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?