Return of the Special Forces (In other words, no more sitting ducks)

Pittsburgh Tribune Review ^ | 12/21/03 | Ralph R. Reiland

[samtheman]

It was, in fact, that near-daily killing of American troops over the past several months that changed American policy

So how many soldiers had to die before we switched policy? Many of us would have said months ago: Rummy is right.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Only fools learn from experience."

[Cronos]

the Vietnamese never crashed any planes into Manhattan

Well, no Iraqi crashed any planes in Manhattan either, they were Saudis

[thesummerwind]

Nearly three years of clicking on FR 10 - 20 times a day and gnashing my teeth. I can't imagine how you went 5 years.

It was very painful. There were so many times I wanted to speak up.......daily actually!

But this site, as I said earlier, has a great number of fine thinkers and, at the same time, witty folks. I have been very appreciative, and by the way I am in favor of a yearly posting fee to help keep FR alive and well! I have read the Robinsons' story, and IMO, they deserve everyone's sincere and continuous help.

[thesummerwind]

This guy needs to choose his words more carefully.

"An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad explained the new plan of attack to Hersh: "The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We're going to have to play their game. Guerrilla vs. guerrilla. Terrorism vs. terrorism." -- "This guy" you are referring to is not the writer of this article, Ralph Reiland. "The guy" is only identified as "an American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad". But I see your point.

[thesummerwind]

Benjamin Franklin said: "Only fools learn from experience."

My, my! For once Old Ben is wrong. Wise folks too learn from experience, but, experience is certainly not (and shouldn't be, or one can die) the only teacher! But I do get your point.

We needn't have had to wait for a number of Americans to be killed, to switch policy! You are right, but old Ben was a little off with that old adage.

[samtheman]

I don't think Ben meant that experience can never be a good teacher. I think this aphorism was in some specific context, like touching a red-hot coal to "learn" if it is hot... or waiting for soldiers to get killed to "learn" that passive defense is no good.

But of course you're right, no aphorism has universal application (including this one!).

[thesummerwind]

I hear you! Gotta get outside. The oak needs split. Have a good day!

[archy]

Terrorize the terrorist?
Does that work?

Well, I believe it was more than a coincidence - that disemboweled Marines stop showing up lashed to trees in the area of Lao Bao (far NW corner of I Corps), AFTER a number of disemboweled AND beheaded VC/NVA inexplicably showed up - spiked to trees in the area.

Coincidence or not?

Semper Fi

Sometimes it worked that way for the Army too, depending on the quality of both their leadership and ours. When in the early days of the *advisor stage* of the war, one Special Forces A team was directed to instruct their counterparts in the basics of psychological warfare and emphasize that approach. So one team sergeant went hunting saved up a half dozen or so VC bodies of those NOT from the local area, and buried them standing up on one of the more densely travelled trails with just one of their arms sticking out of the ground with an advisory note reading *surrender or die.* Later, as North Vietnamese cadre were added to the local VC forces, the notes would read *Born in the north to die in the south.*

On one occasion, a local minor VC force leader who had repeatedly bribed his way out of South Vietnamese custody was picked up again by the same NCO who was really getting tired of meeting the same fella under the same conditions. And when he was told he'd better be nice because he could run into him again sometime, the NCO emptied a BAR into him from about 5 feet. The psychological effectiveness of that operation seemed to be aptly demonstrated to the ARVN strikers....

Sometimes the *other people* could be more or less reasonable; other times they'd get a fanatic or careerist in charge and the nastiness picked up. And after we started sending in company and battalion- sized line units in 1965, they probably made similar observations about some of our leadership.

-archy-/-

[archy]

My, my! For once Old Ben is wrong.

Like Mark Twain said, all generalities are untrue.

-archy-/-

[Polybius]

At the same time it's better, more accurate to call them terrorists than "the Iraqi resistance" or "insurgents".

That's all very well and good but I believe that you are still missing my point.

It is not about what this individual is saying about them. It is about what this individual is saying about us.

My objection was to the spokesman's statement, "We're going to have to play their game. Guerrilla vs. guerrilla. Terrorism vs. terrorism".

This fool is equating any form of unconventional warfare with "terrorism" and then claims that the U.S. need to engage in "terrorism" when what he really means to say is that the U.S. needs to engage in unconventional warfare.

If unconventional warfare is incorrecvtly declared to be synonymous with "terrorism" that means that U.S. forces must either take this necessary strategy out of it's war planning or engage in "terrorism" which is a war crime.

[dennisw]

OK and thanks... I get your point.

[hotpotato]

You are being disingenuous. I was quite clear that my position was one of skepticism about what was being reported because the individual being quoted (Seymour Hersh) has a less than credible reputation for reporting the facts and the article's writer is not a seasoned expert on the topic. You *know* that.

If you wish to discuss facts, I'll be glad to continue a dalogue on the facts. However, your ad hominem attacks are not persuasive and I won't waste time responding to them.