SubscribeThe campaign was a “measured and limited air action” to signal US “determination and commitment” to Hanoi. Administration officials did not want to provoke “a wider war.” They feared that stronger use of force might lead to a confrontation with the Soviet Union or China.So the Americans were also fighting the technology of Russia and China, who obviously had all the technology they needed to scare the Americans.
Despite the many analyses of the Vietnam war produced by the military, none has adequately considered the fundamental question of how the U.S. could so completely dominate the battlefield and yet lose the war.There's a profound difference between making tools and knowing how to skillfully use them.
...
A clue to understanding the Vietnam paradox lies in the term "military science." No one can doubt the importance of military science to the success of military operations in today's world. The firepower provided by today's weapons dominates the modern battlefield. The procurement of those same systems is a complex science in itself. However, successful military operations are a combination of the application of military science and military art.
...
Successful military campaigns are the result of some sort of balance between the two. The balance may, in fact, depend on the status of the opposing forces--their equality. Reasonable equality may not exist between opposing forces. The weaker side must then depend on superior military art to achieve victory.
The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were forced to depend on the use of military art because of the overwhelming resources and superior technology of the U.S. The Communist confused the Americans with a package of political, psychological, economic and military warfare.
It is politically incorrect in academic circles - and not much acceptable elsewhere - to recognize or acknowledge the benefit derived by millions of people strongly employed and heavily invested here. Like it or not, our wealth derives from the blood of others. No nation is imune from this, and none can point fingers with impunity.
Warfare and Commerce are brother and sister to our house, and whether or not the human prediliction to warfare is natural or unnatural is a philosophical discussion best left to others. [...]
Commerce has historically developed out of a perceived need for war-fighting technology, and once declassified, transfers to the marketplace. [...]
The schizophrenia in academic thinking between the immense cultural and financial benefits derived from Government-funded research and development versus the dire warnings of a burgeoning Big Brother atmosphere must be considered either unreasoning paranoia or pure Kant: publishing polemics by poorly-researched academics looking for tenure.
If there is a misuse of power, it will develop due to efforts on the part of Little Brother - the commercial marketplace itself. Viewed from either perspective, the historical facts do not seem to square with the recrudecence of neo-Luddite behaviour and it's doctrine of Political Correctness, which commands obeyance - not analysis - in the finest of didactic traditions.
Eric Blair (George Orwell) would have loved it.
The French army shifted its tactics at the end of 1958 from dependence on quadrillage to the use of mobile forces deployed on massive search-and-destroy missions against ALN strongholds. Within the next year, Salan's successor, General Maurice Challe, appeared to have suppressed major rebel resistance. But political developments had already overtaken the French army's successes.The new tactic worked, as new tactics often do. Nobody knows what would have happened if the enemy had a thorough opportunity to respond to it.
« Older Cockroach Controlled Mobile Robots... | Rugby League player involved i... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by bouncebounce at 10:46 PM on May 22, 2006