Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (72681)	2/14/2003 2:50:47 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Hi Jacob Snyder; Re your fascinating observation on strategies against guerilla warfare: "Here's how we could have won in Vietnam (this model was briefly tried, then abandoned even though it worked, because it was too strange to be accepted by the military/civilian decision-makers) ..." I think the reason this wasn't used is not because it is so strange, but instead because it leads to very high American casualties. You end up with huge numbers of easily overrun targets, and it provides the enemy with an opportunity to obtain local advantages. Even in Vietnam it was the constant objective to minimize the body bag count, even if that meant losing the war. The real problem for us in Vietnam was that it was not a place that was important enough to justify the losses that holding on to it would require. I think the military knew what was needed for victory, and so did the civilian leadership. But no one wanted to pay the butcher's bill, so instead they only tried to postpone defeat. (And therefore put the onus of the inevitable loss onto a different administration.) -- Carl

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next