From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!caen!uflorida!usf.edu!darwin!mccolm Wed Sep 16 21:23:48 EDT 1992
Article 6944 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:6944 rec.arts.sf.misc:3194 alt.cyberpunk:1700
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!caen!uflorida!usf.edu!darwin!mccolm
>From: mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: 21st Century Soldier
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.191204.1026@ariel.ec.usf.edu>
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:12:04 GMT
References: <11SEP199211572401@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov> <FeaZqB5w164w@underg.UUCP>
Sender: news@ariel.ec.usf.edu (News Admin)
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Math Department
Lines: 56

In article <FeaZqB5w164w@underg.UUCP> max@underg.UUCP (Max Cray) writes:
>olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Olson) writes:
>
>> One thing I've been afraid of since Iraq is that it would give the people of
>> this country a false sense that our technology will overcome all enemies, and
>> from the messages which have appeared here, I would have to say that my fears
>> have been realized.  Everyone should remember that we can win a few battles,
>> but unless we are willing to fight on the enemies terms, we will still lose t
>> war.  Iraq worked a fixed set stance.  Our air power was able to kick the sno
>> out of them (besides their not willing to fight).  What would have happened i
>> they decided to fight a guerilla war?  Our air power would have been
>> meaningless against small fire group teams.  How effective was our air power 
>> Vietnam?
>
>Huh? Air power kicked alot of asses in Vietnam. Clearly it was the political
>micromanagement that lost Vietnam. If the president had said 'Take Out North
>Vietnam' we would have wiped them out mucho pronto. Getting into a war when
>you don't want to take out the enemy is a pretty stupid thnig to do. Desert
>Strom was better, but still we did not have the political will to take them
>out, and now look at all the problems we are having in Iraq.
>
>I am not too worried about the U.S. (or allied/UN) military being able to
>do its job anytime/anyplace against any foe. I am worried about the political
>leadership of the military.
>


War is merely an extension of diplomacy by other means.
Claiming that a war was lost for the lack of a political 
nail is like claiming that a chess game was lost because 
of a poorly placed rook:  Perhaps, but irrelevant ...

All wars are monuments of incompetence, often (as Vietnam
was) at almost all levels.  The use of "search & destroy" 
tactics surrendered the initiative, the support of thuggish 
governments (at times, almost a new one each week!) cost 
us international support, the shifting rationales for the 
war (eg, Nixon's We're Defending POWs argument) cost the 
government domestic support, and our indecision over 
whether or not we were at war and with whom probably doomed 
the whole effort from the start.  And meanwhile the USSR 
took advantage of the diversion to become increasingly active 
in the Mideast ...

There is this fantasy that wars are different from politics, 
and if only we could keep those damn politicians out, we 
could win wars.  (I can't help noticing that a lot of 
Heinlein fans think like this.)  But politics defines what 
victory is, not to mention what we're fighting for.  We 
would have been a lot better off if Eisenhower had arrived 
at Ho's doorstep with good wishes and a bag full of bribes.
Self-righteousness cost us 50,000 dead, and left the blood 
of 1.5 million Indochinese on our hands.  And people still 
fanatasize, a la Bay of Pigs, about proper air support ...

-----Greg McColm


