US Army forcing the oldest, enlisted serviceman to retire while deployed

[evident]

This post is pretty fucked up.

LL managed to:
say the SSG sucked the tit of the American taxpayer
question the SSG accomplishments
imply he was gung-ho and therefore stupid
questioned his value to the military
wonder why he was never promoted to officer (lol at that)
suggest those above him were idiots
berated him for being a good runner
implied he was an unthinking mule
wonder if the SSG was a liability or an asset (again)

Wow, LL does it again, unbound ignorance and warped speculation on display. Garbage. I am actually embarrassed and ashamed for people like you, I thought we moved pass the whole vietnam-soldier-hate thing.

i tend to agree with some of LL's posts, but this one completely misses the mark and wrong on this one.

 

[Zebo]

While I respect the guy, I'm 58 and been in decent shape my entire life, and I can tell you from personal experience that a late 50's body doesn't function anywhere near the peak level of a 19 yo. The Army's policy of getting such people off the front line makes a whole lot of sense to me.

It doesn't at 39 either trust me I'm a runner and way slower than in HS, , unless you're a genetic freak like Randy Couture or something. That's what this guy is. 6 min miles is fit for any age and he should be allowed to stay. Blanket policies are BS like zero tolerance.

BTW My BIL was a Ranger. He told me about this 44 year old hard assed hillbilly that cycled through with him. Whooped all those 19 yr olds to shreds. Policy should allow for exceptional individuals regardless of age, as they are out there..

 

[BoomerD]

An old friend deployed overseas in 2009. His helicopter was the last one off the US embassy in Saigon in 1975.
Here's his "farewell" at the aquarium site where we both hung out at the time:

Its been a very long past year and I've just barely had enough time to shower and change me shorts but the time has come. I will be leaving for the big sandbox in a few short weeks. Since my last move and the total destruction of my tank because of a power failure I haven't been on this board for a very long time. Put in the fact that the New Jersey Guard has been getting ready to deploy and my last promotion to a platoon Sergant has left me little time for anything. So here I sit at Ft. OK in the final days of preparation to leave this fine country for an overseas tour. This will undoubtlly be my final gig in a long line of gigs that started 35 years ago.
I attatched a photo. Its me with a couple of my guys doing convoy I'm to the far right Oh and the guys have a call sign for me when they call on the radio COF 1...Crusty old fart 1..

Then a few months later, he posted this:

Hey Guys from good ole Al-Kut Iraq. Been here about a month and its incrediably.....hot, flat, dusty, barren and hot....oh and one more thing , did I mention it was HOT!!! Been through a few sandstorms already small ones but still the sand here is the same as baby powder so any big wind here blows the stuff into every orafice that man has .

I've dealt with alot of things over my career and I'm going to tell you, after 35 years you would think the Army would learn something, they haven't. I think I've been working for the National Guard too long, being deployed, and falling under the Army's rules is an eye opener. I haven't seen ths much incompetence since 1976. Never seen so much political BS and dumb ass rules in my life, how they do things is a shame and unbelievable costly. We don't run anything, its a contractor war and incredibly wastefull.

Ok off the soapbox, Have I mentioned it was hot.. . Things are well, finally getting into a routine I'm lucky enough to have a 2 man chu(combat Housing Unit) I'll still call it a hooch. I think I have been getting used to the weather I am feeling a little cool when it gets to the mid 90"s at night .

I'm Going to try to look at some of the posts here so thats all fer now.

He returned home in 2010 and AFAIK, he retired at age 54 or 55...but still works on USANG helicopters as a civilian.

 

[cybrsage]

It doesn't at 39 either trust me I'm a runner and way slower than in HS, , unless you're a genetic freak like Randy Couture or something. That's what this guy is. 6 min miles is fit for any age and he should be allowed to stay. Blanket policies are BS like zero tolerance.

BTW My BIL was a Ranger. He told me about this 44 year old hard assed hillbilly that cycled through with him. Whooped all those 19 yr olds to shreds. Policy should allow for exceptional individuals regardless of age, as they are out there..

Well, the military is definately a rule following machine.

 

[Lemon law]

Color me baffled, why do we measure our armies effectiveness with a Rambo style ideal?
And think if we had a army made of nothing but Arenie Swarternaggers clones, it would be so much more more effective. Or if on the flip side, American armies would retreat in fear if all Taliban fighters were all were the size of Conan the barbarian? And taller and physically stronger than US and Nato troops.

Its simply a military illusion that has been obsolete for 4 or five thousand years. Why do we glorify it now? When effective militarizes derive their war winning powers with superior tactics and organization. As Roman armies were able to cut through all disorgizated opposition with short swords and a wall of shields. Later in the world of guns, even the smallest soldier was always able to fell the larger enemy soldier by being a better shot. Now in a more modern world of with tanks planes, and ever larger guns, war is now all mechanized, as brawn is now totally irrelevant.

But still, point granted, the US military is the best in the world thanks to excellent equipment, superior logistics, and excellent organization. As American armies won the Iraq war in 2003 in one week flat, and even a US skeleton force without major equipment were able to rout the Taliban in a few months by early 2002.

The question we in the USA fail to ask, why does our military always fail to win the peace? And the answer has to be a lack of brains and leadership.

 

[BoomerD]

Color me baffled, why do we measure our armies effectiveness with a Rambo style ideal?
And think if we had a army made of nothing but Arenie Swarternaggers clones, it would be so much more more effective. Or if on the flip side, American armies would retreat in fear if all Taliban fighters were all were the size of Conan the barbarian? And taller and physically stronger than US and Nato troops.

Its simply a military illusion that has been obsolete for 4 or five thousand years. Why do we glorify it now? When effective militarizes derive their war winning powers with superior tactics and organization. As Roman armies were able to cut through all disorgizated opposition with short swords and a wall of shields. Later in the world of guns, even the smallest soldier was always able to fell the larger enemy soldier by being a better shot. Now in a more modern world of with tanks planes, and ever larger guns, war is now all mechanized, as brawn is now totally irrelevant.

But still, point granted, the US military is the best in the world thanks to excellent equipment, superior logistics, and excellent organization. As American armies won the Iraq war in 2003 in one week flat, and even a US skeleton force without major equipment were able to rout the Taliban in a few months by early 2002.

The question we in the USA fail to ask, why does our military always fail to win the peace? And the answer has to be a lack of brains and leadership.

It's because our leaders (elected officials) can't stop playing politics long enough to run the fucking country and every one of them bends and sways according to the public opinion of the week.

We COULD have won the Vietnam war under LBJ...but oh no...the fucking hippies were afraid of being drafted, the peaceniks didn't want us to bomb North Vietnam, especially Hanoi, into the stone age, and the politicians waffled...flip-flop...

We SHOULD have won the war in Afghanistan within a few months...since our MAIN goal was to capture/kill Osama Bin Forgotten...and to toss the Taliban out of power...but oh no...George W. Bush got power crazy..."I AM a War President!", and used the political impetus to force his way into a war in Iraq...something his daddy was smart enough not to do.

WE SHOULD have won the war in Iraq within a few weeks...the Iraqi army laid down weapons and disappeared into the desert...BUT, our leaders were so sold on the idea that our troops would be welcomed in the streets with flowers, that they neglected to protect armories, banks, museums, and other sources of money and weapons...Which the Iraqi Army insurgents used against our troops and the heavy weapons were turned into IED's.
It's almost like our politicians (and those who funnel money into their pockets, don't want the wars to come to an end...

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Siddhartha]

http://www.usacapoc.army.mil/news/59PSY/59PSY.html

Cliffs:
59 year old SSG fought back the crowds as a marine in the Embassy in Saigon, jumped on the second to last helicopter out, went to college, medical school, then joined the US Army Reserve as a psy ops soldier, deployed to the Korengal and Pech Valleys in 2005, then to Northern Iraq, and now back to Kunar Province, Afghanistan. Also, he runs a 12 minute two-mile and he's trying to keep the Army from forcing him to retire by earning a commission in the Medical Corps.

Incredible life he's lead.

While reading this, I was think "There are reasons militaries prefer young men. They are easier to get and stay in good physical condition and to convince they should do whatever they are told to do. Even if it means killing themselves and a lot of innocent people". Maybe I am being ageist here. Maybe they can convince middle aged men to kill themselves and a lot of innocent people too.

 

[Zebo]

It's because our leaders (elected officials) can't stop playing politics long enough to run the fucking country and every one of them bends and sways according to the public opinion of the week.

We COULD have won the Vietnam war under LBJ...but oh no...the fucking hippies were afraid of being drafted, the peaceniks didn't want us to bomb North Vietnam, especially Hanoi, into the stone age, and the politicians waffled...flip-flop...

We SHOULD have won the war in Afghanistan within a few months...since our MAIN goal was to capture/kill Osama Bin Forgotten...and to toss the Taliban out of power...but oh no...George W. Bush got power crazy..."I AM a War President!", and used the political impetus to force his way into a war in Iraq...something his daddy was smart enough not to do.

WE SHOULD have won the war in Iraq within a few weeks...the Iraqi army laid down weapons and disappeared into the desert...BUT, our leaders were so sold on the idea that our troops would be welcomed in the streets with flowers, that they neglected to protect armories, banks, museums, and other sources of money and weapons...Which the Iraqi Army insurgents used against our troops and the heavy weapons were turned into IED's.
It's almost like our politicians (and those who funnel money into their pockets, don't want the wars to come to an end...





Dwight D. Eisenhower

Wow. Great post. Only thing to add would be calling off the dogs in Tora Bora when we had him surrounded. Again, I wonder why...

 

[Zebo]

While reading this, I was think "There are reasons militaries prefer young men. They are easier to get and stay in good physical condition and to convince they should do whatever they are told to do. Even if it means killing themselves and a lot of innocent people". Maybe I am being ageist here. Maybe they can convince middle aged men to kill themselves and a lot of innocent people too.

It's hard to convince middle aged because we have families, roots, not full of piss and vinegar so much, would be taking a pay cut, and understand what boomer posted.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Wow. Great post. Only thing to add would be calling off the dogs in Tora Bora when we had him surrounded. Again, I wonder why...

A possibility is that Kabul knew if there was no target left, less incentive to help control/stabilize the country. Biased advise with respect to ability/cost of closing the trap, and concerns about Pakistan/ISI involvement. Like China/NK or Vietnam/Soviets. Drawing in a stronger supporter could be problematic.

 

[Lemon law]

To a great extent, I agree with BoomerD, and our militarizes inability to win the peace is mostly due to our politicians. A factor that is not to be minimized. But a large share of the blame must be assigned to our generals, who understand how to win wars quite well, but prove to be mentally retarded after they win the war, and it turns into a military occupation. Why blame only our politicians when it should to be a necessary part of the skill set of any military officer worthy of promotion to understand and act proactively when a military campaign achieves military victory and it turns into a military occupation. Because American history proves, such wisdom almost never is part of the skill set of an American politician, and to some extent logical, because unlike military leadership that often comes from college type military training in West Point or Annapolis, there is no qualifying exams or training to qualify to be an American politician.
And when American political values prove to be a poor fit with Vietnamese, Iraqi, or Afghan social values and customs, absolute military occupation failure is totally guaranteed.

Then American politicians and our military leaders seem totally clueless about what groups of people they must win over. As they invariably pick countries with corrupt and dysfunctional governments, and somehow think, that if they can either make the existing government into US puppets or replace their leadership with a US one, that such a top down strategy would ever work. Amazing stupidity, especially from the USA founded on the principle the the government depends on the consent of the governed. And then we compound the error by paying absolutely no attention to the powerless 99% of the people we must win over if we expect to have even a hope of winning the peace.

Rest assured, a mistake the US opposition never makes in a more modern era of Guerrilla war opposition, as they always use a more effective bottom up strategy. As they concentrate on winning the 99% of the population, while letting the powerful few, complete the job of totally alienating their own people. As I disagree with BoomerD here, the USA never had a tiny chance of winning in Vietnam without a radical change of strategy. A lesson we still have not learned 40 years later in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then there is the Zebo question of, "Only thing to add would be calling off the dogs in Tora Bora when we had him surrounded. Again, I wonder why..." A question that is very easy to answer if only Zebo had any understanding. As early on, in the 2001-2002 US invasion of Afghanistan, the USA allied with the losing side in the Afghanistan civil war, namely the ultra corrupt Northern Alliance. Who briefly set a up a government so corrupt and rotten, that the Afghan people held their noses and sided with the Taliban as a lesser of two evils. And as a result, a newly rearmed Northern alliance on the ground, plus US air power, were able to rout the Taliban and the few Al-Quida operatives out of Afghanistan all the way to a dead end at Tora Bora. And then GWB the politician decided why let American boys die in rooting the Taliban out of their caves, when he could let the Northern Alliance die for us. And instead GWB discovered the Northern Alliance had no grievances against Al-Quida, and now that their enemy the Taliban were driven out, they raced back to Afghanistan to reset up their corrupt rackets at their same ole stands. Then GWB the fool, decided democracy is the panacea, and now Afghan government is nothing but corruption and anarchy that gags almost 100% of the Afghan people. And now Zebo also wonders why the Taliban is back and why we will never win in Afghanistan either without a radical change in strategy.

Iraq may look slightly brighter, but when the basic man on the Iraqi street concludes life was better under Saddam Husssein was better than the present, plus the fact that Iraq is torn with ethnic divisions, we have to all wonder how long Iraqi stability will last? Especially as US cred in the mid-east descends into the sewer.

 

[cwjerome]

Color me baffled, why do we measure our armies effectiveness with a Rambo style ideal?
And think if we had a army made of nothing but Arenie Swarternaggers clones, it would be so much more more effective. Or if on the flip side, American armies would retreat in fear if all Taliban fighters were all were the size of Conan the barbarian? And taller and physically stronger than US and Nato troops.

Its simply a military illusion that has been obsolete for 4 or five thousand years. Why do we glorify it now? When effective militarizes derive their war winning powers with superior tactics and organization. As Roman armies were able to cut through all disorgizated opposition with short swords and a wall of shields. Later in the world of guns, even the smallest soldier was always able to fell the larger enemy soldier by being a better shot. Now in a more modern world of with tanks planes, and ever larger guns, war is now all mechanized, as brawn is now totally irrelevant.

OMG just stop, you've already proven a hundredfold that you know as much about the military as a wet sock, please stfu, where do you get this stuff? If you think strength and stamina aren't important in today's operational environment tell that to the guy carrying 60lbs of gear on top of his IBA, or the guy patrolling 10,000ft up in the mountains of Afghanistan, or the guys digging battle positions through the night, or the guy buddy carrying his wounded friend, or the pilots who stress their bodies, or isolated personnel evading, or any other dozen situations I can think of off the top of my head in 5 seconds. Christ. If you knew of a half second what kind of physical situations many military servicemen have to endure with minimal sleep, food, and a lot of stress you'd literally shat your pants and whimper for mommy.

This is why you make no sense and so many of your incessant whiny conclusions on international affairs are bogus, because your premises and perspective are so insanely detached from reality. Pick up a new hobby, big-boy politics is not for you.

 

[piasabird]

If you are a 59 year old SSG, you have been passed over for a lot of promotions. I thought I would point that out. Some military specialties have too many soldiers in them and there is not much of a chance for promotion. It is easier to get promoted if you go to airborne ranger school. It is tough being a SSG when you should be a SFC working on becoming a master sergeant.

 

[Zebo]

The guy was a civilian doctor his whole career except young and of late. He had no promotions coming.

 

[Nebor]

The guy was a civilian doctor his whole career except young and of late. He had no promotions coming.

Well, who knows what he'd be if he'd joined (even in the reserve) when he finished medical school back in the 70s. Even now if he picks up a commission from AMEDD he'll probably be at least a major.

 

[Lemon law]

OMG just stop, you've already proven a hundredfold that you know as much about the military as a wet sock, please stfu, where do you get this stuff? If you think strength and stamina aren't important in today's operational environment tell that to the guy carrying 60lbs of gear on top of his IBA, or the guy patrolling 10,000ft up in the mountains of Afghanistan, or the guys digging battle positions through the night, or the guy buddy carrying his wounded friend, or the pilots who stress their bodies, or isolated personnel evading, or any other dozen situations I can think of off the top of my head in 5 seconds. Christ. If you knew of a half second what kind of physical situations many military servicemen have to endure with minimal sleep, food, and a lot of stress you'd literally shat your pants and whimper for mommy.

This is why you make no sense and so many of your incessant whiny conclusions on international affairs are bogus, because your premises and perspective are so insanely detached from reality. Pick up a new hobby, big-boy politics is not for you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well CWjerome, if I know nothing, why is not the USA winning instead of losing.

You can stick your head in the sand and pretend you are an Ostrich, sing la la la to your hearts content, but if you 100% fail to predict the results in the field, maybe you better rethink the fact you are nothing but a negative barometer.

You may not agree with my points, but until you can come up with an explanation that accounts for why our superior military still fails to win the peace in Afghanistan, after 10 years and counting, you prove you know absolutely nothing. You might think about that fact before your next post.

Because if you can't account for past results, you are simply full of shit and nothing but.

But if you think for a mad moment that I am disparaging the valor of our servicemen you are badly mistaken, but when we misuse their valor and sacrifice against the very people we need to win over, we waste them needlessly for lack of US wisdom and leadership.

We can go back to our last successful military occupations in Japan and Germany, and note we had far wiser military and civilian leaders, who knew and applied the ways to win the peace after they won the war.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, who knows what he'd be if he'd joined (even in the reserve) when he finished medical school back in the 70s. Even now if he picks up a commission from AMEDD he'll probably be at least a major.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a continuation of my last post, our SGT Nichols is a study in contrasts. As he joined the US army as a High school dropout maybe in a fit of patriotism, and received training as a rifleman. An almost worthless skill in the jungles of South Vietnam, where combat visibility was reduced to 10 yards or less. And later, as SGT Nichols achieved the distinction of being on the second to the last helicopter out of Vietnam, by his own statement, he still asserted, if we just had more riflemen we would have won. Because that is all he was trained in at the time.

Its was only later when SGT Nichols did his civilian catch up, went to med school and acquired a MD degree, all on his own civilian merits. That alone, in my mind is quite impressive. But when he rejoined the American military, we have to somewhat ask, why did he reup as a army grunt, and what did he learn from our failures in Vietnam. Sure his continued physical fitness is impressive, but is that the unthinking role model our new recruits need. As he becomes a elder poster boy for the concept that enough American unthinking patriotism will make up for a failed strategy in the field.

But trust Nebor to look at only army pay, as people like Nebor look at only army compensation, rather than any innovative ways to deliver real victory in the field. As they alienate the very people they are there to help and instead only looks at ways to advance their army pay.

After all, what good is an American podiatrists to American soldiers who have both their legs blown off? As people like Sgt Nichols refight the Vietnam war in other places in the vain hope that somehow the result will be different.

 

[BoomerD]

Lemon, if the politicians would let the generals fight the war to WIN, we'd have crushed North Vietnam. Yes, if it had gotten that bad, China would have sent troops in to shore up the NVA, much like they did in Korea, but Korea was another war where the troops fought with one or both hands tied behind their back. Hell, we were fighting and killing both Chinese and Russians in Vietnam, just not frequently or in large numbers. "Advisors" they were called...sort of like our first "boots on the ground" "advisors" in Vietnam in the late 50's and early 60's. We won all the battles, but we lost the war because our politicians wouldn't let the military win. We could have won without the use of nuclear weapons, but the military needed to be allowed to fight...not just send our bombers after "suspected truck parks," not send out soldiers out to patrol...but not engage the enemy unless engaged first...and the DMZ? Just another piece of real estate that we should have marched or troops across and gone all the way to Hanoi and Haiphong.

 

[EagleKeeper]

LL does not comprehend the difference between a military win, vs occupation vs standing up a country.

Our military is designed to win as quickly as possible using what tools will save our troops from as much barm as possible. They then may occupy, but that requires a different skill set and advance planning. Same gift standing up a defeated government. The first one is where the politicians need to set a goal for thd military and turn the professions loose. While that is being done, the like can plan how to do the next two items if desired. It is not the job of untrained people to step in there.

Military fights/wins the battles if allowed.
Then the civilians take over, not during the conflict. Two masters create one mess.

MacArthur was good in WW2. Politics stopped him in Korea. We lost a lot of men in Korea because politicians were not worried about winning but politic posturing. Same as in Vietnam. Forces could not go after the people killing our people in the most effective way because we might lose of thrid sponsors.

 

[cwjerome]

Well CWjerome, if I know nothing, why is not the USA winning instead of losing.

What the hell does one have to do with the other? You can think whatever you want and it has no bearing on the success or failure of the military. Just because the US may not be "winning" properly doesn't mean you are correct in your thinking on why that is you silly disturbed little man.

Because if you can't account for past results, you are simply full of shit and nothing but.

I have my own ideas thank you, much better ones than from a defective unit who claims physical strength and stamina aren't necessary in the military, among other obviously horrid misconceptions. Much better ideas than from an anti-war liberal with a virulent hatred for the military that's expressed in nearly every post. You can't even get the most basic common sense facts straight about the military let alone build rational arguments about macro-military affairs in international spheres. You stumble over the same exact words in every post like you've got some inner secret truth but it's old, stale ignorance derived from the wretched perspective of a rambling fool with no real world experience. You couldn't begin to approach impartial or objective reasoning on military matters if the world depended on it, so why would anyone but idiots believe you?

 

[piasabird]

The biggest problem with the military today is we have two militaries. The Stateside civilian military, and real war military. In the real war, it is all about killing your enemy and staying alive. In the Civilian military it is about dressing pretty, polishing shoes, going to school and kissing the ass of commander to get enough points to be promoted. You see if you have the infrantrymans badge or complet Airborne or Ranger training you get more points and are promoted faster. One might say these 2 sides of the military are incompatible.

Only if you have served in the military can you possibly understand this. If you have never been in the military for any length of time, you are incapable of even discussing this topic. It is the fat asses in Congress that write all the rules for the military. Maybe we should have an age limit for Congress.

 

[yllus]

It doesn't at 39 either trust me I'm a runner and way slower than in HS, , unless you're a genetic freak like Randy Couture or something. That's what this guy is. 6 min miles is fit for any age and he should be allowed to stay. Blanket policies are BS like zero tolerance.

BTW My BIL was a Ranger. He told me about this 44 year old hard assed hillbilly that cycled through with him. Whooped all those 19 yr olds to shreds. Policy should allow for exceptional individuals regardless of age, as they are out there..

I work with an ex-Canadian Forces dude who's French-Canadian white trash - he was also the type who ran new 19 year olds recruits into the ground until the day he quit. Small guy, but carried the light machine gun for the squad because his energy was inexhaustible. Also played lacrosse at a competitive level and now has two sons who are absolute monsters in the sports leagues they're in.

Sometimes people just win the genetic lottery. Sidney Crosby is one of those guys - an unattractive man to look at even without whatever injuries he's had, but with world class reflexes and speed.

 

[Lemon law]

As far as I am concerned, the only new point was brought up by BoomerD regarding Vietnam. As BoomerD noted, Vietnam was played by an artificial set of rules. Even if that set of artificial rules really dated back to the Korean war of the early 1950's.

But to explain what BoomerD was saying, Russia and China agreed, the USA and its allies could bomb North Vietnam from the air, but as soon as USA tried to take an army that put boots on the grounds on North Korean soil, Red China and its massive ground army would intervene on the side of North Vietnam to stop the US ground army. Exactly what had already happened in the Korean war two decades before. And as we all know, that ended in a bloody stalemate.

Of course there was US talk about using its nukes, and when MacArthur advocated it during Korea, Truman fired his ass for even thinking it. Because it would lead to a WW3 nuclear war, even though the USA had the far superior nuclear arsenal and the planes to deliver them that the Chinese and Russians lacked during the Korean war. By the time Vietnam rolled around, WW3 was unthinkable, because all sides had achieved the massive nuclear overkill of mutual assured destruction. With the ICBM's to deliver them.

But still, a war like Vietnam was rather advantageous for all major powers. As a place to test the latest military technologies with minimum casualties to the major powers. Of course for the hapless Vietnamese, be they North or South, it really sucked, as they lost over 2 million people. Which translates to about 7% of Vietnamese population. As the principles of a proxy war became firmly established. And later the USA used the same principles when the Russians tried to take over Afghanistan, as Russia experienced its own Vietnam type lesson.

But still, in my opinion, the BoomerD lesson fails to apply to our two big subsequent military occupation failures. Because in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was no big major power intervention, or setting up of artificial rules. As the US military could go anywhere it pleased in the Iraq and Afghan theaters of war. Nor are the insurgents being armed in a big way by foreign major power. Nor are they test beds for competing major power military technologies. But still the USA is losing in both places. But certainly worse in Afghanistan. Without the foreign intervention of the BoomerD Vietnamese lesson. As the major force we were fighting in all three places was really nationalism.

Or we can look at war as being as old as man kind. As groups of humans and even animals, inevitably fight for territory. But still, war used to be fought by a basic simple set of rules. (1) Offensive wars are especially expensive, one has to arm and feed a large group of men for a long time (2) Have army must travel, with the object being, to fight their way to the enemy capital, and with that mission accomplished, the war is supposed to be over. And then, the real motivation for soldiers joining in wars, they get to loot whatever portable wealth they can find. As the victorious country tries to set up a friendly government. Which usually proves temporary due to nationalism. (3) The defending country usually has the advantages, a shorter supply line, having a large number of natural obstacles like rivers and mountains is an advantage, having a large number of intervening hard to take cities is an advantage, and woe be to a country without friends and allies who will join in mutual defense. And adding Navies just added a sea power dimension to the overall military questions.

But as usual, as technology marched on, the ability to wage war became more deadly and dangerous. As firearms and Canons could level formerly impregnable fortifications,
and as trains, motorized tanks, and personnel carriers were added, armies could move with blitzkrieg speeds. Add in planes and bombs, brings up to the technology used in WW2. The last major conventional war mankind can ever fight without wiping ourselves out as a species. Or we could go back from WW2 and visit the its predecessor, WW1, the so called war to end all wars. As all the shortsighted victors of WW1 did was to plant the inevitable seeds of a future WW2. And what a horrendous convention WW2 was, as the slog to Japan and Berlin, took year after bloody year. As for the first time in human history, winning a war required decimating the civilian population and the economies of competing nations.

But still, as a young boy, born after WW2, why should I complain about war, as the USA emerged with no real domestic infrastructure damage and the strongest economy in the world. In contrast, the Russian really suffered, but still emerged as a WW2 winner, due to the massive land gains they made in central Europe. The big losers were the Western European powers that dominated the world prior to WW1. As they lost all their overseas holding that were the foundations of their national wealth.

As we live in a post colonial world. And now I watch my country, the USA, do the same damn thing the Western Europeans did. As we fight endless stupid wars, and piss our formerly dominant position away. As we fight against the inevitable forces of change, when smarter nations take advantage of changes instead.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Politicians lose wars by interfering with operations or not having a proper target for the military.

The military does the job asked of it with the tools provided.

It is not their fault that they are handicapped by lack of political will or confused political direction.

Both issues have existed over the past 60 years. Only when a cledr military objective exists does our military get in, do the Jon and leave with minimum loss of live.
Politicians, arm chair warriors and egotists that think they know how a conflict should be wage from a political viewpoint only serve to screw it up.

This SSgt has seen all the foulups and felt that he could make a difference

 

[yllus]

Lemon, if the politicians would let the generals fight the war to WIN, we'd have crushed North Vietnam. Yes, if it had gotten that bad, China would have sent troops in to shore up the NVA, much like they did in Korea, but Korea was another war where the troops fought with one or both hands tied behind their back. Hell, we were fighting and killing both Chinese and Russians in Vietnam, just not frequently or in large numbers. "Advisors" they were called...sort of like our first "boots on the ground" "advisors" in Vietnam in the late 50's and early 60's. We won all the battles, but we lost the war because our politicians wouldn't let the military win. We could have won without the use of nuclear weapons, but the military needed to be allowed to fight...not just send our bombers after "suspected truck parks," not send out soldiers out to patrol...but not engage the enemy unless engaged first...and the DMZ? Just another piece of real estate that we should have marched or troops across and gone all the way to Hanoi and Haiphong.

Not too long ago I watched the movie Thirteen Days and afterwards did some reading up on the conflict - the eagerness of a large number of top commanders in the U.S. military (eg. Curis LeMay) to spark a shooting war is frightening. The potential for Vietnam to spill over to a greater war can't be minimized, and it is for this reason primarily that the politicians that we disparage hobbled the American military machine.