Posted on 03/04/2015 10:33:25 AM PST by Crapolla
Brief Synopsis
Untruthfulness is surprisingly common in the U.S. military even though members of the profession are loath to admit it.
Further, much of the deception and dishonesty that occurs in the profession of arms is actually encouraged and sanctioned by the military institution. The end result is a profession whose members often hold and propagate a false sense of integrity that prevents the profession from addressingor even acknowledgingthe duplicity and deceit throughout the formation.
It takes remarkable courage and candor for leaders to admit the gritty shortcomings and embarrassing frailties of the military as an organization in order to better the military as a profession. Such a discussion, however, is both essential and necessary for the health of the military profession.
(Excerpt) Read more at strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil ...
For example, in Vietnam our enemy's strategic objective quickly became to weaken our political will to fight by using the media to distort our progress (Tet is a great example of this) and reduce civilian support (interviews, focus on American casualties, narrative that this was a civil war and that we were not wanted, etc.) while simply surviving at the operational/tactical level. If the generals had been allowed to counter this, by restricting media access and message, by having a pro-American international media voice to strongly counter these lies, by utilizing our political capital to pressure our allies to condemn the Communists, etc. they could have attained the same success at the strategic level that they attained at the tactical and operational level, in my humble opinion. For this reason, it bothers me when people say we won in Vietnam, because we won every tactical battle. They are wrong and in saying lose sight of the key point of the conflict; we won every battle but lost the war because we allowed our enemy to outmaneuver us at the strategic level and rejected the wisdom of our general officer corps to establish objectives that would have assured victory.
what is your point of view on the rules of engagement now? What ROE will the Rice paddy inflict on them?
Obviously, this is not our policy. Surprisingly, most experienced military officers from recent conflicts that I know disagree with my opinion, saying that showing great restraint can be effective in fostering cooperation and trust, and for a variety of complex reasons it is worth the risk. I can't easily imagine a situation in which this would change, given how the current ROE has been accepted and ingrained in the military professional culture nearly universally by field grade/general officers. It would take a new generation to change this I think, or an extremely different conflict in which our restrictive ROE put us at a distinct disadvantage against a near peer nation that could leverage the disadvantage to produce tactical successes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.