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

Skip to comments.

On Recent Wars
Fred on Everything ^ | May 17, 2006 | Fred Reed

Posted on 05/18/2006 10:10:11 AM PDT by river rat

On Recent Wars

Things Not Figured Out

May 17, 2006

People ask how we got into our splendid mess in Iraq and why we can’t get out. The question is a subset of a larger question: Why, since WWII, have so many first-world armies gotten into drawn-out guerrilla wars in bush-world countries, and lost? Examples abound: France in Vietnam, America in Vietnam, France in Algeria, Russia in Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon, etc. Why don’t they learn?

The answer I think is that militaries are influenced by a kind of man—call him the Warrior—who by nature is unsuited for modern wars. He doesn’t understand them, can’t adapt to them.

The Warrior is emotionally suited to pitched, Pattonesque battles of moral clarity and simple intent. I don’t mean that he is stupid. Among fighter pilots and in the Special Forces for example it is not uncommon to find men with IQs of 145. Yet emotionally the Warrior has the uncomplicated instincts of a pit bull. Intensely loyal to friends and intensely hostile to the enemy, he doesn’t want any confusion as to which is which. His tolerance for ambiguity is very low. He wants to close with the enemy and destroy him.

This works in wars like WWII. (Note that the American military is an advanced version of the military that beat Germany and Japan.) It does not work when winning requires the support of the population. The Warrior, unable to see things through the eyes of the enemy, or of the local population, whom he quickly comes to hate, wants to blow hell out of things. He detests all that therapeutic crap, that touchy-feely leftist stuff about respect the population, especially the women. Having the empathy of an engine block, he regards mention of mutilated children as intensely annoying at best, and communist propaganda at worst.

On the net these men sometimes speak approvingly to each other of the massacre at My Lai. Hey, they were all Cong. If they weren’t, they knew who the Cong were and didn’t tell us. Calley did the right thing, taught them a lesson. There is an admiration of Calley for having avoided bureaucratic rules of engagement probably dreamed up by civilians. War is war. You kill people. Deal with it.

If you point out that collateral damage (dead children, for example) makes the survivors into murderously angry Viet Cong, the Warrior thinks that you are a lefty tree-hugger.

Today, the battlefield as understood by the enemy, but seldom by the Warrior, extends far beyond the physical battlefield, and the chief targets are political. In this kind of war, if America can get the local population to support it, the insurgents are out of business; if the insurgents can get the American public to stop supporting the war, the American military is out of business. This is what counts. It is what works. The Warrior, all oooh-rah and jump wings, doesn’t get it. Vo Nguyen Giap got it. Ho Chi Minh got it.

Thus the furious, embittered insistence of Warriors that “We won Tet of ’68. We slaughtered them! We won, dammit! Militarily, we absolutely won!” Swell, but politically they lost. It was a catastrophe on the order of Kursk or Dien Bien Phu. But they can’t figure it out.

The warrior doesn’t understand what “victory” means because he thinks in terms of firefights, courage, weaponry, and valor. His approach is emotional, not rational. Though not stupid, he is regularly out-thought. Why?

It’s not mysterious. An intelligent enemy knows that America cannot be beaten at industrial war. So he thinks, “What then are America’s weaknesses?” The first and crucial one is that the American government enters into distant wars in which the public has no stake. Do you want your son to die for—get this—democracy in Iraq? You diapered him, got him through school-yard fist fights, his first prom, graduation from boot camp, and he comes home in a box—for democracy in Iraq?

The thing to do, then (continues thinking the intelligent enemy) is to make the Americans grow sick of the war. How? Not by winning battles, which is difficult against the Americans. You win otherwise. First, don’t give them point targets, since these are easily destroyed by big guns and advanced technology. Second, keep the level of combat high enough to maintain the war in the forefront of American consciousness, and to keep the monetary expense high. (Inflation and gasoline prices are weapons as much as rifles, another idea that the Warrior just doesn’t get. Bin Laden does.) Third, keep the body bags flowing. Sooner or later the Americans will weary of losing their sons for something that doesn’t really interest them.

However, the Warrior does not grant the public the right to grow weary. For him, America exists to support the military, not the other way around. Are two hundred dead a week coming back from Asia? The Warrior believes that small-town America (which is where the coffins usually go) should grit its teeth, bear down, and make the sacrifice for the country. Sacrifice for what? It doesn’t matter. We’re at war, dammit. Rally ‘round. What are you, a commy?

To the Warrior, to doubt the war is treason, aiding and supporting, liberalism, cowardice, back-stabbing, and so on. He uses these phrases unrelentingly. We must fight, and fight, and fight, and never yield, and sacrifice and spend. We must never ask why, or whether, or what for, or do we want to.

The public of course doesn’t see it that way. In 1964 I graduated from a rural high school in Virginia with a senior class of, I think, sixty. Doug took a 12.7 through the head, Sonny spent time at Walter Reed with neck wounds, Studley I hear is a paraplegic, another kid got mostly blinded for life, and several, whom I won’t name, tough country kids as I knew them, came back as apparently irredeemable drunks. (These were kids I knew, not all in my class.) It was a lot of dead and crippled for a small place. For what?

Cowardice? I was on campus in 1966 on a small, very Republican, very patriotic, very conservative, very Southern campus. The students, and their girlfriends, were all violently against the war. So, I gather, were their parents. Why? Were they the traitors of the Warrior’s imagination? No. They didn’t want to die for something that they didn’t care about.

This eludes the Warrior. Always, he blames The Press for the waning of martial enthusiasm, for his misunderstanding of the kind of war we are fighting. Did the press make Studley a paraplegic? Or kill the guy with all the tubes who died in the stretcher above me on the Medevac 141 back from Danang? Did Walter Cronkite make my buddy Cagle blind when the rifle grenade exploded on the end of his fourteen? Do the Warriors think that people don’t notice when their kids come back forever in wheelchairs?

They don’t get it.

Collateral Damage. Between Phnom Penh and Kompong Speu, 1974.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: fools; vietnam; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
"Fred" makes some very interesting observations.....
I suspect he is more right than wrong.
His website has dozens of articles with his unique insight.
Our enemies have restructured war to avoid our strengths and utilize theirs.....
We need to determine how we're going to respond..

Semper Fi

1 posted on 05/18/2006 10:10:13 AM PDT by river rat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC

This guy strikes some very painful nerves..
"Fred" was there.....he has a right to express his opinions..


Semper Fi


2 posted on 05/18/2006 10:12:53 AM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Bad analysis in places. See my new book, "America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror."

In 10 separate "guerilla" wars of the 20th century (not including Algeria, which is a special case), the "government" or "established power" (that would be us) won eight. The thing is, it usually takes about five years. Currently, we are exactly on pace and pretty much where we were in the Filipino Insurrection---a war that was very similar in how Aguinaldo (like Zarqari) tried to fight us through the U.S. media and the U.S. electoral process, NOT on the battlefield. We understood it then, and get it now.

3 posted on 05/18/2006 10:14:54 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat
I'm sorry there is so much here that is just such crap. Just in passing outside of the marines how a=many 'warrior' types have risen to high command in the armed forces. The model, which we can thank McNamara for midwifing among a host of bad things he did for the armed forces, is the managerial-technocrat officer. These people love powerpoint presentations, complex wiring diagrams, assimilating a host of stupid and pointless new acronyms every couple years that are half assed biz school babel so they can demonstrate their mastery of the complexities of the management pet rock de jour. More warriors at the top would be a plus.
4 posted on 05/18/2006 10:17:53 AM PDT by robowombat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat

Fred is a great writer and always worth reading.


5 posted on 05/18/2006 10:19:45 AM PDT by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat

About 50% correct.


6 posted on 05/18/2006 10:24:57 AM PDT by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat
The counter point to this is the very successful venture in Afghanistan, the US removing the Panamanian dictator (gh bush), removing the commies from grenada, forcing elections in el salvador and Nicaragua, US military intervention in Haiti (Clinton), UN stabilization of the former Yugoslavia (not a disaster so far), US occupation of post war japan, the Korean war has resulted in a good result in SK.
7 posted on 05/18/2006 10:31:14 AM PDT by staytrue (Moonbat conservatives-those who would rather have the democrats win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Party_Animal

More BS than fact and his assumptions suck.........wars are "lost" not by Warriors but by gutless politicians who can't hack the bad PR involved in winning.


8 posted on 05/18/2006 10:34:03 AM PDT by newcthem (Vote Mexican.......if it is good enough for the Senate .......it is good enough for us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LS

I'm sure most of us will disagree with a point or two of Fred's.....as I do.

But I'm coming to view many of his positions on our weaknesses with more and more agreement.


Semper Fi


9 posted on 05/18/2006 10:36:45 AM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: river rat
Today, the battlefield as understood by the enemy, but seldom by the Warrior, extends far beyond the physical battlefield, and the chief targets are political.

That's because the "warriors" have precluded the enemy from choosing the battlefield option. There is no current enemy that can stand in the battlefield against out warriors. We have taken the high ground and will keep it for the forseeable future.

10 posted on 05/18/2006 10:42:10 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
As with finding diamonds....you have to sift through and crush a lot of rock..

Fred may get some things wrong, from my perspective -- but there are gems in amongst the rocks..

Semper Fi
11 posted on 05/18/2006 10:46:32 AM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
One can win the battle -- own the battlefield, and lose the war..

We proved that in Vietnam..

Wars are fought to achieve an objective..not to possess the landscape.

Our enemy today - recognizes that..
They refuse to meet us as match pieces on a chess board.
They are perfectly content to conduct a war of attrition and constant slow bleeding wounds...

We need a better response to their strategy....one that denies them the choosing of where, when and how to fight.
We are already seeing words, oil, riots, immigration, birth rates, religion, cartoons, books, legal challenges, leftist organizations, the U.N., etc, etc, etc.....being used as WEAPONS in their arsenal against "the West"....


Semper Fi
12 posted on 05/18/2006 10:58:59 AM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: river rat
I am one of those warriors and Fred is not wrong on us not getting it as per the type of conflict or how we apply power, we apply force with a hammer because we do not understand the political, economic, or informational elements of national power. We are after all warriors, we are trying like hell to adapt to the everywhere is a battlefield but old ways go down slowly.

He is entitled to a rant about his buddies, we did not fight Vietnam to win, we applied military force to a political problem and we got a poor outcome with alot of bodybags and broken men.
13 posted on 05/18/2006 11:07:38 AM PDT by reluctantwarrior (Strength and Honor, just call me Buzzkill for short......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: river rat

Our warriors don't send themselves into battle, the civilian leadership does.

His remarks that our warriors don't understand the new battlefield strikes me as silly. He understands, but the warriors don't...? In actual fact, our enemies work very hard to avoid contact with our warriors, because the results are fatal. They have learned to use our political system to their advantage, because our weakness, as he almost seems to understand, is not our military but our civilian leadership, who is unable to take the pounding.

All of our enemies learn the same lesson, or die. The key to victory over the US is American domestic politics. Hire a PR firm, hire a law firm, buy a few congressmen, buy a few journalists, and pound away every day in the American press. Modern warfare has gone beyond insurgencies, because in actual fact American soldiers don't only do Pattonesque warfare very well, they also do insurgencies very well. But they are commanded by civilians who have the resilience and durability under fire of a mayflower.

So thats where you attack, if you want to defeat the Americans. The toughest marine is helpless when his Oprah-fied leaders call him home, having changed their minds and lost heart midway through the battle.


14 posted on 05/18/2006 11:08:19 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat
We need a better response to their strategy....one that denies them the choosing of where, when and how to fight.

Well, we've denied them the opportunity to have an open fight on the battlefield...

15 posted on 05/18/2006 11:22:29 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: river rat
My couz is a Lt. Col. in the USMC, and his son is, I think, a SGT. in the Marines. I'm very skeptical of people who sell our military short. As I point out in the book, EVERY enemy we've ever fought thought they would ship us: the Mexicans in 1846 made comments such as "We will be in New Orleans" in three weeks; and all the Euros thought Spain would defeat us in 1898. I have quotations from Germans in WW I who thought we would have no impact whatsoever on the course of that war . . . until they saw us fight.

My point is, if you go back through our wars, we adapt pretty damn well, and usually quickly. Yes, it sometimes takes a whack or two---Kasserine, or bad torpedoes in WW II---but for every one of those examples, you can come up with a Col. John Wilder, who outfitted his entire cavalry/mounted infantry regiment with repeaers in the Civil War, and whipped a Confederate infantry division, or a "Thunder Run," where USARMY colonels, on the fly, came up with a plan that ran 100% contrary to established military doctrine that armor "can't go into urban areas without infantry support."

Americans repeatedly do the impossible, and then some.

16 posted on 05/18/2006 11:30:00 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: river rat

Cochise, Nana, Victorio, Juh, and Geronimo were some of the greatest guerrillas who ever fought, and they were WARRIORS.

Asymetrical warfare goes back to at least the Romans, and probably earlier. Armies learn how to deal with it. For the Apaches, we produced Crook. For the Phillipines Insurrection, we had Arthur MacArthur. I don't agree with Fred at all. For one thing, he lets the military's civilian masters, who are not warriors, off the hook.


17 posted on 05/18/2006 11:33:23 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
"Americans repeatedly do the impossible, and then some."

To a large degree, that has been true of Americans...of the past.
It will be interesting to see how the current stock of Americans hold up.

It will also be interesting to see how we pursue a war against an ideology without delivering a devastating blow against the primary purveyors and supporters of that ideology..

Do we have the stomach necessary to deliver the level of destruction against our enemy as we did in past wars?
Or, will we continue to prosecute the war with minimal enemy bloodshed or collateral damage?

Semper Fi

18 posted on 05/18/2006 11:46:42 AM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: river rat

I am from a long military tradition, my Dad fought in WW2 and Korea. Your article is drivel, really irks me.

"Fred" is gutless, obviously a liberal, votes Democrat no doubt. Him and Skerry's views are about equal. And you support him and his theories? I'm connecting the dots. Two peas in a pod you two. I guess you voted for Kerry, am I right?

We fight wars because there is good and evil. Communism is evil (Vietnam), Al Queda is evil (Afganistan). Sadaam is evil.

Sure, there is a price to pay, people die and are injured. Sure, politicians didn't manage Vietnam right, but what are we supposed to do? Just let the atheist commies and mooselimbs run roughshod over us?


19 posted on 05/18/2006 11:47:51 AM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr
I believe one of the main points Fred was trying to make - in his own way, was...
"In this kind of war, if America can get the local population to support it, the insurgents are out of business; if the insurgents can get the American public to stop supporting the war, the American military is out of business.

Only the Grunts on the ground, or the end of hostilities can tell you the status of winning the support of the local population to a degree that supports victory.

Here in America, we already have one Political Party calling for withdrawal.
The risks and exposure are THERE -- and they are huge...
Whistling past the cemetery will not make that go away...

Semper Fi

20 posted on 05/18/2006 11:56:13 AM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

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