My War

--h/t Deryle

"Quit smiling. What are you smiling for?
This is an arrest." This is your mug shot,
not your prom photo. I was smiling from happiness;
my government will not disappear me
--Peace Demonstration
Maxine Hong Kingston

Those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it
--George Santayana

Lt. Stanley McChrystal enters an army in the late 70's
that is broken, riddled with drugs and race problems.
The soldiers aren't very good:
a collection of drunks, dirtbags,
junkies and scammers.
--The Operators, Michael Hastings (171)
___________________

Ranger has noticed a dismissive attitude toward the United States Army that fought in Vietnam, particularly at the Bad Boy lad's sites. He is not sure the reason for the snitty attitudes, but it seems like the lads doth protest too much. Their attitude ranges from supercilious to dismissive, implying that the U.S. experience in Vietnam is passe, and today's ranks are far superior in technology, doctrine, etc.

This arrogance of dismissing the recent past as Old School and no longer relevant is short-sighted and dangerous. Wars are not fought ex nihilo, and that certainly holds for today's supposed efforts at Counterinsurgency (COIN) and Counterterrorism (CT).

Today's military can focus on Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) and pretend that it is a real war, when it is actually (fill in the blank.) In fact, today's Army has slack that we did not have in the 1960's and 70's, despite the rhetoric of how the last decade's stress has been so professionally addressed.

The U.S. fought a war in the Republic of Vietnam while also being deployed to address the Warsaw Pact. My service in Vietnam was preceded by a line Infantry assignment facing this threat on the German border -- these were real threats. Today, the U.S. faces no such opponent.

As for combat ability, today's Army (USMC) has not fought any battles against hardcore enemy Battalions, Regiments or Divisions. The RVN battles against enemy units with organic artillery and severe unit discipline are legend. Enemy supply columns actually rolled down the Ho Chi Minh Trail like rush hour traffic in downtown Baghdad. The enemy had the "division slice" of support for their operations, to include timely and accurate intelligence on U.S. intentions and capabilities.

The enemy in Vietnam had the will, the capability and the intent to prepare the battlefield at higher echelons, something unheard of in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©). The threat faced in Vietnam was real and vicious ... what equivalent did we see after the fall of Baghdad or the months following the invasion of Afghanistan? The Taliban has no Regimental or above combat capabilities.

Per U.S. forces, we had one echelon above Corps, meaning we had a real Theatre Army scenario, to include a Theatre Army Commander with Corps supporting. This means not only did we have Theatre - Corps - Division assets, but we also had the on-call abilities of the RVN forces including all of the usual suspects: Artillery, Aviation, Combat Support and Combat Service Support. We operated as an Army, not as door-kicking combat Brigades sans higher assets.

So what's the reason for the dismissive attitude toward my Army as being anything less than professional? Where is the evidence that any draftee fought less professionally than did the forces in the PWOT? From whence this lack of fraternity?

The troops in the Vietnam War were largely draftees and they earned their battle streamers with the same valor as did troops in all previous U.S. wars. What battles in Afghanistan or Iraq demonstrated the level of violence experienced by the Infantry units in the Vietnam War?

Further, there is a logical fallacy built into the argument of the Old Army detractors who say the 60's and 70's Army was "amateurish". If that is so, then we must accept that the Warsaw Pact was neutralized by a bunch of quacks. The next illogical step is to believe that today's professional volunteer force is totally responsible for the defeat of al Qaeda, despite the fact that less than 200 al Qaeda operatives exist worldwide (per former Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta.)

Framing the argument qua the Andrew Exum crowd, a crowd of amateurs defended the U.S. against Warsaw Pact with thousands of tanks, artillery pieces and millions of soldiers, while we are now ably protected against a laughable threat by the New Warriors.

Taking their argument to its logical ends, one must also believe the military leadership during the 60's was also incompetent, though carrying experience from two wars before assuming leadership in Vietnam. Contrast that with the present day Professional Army which sports a dearth of combat experience at the highest levels. The depth of experience was greater in Ranger's time frame than it is today, contrary to the hype.

And this is why we need poppy eradication programs in Afghanistan (though the Bushmills tap will always flow.)

Dazed and Confused

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it
--John Stuart Mill, Letter to a Conservative MP (1866)

Liberty not only means that the individual has both the opportunity
and the burden of choice; it also means that he must bear the consequences
of his actions. . .liberty and responsibility are inseparable
--The Constitution of Liberty, Friederich Hayek,

The most potent weapon in the hands
of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed
--Steven Biko

NeoMcCarthyism, I like that
--Tony, from Dazed and Confused (1993)
________

Just perusing GWB's recent Tipp City ''Iraq Pullout Would Lead to Bloodbath'' address left me dazed and confused, and I wasn't even hit with a pugil stick.

It seems the reasons GWB gave for staying the course are the very reasons the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. These consequences should have been clearly thought out prior to involvement, not four years later.

He first mentions Cambodia and the millions who died of starvation from Khmer Rouge policies.

"I want to remind you that after Vietnam, after we left, millions of people lost their life," Bush said when an audience member asked about comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. "The Khmer Rouge, for example, in Cambodia. And my concern is there would be a parallel. . . . The difference, of course, is that this time around, the enemy wouldn't just be content to stay in the Middle East; they'd follow us here."

While some of this is true, what relevance does this have vis-a-vis Iraq? Cambodia was not a result of U.S. policies, and there was never any discussion of humanitarian aid by the U.S. during the deadly event. Everyone said there would be a bloodbath in VN when we left. There was not.. As many as 100,00 were killed by the North Vietnamese, but that is not ''millions.''

U.S. withdrawal from RVN was not the cause of Pol Pot's activities in Cambodia, so why does GWB even mention it? It is evocative, in a loose canon sort of way.

GWB says ''there would be a slaughter of a lot of innocent life.'' Ranger wonders if the slaughter of innocent life is the basis of GWB's policies. Are we justified in killing innocent life? And is somewhere in between innocent and not innocent what we call collateral damage?

And of course, GWB hammers the trite and incorrect concept that ''they'd follow us here,'' presumably after hoarding all the food from the others so they'd have the energy to make the land/ocean crossing, borrowing from part of the fallacious analogy. Most reasoned analysts agree that is an incorrect analysis.

As always, GWB's expressed concerns are based upon faulty hypotheses.

"I know that I was like the odd guy out yesterday at the White House," [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid said. "But I, at least, told him what he needed to hear, not what he wants to hear. I did that, and my conscience is clear." Good for Reid.

''Bush usually avoids mentioning Vietnam and Iraq in the same breath, reluctant to embrace the notion that his war will be this generation's equivalent of the disastrous conflict of the 1960s and 1970s.'' GWB should be reluctant to discuss Vietnam since he does not possess any moral authority to do so. As in the past, he should delegate this task to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth personnel. Partisan and biased, at least they served.

"There's a lot of differences," he said. "First, the Iraqi people voted for a modern constitution and then set up a government under that constitution. Secondly, that's as opposed to two divided countries, north and south. . . .''

Is GWB implying that South Vietnam didn't have a constitution? They did, so how is Iraq different? A phony constitution imposed by the U.S. is not a guarantee of a successful nation-state.

Citing what he saw as another difference, Bush said, "our military is an all-volunteer army and we need to keep it that way."

How does this bear upon engagement or outcome in any logical sense? The French Foreign Legion was purely an all volunteer force, and they lost their Indochina War. The Waffen SS was strictly a volunteer force, and they don't hold any victory parades down Berlin avenues. The North Vietnamese army was conscripted, and VN is still a communist state.

''[Bush] turned around the argument usually made by opponents, who compare Vietnam and Iraq, by asserting that the lesson of the past war was that a withdrawal carries deadly consequences.'' Of course leaving Iraq could have deadly consequences, but so do preemptive, hasty, elective, feel-good phony wars of terror.

When asked about Reid's comparison of him to LBJ and Bush's low poll numbers, Bush said ''when he leaves office, he will look in the mirror and know he stuck to his principles.'' Yes, but looking in the mirror doesn't help the 3,500-plus dead U.S. service members, nor the 25,000-plus wounded. The wounded can look at themselves in their rehab facility mirrors and know they paid for GWB's arrogant principles.

Strange, in the 60's and 70's GWB wasn't motivated by principle to serve on active duty in a real war.

He added, ''I believe, sir, in my soul that I have made the right decisions for this country when it comes to prosperity and peace." GWB has absolutely no right to say his failed policies have anything to do with peace. He has cultivated the persona of a wartime president. Wartime and peace are contradictory concepts.

Every time GWB opens his mouth it is an embarrassment to America. His knowledge of history is flawed and distorted, and sadly, this affects the policies of America. As a man, as President and Commander in Chief, GWB is a failure. His personal failings are are not our concern, but as a President and Commander in Chief, it is time to impeach this poseur.