Posted on 01/12/2003 3:04:35 PM PST by Valin
In Mogadishu, a small group of trapped Americans with little support inflicted 100 to 1 casualties. If the leadership had chosen to do so, our casualties would have been even less and the enemy would have had tens of thousands of casualties (and he would have fallen to rival factions in the weeks afterwards).
The Republican Guard escaped due to a political decision on the part of the White House and the highest commanders. If they had given the order, they would have been exterminated. The US military is quite capable of doing what needs to be done -- as long as leaders let it.
This is precisely the point. Not only have the missions become ridiculously laden with restrictions and constraints, mostly due to political factors, but those carrying them out are used to it. The bar for success has been placed so far above simple victory that it is absurd.
'We can't have any of you getting killed, or this will become a political incident'. That line of reasoning is not for the benefit of the mission or the men, its for the expediency of those giving the orders.
Pilots hate flying at 30,000 feet, they'd rather go lower so they know they aren't shooting civilians and are hitting their targets. Green Berets hate watching bin Laden slip away, knowing the could go stop him before he can plan another attack, but the generals are terrified that they could get killed in the process.
What success we do have is entirely icing on the cake. Any of the examples he cites would have ended far differently had the generals and politicians took a step back and said 'let em have it, boys' .
The writer is correct that the military officer culture has become corporate, corrupted and has lost its edge. This was enforced from above, and needs to be remedied from above to fix it. I'm all for calling attention to this fact, and hope that in this age of increased awareness of military affairs, it is addressed soon. the whole system chafes under the yoke
Boyd: Foul-mouthed maverick changed the art of war
It is a great story!
The Path To Victory
A Symposium on the War (Fall 2002 Issue )
Nine days after the fiendish attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., President George W. Bush declared that any nation sponsoring, aiding, or harboring terrorists would be considered an enemy of the United States. In October, American forces launched punishing airstrikes on Afghanistan, then the headquarters of al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden. Assaulted by the land, sea, and air forces of the U.S. and its allies, Afghanistan's Taliban regime soon collapsed. In November, the Claremont Review of Books published an essay by Angelo Codevilla titled "Victory: What it Will Take to Win." In it, and in two subsequent essays, Codevilla, professor of international relations at Boston University and a spirited analyst of (and participant in) U.S. foreign and defense policy, argued that the U.S. "war on terrorism" is misconceived, that the focus on al-Qaeda and bin Laden is shortsighted, and that the homeland security measures are futile. To win the war, he contended, the United States must topple the regimes that make terrorists like Osama bin Laden possible, specifically the despots and ruling parties of Iraq, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority. As the anniversary of September 11 approaches—and as the war enters its second year—we asked five distinguished commentators to reflect on Codevilla's assessment of the war. His reply follows.
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
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.