

In the fall of 1974, Nixon resigned under the pressure of the Watergate scandal and was succeeded by Gerald Ford. Congress cut funding to South Vietnam for the upcoming fiscal year from a proposed 1.26 billion to 700 million dollars. These two events prompted Hanoi to make an all-out effort to conquer the South. As the North Vietnamese Communist Party Secretary Le Duan observed in December 1974: “The Americans have withdrawn…this is what marks the opportune moment.”

The NVA drew up a two-year plan for the “liberation” of South Vietnam. Owing to South Vietnam’s weakened state, this would only take fifty-five days. The drastic reduction of American aid to South Vietnam caused a sharp decline in morale, as well as an increase in governmental corruption and a crackdown on domestic political dissent. The South Vietnamese army was severely under-funded, greatly outnumbered, and lacked the support of the American allies with whom they were accustomed to fighting.

The NVA began its final assault in March of 1975 in the Central Highlands. Ban Me Thout, a strategically important hamlet, quickly fell to North Vietnam. On March 13, a panicked Thieu called for the retreat of his troops, surrendering Pleiku and Kontum to the NVA. Thieu angrily blamed the US for his decision, saying, “If [the U.S.] grant full aid we will hold the whole country, but if they only give half of it, we will only hold half of the country.” His decision to retreat increased internal opposition toward him and spurred a chaotic mass exodus of civilians and soldiers that clogged the dilapidated roads to the coast. So many refugees died along the way that the migration along Highway 7B was alternatively described by journalists as the “convoy of tears” and the “convoy of death.” On April 21, President Thieu resigned in a bitter televised speech in which he strongly denounced the United States. Sensing that South Vietnam was on the verge of collapse, the NVA accelerated its attack and reached Saigon on April 23. On the same day, President Ford announced to cheerful students at Tulane University that as far as America was concerned, “the war was over.” The war officially concluded on April 30, as Saigon fell to North Vietnam and the last American personnel were evacuated.

ONE FOR HISTORY BUFFS THAT I BET YOU DID NOT KNOW

In 1975, President Ford was left to manage the difficult ending of the Vietnam War. President Ford went to Congress for a relief package to allow American personnel and our allies to evacuate. However, there was ONE US SENATOR who opposed any such support. The result was the embarrassing and hurried evacuation from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon 

This senator reveled in the embarrassment and did everything he could to leverage it politically against Ford. Despite the efforts of this U.S. Senator–President Ford managed to rescue 1,500 South Vietnamese allies prior to the country’s fall. Had President Ford not acted quickly, these people would have been targeted and slaughtered for their support for America. When they arrived in America, President Ford asked Congress for a package to assist these refugees to integrate into American society. 

That SAME troublesome SENATOR TORPEDOED ANY SUPPORT for these shell shocked, anti-communist, Americans and our helpers, the refugees. 

Instead, President Ford had to recruit Christian organizations to offer assistance on a voluntary basis. As he did so, the Senator belittled those efforts. What kind of person would oppose President Ford’s tireless work to do the right and humanitarian thing? Who would want to play politics with the well-being of innocent people who stood by America in the tragic Vietnam War? 

THAT SENATOR WAS JOE BIDEN

From the book- “When the Center Held.” by Donald Rumsfeld in 2018. (biography)

So, we have left Afghanistan with 100% of the military evacuated.

WHY!  Because we the American people demanded it?  Sorry, bad excuse.  The majority of Americans have no clue regarding Afghanistan let alone the middle east.

This will be a costly mistake in the not to near future.  With the Taliban, al-Qaeda, ISIS now in charge of Afghanistan they can plan and execute their terrorists’ actions.   They can further implement their gruesome, archaic, ideology towards it people.

Why so intent on leaving 100%?  Should have left a contingent of 2,500 personal with close air support aircraft and ground intelligence to keep the Bahrain AF Base secure and the enemy at bay with such a close threat. Close the embassy and level it.    Any attempt by the terrorist would be dealt with harshly by our military.  Drones, air strikes, etc. This was the Trump plan.   No ground operations, other than inteligence, as the afghans needed to step up to this.  With the US in still support the afghans would not have departed.  Our presents will deter the terrorists and keep them in Pakistan and around that border.  Any attempt to take over the country will be dealt with harshly.  Collateral damage would be a hazard that the afghans would need to take responsibility for.

Keeping 2,500 troops and personnel to keep the peace is not asking too much to keep another 9/11 from happening.  This doesn’t seem to be an out of order request.  As well as all the refugees we would not need to accommodate, who are unvetted.  They would rather be in their own secure country anyway.  Without the loss of an American service man for over a year, the area has been stable due to our present and conditions we set forth.  If getting out 100% is so important, why do we have these troops deployed in South Korea (26,000), Germany (35,000), Italy (12,000) and Japan (53,000).  If getting out of Afghanistan was so important don’t our troops in the other areas of operations deserve the same.  Granted they are there to keep the piece from Russia and North Korea since 1945, but can’t they handle it now after 60+ years of occupation.   I know Germany can and South Korea as well.  Our military is so mobile now that we can strike within hours of an incident.