Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
By Eric R. Taylor

It's beginning to look a lot like Vietnam.

Ever since our victory over Saddam Hussein last year, we have been plagued by terrorist attacks on our
troops that have now killed more soldiers than the actual three-week military campaign that toppled the
regime.

While attacks against U.S. and coalition troops have generally plateaued, attacks against Iraqi civilians
(softer targets) are on the increase. Recent ruthless attacks such as the car-bombing of the Mount
Lebanon hotel in Baghdad have led some observers to compare the situation with the Vietnam War. These
attacks cast an ominous shadow over the U.S. plan to turn sovereignty over to the Iraqis on June 30.

We should expect the terrorism to deepen in ferocity and frequency in the months ahead. It is the only
hope the jihadists have of defeating us. And there is a precedent: In Vietnam, the enemy wore us down,
politically, physically, materially, economically and psychologically.

Our conduct of the Vietnam War contains some valuable "lessons not learned" that are pertinent to the
situation in Iraq today.

In Vietnam, we attempted to fight a classical, set-piece war of attrition reminiscent of World War II and
then-current NATO war plans. But the North Vietnamese Army (PAVN) and the Viet Cong (VC) didn't fight
such a conventional war. They avoided massed clashes as much as possible.

Instead, they capitalized on hit-and-run, melt-away tactics. We were fixed. They weren't. We operated from
firebases and other fixed installations (defense), while they operated mobile and loose (offense). We
attempted to defend everything and couldn't defend anything. At a day's end, we retired to a firebase or a
tactical bivouac within range of friendly artillery. Any ground we took during the day was repurchased in
blood the next.

The enemy's line of communications was an ill-defined jungle logistical route called the Ho Chi Minh trail that
snaked from North Vietnam down along Laos and Cambodia with feeder tentacles all along and across the
border into South Vietnam. They operated from sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia that - except for "sneak
and peek" observation missions by the Special Operations Groups (SOG) - were "hands off" to conventional
strikes because of political decisions in Washington. The reluctance to hit enemy lines of communications
until very late in the war was a major strategic blunder, significantly contributing to our losses, both in
terms of casualties and the war itself.

A similar situation seems to have emerged in Iraq today. Iraq is surrounded by (clockwise from the north)
Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria with a total border of 2,266 miles. Despite diplomatic
formalities, Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia - with nearly 2,000 of those miles of borders - should be
considered unfriendly to the United States in terms of our Iraqi occupation. And it appears that they have
no incentive to quell the operation of terrorists targeting Iraq who are operating within their borders.

To avoid a repeat of Vietnam, we must mercilessly strike those strongholds using
our Special Operations Forces. If we refrain out of concerns of world opinion or
international law, we face allowing the "Vietnamization" of Iraq and a continuing bloodbath.

Already there are disturbing parallels between the occupation and the quagmire we endured a
quarter-century ago: Our current position in Iraq is that of circled wagons. We are fixed, and the terrorists
are mobile. We are concentrated and the terrorists are diffused within the larger civilian population.

Our troops are saddled with the impossible task of providing urban security for nearly all areas to make the
political case we are bringing change and security to Iraq. By the time our troops smell something's afoul,
it's too late.

The terrorists operate with the aid of an inviolate supply line from currently untouchable sanctuaries. Yet,
to massively thrust into neighboring countries to strike terrorist enclaves does risk widening this conflict.
But if we don't neutralize those targets, it will probably widen anyway.

If we turn a blind eye to the sources nurturing these butchers, Iraq will be fed a steady diet of terrorism.
We can't win a war patterned after McNamara's doctrine of "proportional response."

An adage much older than the Vietnam War is still pertinent: The best defense is a good offense. Our
lightning-fast drive to Baghdad a year ago confirms the U.S. military's expertise in offense.

A year after victory, our troops in Iraq are stretched too thin. They are exhausted from the constant and
frustrating vigilance for a threat they can't see coming. We can only end the terrorist attacks by going back
on the offensive against the terrorist enclaves in countries neighboring Iraq.

Ask the PAVN's Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap if defending expanses of land or cities is a nation-building strategy.

Guest Contributor Eric R. Taylor, served in the U.S. Army Chemical Corps before earning his PhD as a biochemist. He is the author of "Lethal Mists: An Introduction to the Natural and
Military Sciences of Chemical, Biological Warfare and Terrorism", and several papers on Weapons of Mass Destruction issues published with the Cato Institute in Washington, DC. He can
be reached at ertaylor@louisiana.edu. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com. ©2004 DefenseWatch. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and
do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
4 posted on 04/07/2004 5:32:59 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: joesnuffy; rageaholic; keysguy
The press is replaying their pro-enemy, anti-American, anti-military, Vietnam playbook....have been since they started their quagmire-peddling pre-March 19, 2003 with the ANSWER rallies, funded by Saddam-apologists, anti-American lies, portrayed by the international press as legitimate and representing the will of the majority - just as our press misrepresents the will of the majority on the ground in Iraq today.

Our free - thanks to our troops past and present - press is called enemy #1 by our troops for good reason.

The press is running the 2004 DNC election campaign.

Our troops are kicking enemy butt.

If you still believe this enemy is more powerful than our mighty, honorable, military - you need to start listening to the troops, our allies - including the millions of victims of Saddam Hussein...who are, unfortunately, also influenced by the 24/7 negative spin from our mighty, unaccountable, press....a press willfully working to undermine morale at home and abroad for partisan power's sake - emboldening our enemies, endangering our troops, as they did during the Vietnam war.

13 posted on 04/07/2004 6:00:56 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl ("Today we did what we had to do.They counted on America to be passive.They counted wrong."- R Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: joesnuffy
Mr. Taylor,

I worked a great deal with SOG teams in Laos and Cambodia (SOG actually meant "studies and observation groups" -They were doing a lot more than studying and observing. Pretty much an unsung group of guys whose activities are rarely mentioned.
19 posted on 04/07/2004 6:15:09 AM PDT by sargunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: joesnuffy
...To avoid a repeat of Vietnam, we must mercilessly strike those strongholds using our Special Operations Forces. If we refrain out of concerns of world opinion or international law, we face allowing the "Vietnamization" of Iraq and a continuing bloodbath....

In a nutshell two different scenarios but with only ONE sane solution.

We have no choice but to utilize a brutal, merciless, overwhelming force.

25 posted on 04/07/2004 6:24:40 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: joesnuffy
And there is a precedent: In Vietnam, the enemy wore us down, politically, physically, materially, economically and psychologically.

In Vietnam there was a Ho Chi Minh Trail from a secure (from ground attack) North Vietnam, which had borders with China (secure from any sort of attack). The fighters (mostly North Vietnamese Army) in South Vietnam had a supply line of Chinese and Russian arms. They enjoyed secure refuges in Cambodia and Laos. Johnson and to a lesser extent Nixon forced our commanders to fight the war with one hand tied behind the back.

In Iraq, there are some stockpiles of weapons and ammo from the Saddam days. There is no supply line. There are no secure refuges. The level of intensity we see now is unsustainable. And this time we aren't looking to negotiate with the terrorists.

28 posted on 04/07/2004 6:30:17 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: joesnuffy
"They avoided massed clashes"

Just horsefeathers. They conducted mass attacks in up to regimental strength against remote firebases, all the bleeding time. The standard unit of maneuver was the battalion, several hundred men. Most of the troops were NVA regulars, drafted and trained in the north as conventional infantry, and sent south. They also lost these clashes.

They did not defeat the US by wearing us down. We left after building up the ARVN to the point where they could defend the country, after breaking the back of the domestic insurgency (from 1970 on, the VC were a minor force and most was just NVA). When the north tried to take the south conventionally, it was by cross border invasion. And in 1972, with US air power still helping them but US ground troops already withdrawn, that also failed.

The ARVN was not defeated until 1975, years after we left, and that wasn't a rerun of 1972 solely because we had pulled air support for the south. Ford was willing to use US air to help them again, but congress said no. Then a dozen full divisions using nearly 1000 Soviet tanks overran the south in a few weeks, in a campaign just like that of the Germans in Poland in WW II. Guerillas had nothing to do with it at that point.

And the American people never abandoned the war. A majority supported it throughout. The war split the left, with about a third of the country against continued involvement, essentially all of them on the left. This caused a re-alignment, with the left wing capturing the Democratic party and marginalizing it in presidential politics as a direct result.

In 1964 and 1966, both parties supported the war, and the Dems won elections. In 1968, the rioters at the Democratic convention did not, but were fighting the old Democratic party that did, in the streets. The Republicans won as a direct result, as a Democratic president imploded. By 1970, the Dems were against the war but out of power. They ran McGovern in 1972 on the full peacenik platform, and lost in a landslide. The left and the Dems turned against the war, but as soon as they did the American people turned against them.

Nixon's strategy was working and would have continued to work. He tied the supporters of Vietnam in knots, by pitting China and Russia against each other. He mined the harbors and used B-52s on downtown Hanoi when he had to. He unleashed the full weight of US airpower against the 1972 easter offensive and destroyed it, with ARVN providing all the ground component needed. ARVN were not pansies, they were the last to give up, and only lost when the north had massive Russian support and they themselves no longer had any from us. They would have, had Nixon still been in office.

Westmoreland's attrition strategy was not popular and it put high political strain on Washington, to be sure. But militarily, it worked. The North could not support continued infiltration at a high level after losing the mass battles of 65 to 68, because losses had to be dialed down to the rate they could replace. And at that lower rate, ARVN could and did hold. The idea that guerilla warfare is a magical multiplier that always works is a myth. A nation with only a fifth of the manpower of its enemies can't win a war of attrition taking 20 to 1 losses just through higher loss tolerance.

Nam was lost in the Watergate building and in the mismanagement of the coverup that followed. Not in the rice paddies. The left has systematically tried to obscure these historical realities ever since. It wants the war to have been immoral, and hopeless. It wants the NVA to have been fated to win, making it pointless to try and stop them, and exculpating themselves for the eventual defeat of SVN and the resulting murder of a million innocent human beings. It wants the split of the Democratic party in the 60s to have been a split of the whole US, as though hippies were the majority - they weren't.

It wants to pretend McGovern won the battle of public opinion, as though 72-74 never happened, and Nixon was destroyed by the war rather than by Watergate. But the people never abandoned Nixon over the war. They only voted for the left after they thought the war was already over, on Nixon's terms, and that Nixon had then lied to them about domestic politics. The post watergate congressional left then used that ruthlessly to enable their NVN allies to win the war in SVN, because they hated Nixon and everything he had accomplished, and a million dead innocents were nothing compared to their personal power and their invincible sense of self-righteousness.

It is not as pretty a story as "guerillas always win", if you wear Che t-shirts. But it is what actually happened.

36 posted on 04/07/2004 9:58:28 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson