It's a good review in light of what seems to becoming an aimless American involvement in Afghanistan right now.
The article hits on many themes, a couple that seem important to me are the difference between the performance of highly trained, highly motivated troops, and regulars, and also the effect of feckless governmental leadership on the effort to win a war.
As we say, read the whole thing. The French struggle to hold on to their colony was by no means a hopeless cause. They controlled most of the country and population, and when they could set things up correctly, they could deliver devastating defeats to the Vietminh (precursors to the North Vietnamese regulars and Viet Cong guerrillas encountered by Americans). Their Foreign Legion and Paratroop divisions could aggressively outfight the Vietminh if employed properly.
The battle of Dien Bien Phu was supposedly that setup, but, due largely to lackadaisical prosecution of the battle by senior French leadership, the battle turned into a loss for the French, even though it was a Pyrrhic victory for the Vietminh, a la the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War (which really was a Pyrrhic loss for the Viet Cong, not a Pyrrhic victory). Perception often matters more than facts.
Besides education and admiration of the heroics on both sides in that war, the point of me bringing this up is that it is the attitude of the country's populations and leadership that prosecutes the war that has as much to do with victory as the efforts of the local commanders and troops. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq with focussed purposes and succeeded spectacularly in attaining our goals in both cases. However, we then lost focus to what our purpose was and our efforts in those countries became less effective. It took George Bush's willpower and General Petraeus' Surge strategy to refocus American efforts and secure the situation we desired in Iraq, and to finally attain all of our goals.
We now have a feckless leader, supposedly focussed on Afghanistan, but actually having no desire and no clue how to prosecute that war, and a population that is now seriously questioning our involvement. Our troops perform well regardless, but that alone will not secure victory.
I'll just give one large quote near the end:
So ended the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. History has ruled the French defeat inevitable, which demeans the sacrifices made by the soldiers on each side. The Viets won thanks to the unstinting efforts of their army. And even so, the decision hung in the balance. With better command and support, the base could have held out and possibly set the ground for a sensible peace like that allowed by Britain’s victory in the 1950s Malayan Emergency. The war, moreover, needn’t have ended because Dien Bien Phu was overrun. The severe losses forced upon the Viet-Minh made their victory pyrrhic. The Viet-Minh were in no position during the height of the monsoon to move their shattered units to threaten Hanoi. Just as conditions on the ground had not changed much after de Lattre’s 1951 victories, so they hadn’t in summer 1954. What had changed was France’s willingness to continue the fight—politics, not combat, decided the war. Ho’s strategy had proved far more adept than Giap’s tactics.The article itself does address Afghanistan and also goes on to discuss the ferocity of the French paratroopers efforts in the Battle of Algiers. Do read!
I haven't read yet, but I think I pretty much understand and agree with what you and the article are saying.
ReplyDeleteI think this is also something that our enemy knows.
I'll respond with more after I read it. I have to go to work.
That was a long read. It was a history of France's involvement in that war and how they lost it because of politicians and draws parallels with America's involvement in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteAmerica could have easily won the Vietnam war if it were for the lack of political will to win. The peace movment played a very big role in allowing the communist to win the war.
I don't know why America is in Afghanistan. They have decided to pull out within a year or so. I don't know the reason for staying until then. Especially in light of the koran burning incident and the Afghan security forces turning on Americans and themselves. Looks like America has failed to win the hearts and minds and trust of the people. The president should give a speech explaining why America is still there and what the long term objectives are.
That is a great article. It is really sad too.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is: why are we going to war? I never receive any good reasons. It is a big decision when you decide to do something that ends hundreds of thousands, if not, millions of lives.
As a Christian nation, it seems a paradox trying to justify war. Especially if we are the first to fire.
We should have left SE Asia alone. Let the commies have it. We should have known that a communist system would rot from inside out. We could have won the Cold War by doing nothing. All the commentators of this blog have stated time and time again that communism is bad. Communism destroys economies. We should have just let the Soviets destroy themselves.
ReplyDeletePre Emptive War has not done so well for America in the past.
(I would never be able to be anybody important in life due to the things I say on this blog.)
ReplyDeleteSome wars are justified. I don't see any paradox in going to war, especially from a Christian perspective. If I remember correctly in the Old Testament, Israel was commanded to wipe entire races out.
I think that communist expansion and agression should have been checked during the Cold War. The Vietnam war should have been fought with the purpose of winning and not run by politicians but by the military. I have watched several history channel shows about the war, and there were a lot of examples of how the politicians prevented America from having total victory in that war. America's involvement in Vietnam did check communist agression. And America's invovlement in the Korean war helped to check communist agression and prevented South Korea from falling under control of the communist.
Communism is a type of a much broader political/economic system that has always been around. It represents a battle between two philosophic systems: good/evil, life/death. Summing up very complex system into one word. The only way to end it would be to wipe close to billions of people out, and that won't happen. And nobody is advocating for this to happen. Although Obama's mentor in the weather underground revealed to an undercover agent of a government agency that millions of hard core capitalist would have to be wiped out that did not go along with their communist system.
A soft communist system has become the dominate political/economic system of today's world. This system has conquered America from within. Its people walk around spouting communist slogans, "people before profits", and hold communist beliefs. Talking to people is somewhat scary. And our president and several political leaders ascribes to marxist political and economic thought.
The Old Testament (testament is synonymous with "contract") was wiped away with Jesus. If you ask me, Jesus would take a more Gandhi approach to revolution or resistance.
ReplyDelete"But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same." Luke 6: 27-32
I understand that Jesus in this context was speaking to individuals and not Governments. The first Gentile to be admitted in to the church was a Roman Soldier and he was not required to renounce is military service (Acts 10:1). I do, however, think that Luke 6 should be applied to our leaders. I think military action is used too often in haste. I would argue it was in the Iraq war. Maybe not the Afghanistan war.
What mamby pamby crap have you been reading or listening to. Yes, lets bow down before communism and turn the other cheek. The slaughter of 100 million people should not have been tried to be stopped because to do so would have meant war. War is bad and must never happen. We must have peace at all cost. We must loooooove communist and terrorist. I guess when someone on the street walks up to you and punches you in the face you turn the other cheek? That verse in the context of spreading your religious beliefs to other people. So if you go up to someone and offend them and they slap you turn the other cheek. You know that it is stated that God hated Esau, Rom 9:13 and I think it is also stated that he was hated before he was even born. You should love your enemy, but sometimes loving them means killing them.
ReplyDeleteBut I agree that America needs to not be so quick to go to war.
Here is a cool video about NDAA and obamacare and the Lord of the Rings.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/07/video-obamacare-the-ndaa-and-the-ring-of-power/
The Old Testament was not wiped away. The ten commandments still apply. Only certain rituals and blood ordinances were done way with not the law. But I see what you are trying to say.
ReplyDeleteBefore you go babbling on about me loving communism, why don't you put my quote into context with what I stated. Read my last paragraph, which was paraphrasing my point.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, did we stop 100's of millions of people from being slaughtered by Mao and Stalin? No. We didn't. But more Americans died then was needed. It all goes back to what the original post was alluding to, we should have fought the enemy head on with a plan, rather then dibble dabble in political puppet wars and get nothing accomplished.
If you look at Esau with exegesis, you would know that God does not hate Esau, he hates the Edomites. When Esau was alive, he was blessed Genesis 33:9. Only after Esau's descendants, the Edomites, fought and killed Israelites, did New Testament language start to lash out at Esau. Kind of conflicting text. The Roman verse you speak of is talking of the Edomites. It has to be.
There is little glory in War. You may not know this, but War isn't conducted with a bunch of Bruce Willis' jumpin around and screwin chicks at the end.
I don't think America should go on some religious crusade trying to wipe out all of the evil in the world and bring about God's kingdom on Earth. I do think that America should only fight wars that protect its national interest and ones that are in self defense. Communist expansion during the Cold War should have been checked.
ReplyDeleteOn Esau, check out Malachi, in the Old Testament, chapter 1 where it is stated that God hated Esau. Around Rom 9:9-11 it seems to be implying that God knew Esau before he was born like it is stated that God knew Jeremiah before he formed in the belly, Jer 1:5. Esau sold his birthright Gen 25:22-34 for some red pottage and was called Edom which means red. That is the source of being hated. It is stated in Gen 25:23 that Jacob and Esau were to become two nations. The book of Obadiah is about Edom.
David was a warrior and he was a man after God's own heart and who is in blood line of Christ. And read Psalms 144:1.
Yeah war sucks, but sometimes it is necessary.
If you guys are netflix subscribers should check out Atlas Shrugged Part 1... Movie off of an old Ayn Rand Book Series 50+ years ago.
ReplyDeleteSet in 2016 and the parallels to it happening are unfolding in front of our eyes.
Just in case you guys missed the "not so big" headlines on Thursday:
Credit rating agency Egan Jones downgraded the United States Thursday on concern over the sustainability of public debt. Egan Jones is one of the most important ratings firms in the world; they lowered our credit level from AA+ to AA. The firm reduced America from AAA to AA+ in July 2011, just before Standard & Poor’s did the same.
One more step closer to junk status step by step. Thankfully our three branches of government are passing bills like this instead of addressing the debt issues:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
All this information can be searched on this site: http://sgtreport.com/
Good site for the other side of stories.
Yeah, we've read Atlas Shrugged. I also watched the movie. I also read Rand's "The Fountainhead" and "Anthem". Good books and good movie.
ReplyDeleteOn the religious thing, I am merely trying to be the Devil's Advocate. It is worth discussing these things. Jesus, to me, seemed like an obvious pacifist towards violence and war. I have a hard time supporting war if it is not in direct self defense. "Pre-Emptive War" can be easily fabricated by our leaders.
As everyone agrees, God commanded the Israelites to both wipe out entire tribes and perform ethnic cleansing in Canaan so they could establish their own kingdom. ToeJamm does point out that Jesus seems to be talking about how we deal with each other as individuals, and I agree with that, but certainly, Jesus is not a militaristic person at all. The more I read of the New Testament, the more I am impressed with Jesus' own outreach to Gentiles, and Roman centurions (hardly pacifistic people, in fact, trained wholly for war from a young age) are often key actors. He also seems to advocate for cooperation with the governmental authorities, even when they may be, as they were at the time, pagans. Paul's various letters also support this.
ReplyDeleteYou can argue all you want about the justifications for war. There will always be two sides. To me, Sadaam Hussein was taken out a decade later than he should have been. The justifications are numerous and clear and don't need to be repeated again here. But that's just my opinion. We need to remember that we are a super power that wants to maintain that status and the economic system that helps us. We need to remember that all countries are not equal, and we are the country we need to care about. Not whether our opponent is equipped to fight us in a fair fight or not (see Patton's famous quote).
To return to the topic of the post: France's fight to hold onto it's colony, what were the justifications for France? Was it economically and politically justified for them to continue to hold onto Indochina? Not sure. It certainly marked the end of France being any kind of anything as a major force in world affairs. Is that good or bad for them? Clearly the doubt the French had (largely inflamed by the French Communists)affected their war effort. A France unified in opinion about whether Indochina was worth holding onto or not would have won that war. Besides France's economic and cultural motivations to hang onto the colony, what about the Cold War that was heating up? ToeJamm says we should have stayed out of SE Asia. In hindsight, as we see communism collapsing everywhere, that looks like the right choice, but what about at the time? You don't have the benefit of hindsight at the time. The fall of China to Mao and the Communists was a huge blow to the West's confidence. It looked like Lenin's and Stalin's strategies were going to steamroll. Russia was not yet an empty shell economically, had shocked us with Sputnik, and, though Ayn Rand, et al, had been pointing out the contradictions of Socialism, they hadn't yet clearly shown up in the actual world. It seemed that the west needed to stand and fight (as we had just gotten through doing in Korea), oh, and was Korea a justified fight? It was a backwater, the North Koreans were crushing the South Koreans, but what of it? There was nowhere else adjacent for that domino to fall on. Why get involved? But, we stopped the Commies, and South Korea became a modern economy with a good standard of living, while North Korea, 60 YEARS LATER, is a horror show with no end in sight. Was it right or wrong to help the South Koreans? What would Jesus recommend? What if we had lost that war? Would that have changed the justifications in the attempt? What is the difference in a justification if you win or lose in your attempt to accomplish the deed?
But you can say in response, well, it was a horror show in Russia and Communist China too, why didn't we respond there? The difference is cost. Can we do it without spending a lot of lives or would it ignite WWIII and destroy maybe millions of our own lives and standards of living.
So many things to consider...why, people could write numerous posts on them! :)
I for one believe that the only warfighting method that guarantees long term success is the one God commanded of the Israelites. Everything else is iffy, and yes I will write a post on it one of these days.
America's credit rating derserves to be junk status with that of Greece. The only reason that it is not is because it is the world's largest economy and is considered a safe haven. There really isn't anywhere else for the world to put their money at the moment. That is what is keeping the cost of servicing our debt so low. I heard it described as America sucks, but the world sucks even more. Once nations wake up to the true credit worthiness of America, America's borrowing cost will sky rocket to unsustainable levels. But by then the whole world will be in deep economic trouble.
ReplyDeleteI am not down with this image of the Lord as some weak, hippie pacifist. I don't think it agrees with what is written, but I can see where one would get that image from reading certain passages out of the larger context. His first advent was coming as a lamb slain, but at His second advent he is coming with power.
Some people might find it hard to see how God would command Israel to wipe out entire races of people, but when you see why it makes sense. God did that when he was directly in charge of Israel. They latter rejected His rule and set up a king. A different dispensation of time. So nations can't use the will of God as a reason to go to war.
I think wars should only be fought in self defense or in protecting national interest with the generals and the military in charge, not politicans, and with the goal of total, complete victory. I don't think there needs to be wars motivated by religion or the desire to eradicate evil from the world. The governments that exist are ordained by God. God will set things straight at a latter time and it not our responsibly to play the role of God and fight holy wars.
One of the best way to love your enemy is to kill them. I don't think God would have a problem killing communist in war and fighting communism whose salient characteristic is being a godless system that destroys the church and slaughters 10 of millions of people. I think the Korean war was worth it. I also think the millions of South Koreans living in freedom feel the same way.
You are right.
ReplyDeleteLike I said before, "I am being the Devil's Advocate."
As for the wars that we are in, we should have had better foresight. The instant we decide to put boots on ground, our leaders need to be full throttle. I feel like it is too late for Afghanistan though.
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you think the dropping of those bombs was justified?
ReplyDeleteTo me, Hiroshima & Nagasaki were completely justified. Japan in WWII was/is a special case where a country was foolhardy and arrogant enough to provoke war directly with the US. Even Hitler knew better than to try that. Again, see Patton's famous saying regarding general theory in war prosecution. And here, we had an opponent who used surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, and who used brutal tactics in warfighting and in administering their conquered territories and vanquished foes (see Rape of Nanking in China and Bataan Death March). Japan, and the world for that matter, needed to see what vengeful American wrath looked like, but at the same time, as in all wars, not one extra drop of American blood than necessary should be spilt to get the job done.
ReplyDeleteAs it happened, a great deal of American blood was spilt in very bloody battles in Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, and still Japan hadn't surrendered. Carpet bombing of the mainland also hadn't beaten them into submission, even as it gutted Tokyo and other cities as badly as the atom bombs did and caused even more casualties than the atom bombs did.
After the brutal effort to defeat Hitler (which the Allies agreed was the first priority), the whole world was eager to end the fighting. Estimates for American casualties in the invasion of mainland Japan was I think greater than 100,000 KIA, this after already spending over 400,000 American lives to defeat Hitler and push the Japanese back to Japan.
We were faced with these five facts/dilemmas:
1. We and the world were exhausted from the war to defeat Germany and push Japan back.
2. Because of how Japan started the war and their conduct of the war, Unconditional Surrender was a mandatory requirement.
3. Horrific carpet bombing of Japan had not induced them to surrender.
4. Estimates of American KIAs for an invasion of the mainland were at least 100,000 (fact check potential there :))
5. We now had in our hands this brand new wonder weapon that could potentially end the war without the nightmare of an invasion.
Looking at that situation, how could there be any choice but to try the new weapon to end the war? And, in fact, it turned out that it did. We shouldn't be happy that we had to use it, but it needed to be tried.
I don't understand where people come to the conclusion that America commited a war crime by dropping the A-bomb on Japan. People need to stop viewing events as if they take place in a vacum unrealted or unconnected to anything else. Today this event in history is distorted to paint a negative image of America for the purpose of undermining Americans' faith in America so that its people will be less likely to support their country against threats from within or without. Using the bomb saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and probably millions of Japanese lives. The Japanese were ready and willing to fight to the death to the last man woman or child because they simply refused to surrender due to their culture that inculated a military like discipline that viewed surrend as being the ultimate form of disgrace. And it took two A-bombs to convince their leadership to surrender. The civilians on Okinawa were jumping off of cliffs with childern tied to the them instead of surrendering. You also had to consider the fact that America wanted to be the ones to defeat Japan and not Russia. The war was considered won at that point in the war and they were already carving up nations for the post war era. America's long term interests and the Japanese people are far better for having been defeated in the war and especially so by being defeated by America. It worked out well for them.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Jeff, that's the other thing. Though it's just estimates, not facts, it's probable that the atom bombs resulted in net savings of Japanese lives, though I'm sure that would be a tough argument to make to a Japanese person.
ReplyDeleteAll of our wars since WWII, except for Afghanistan have been wars of choice rather than a response to a direct attack. On top of that, they have been against opponents that do not have a military capability outside their borders, if they have borders at all (well North Vietnam had regional power in Indochina). Afghanistan was a result of a direct attack, but again, there was no way the country of Afghanistan was a real military threat to the US. So that is why there has been no justification to use nukes since WWII.
Another thing to remember is that we warned Japan clearly before we dropped the bombs, that we had them and were prepared to use them. After the first one, we warned them again. They didn't believe we had more than one. So, we dropped it again. I'm pretty sure I've read that that was the last one we had ready to go at the time, but the Japanese didn't call our bluff after Nagasaki.
From what I have read and seen on the history channel, the A-bombs almost definitly saved more lives if not dropping it would have resulted in an invasion of the mainland which would have resulted in far more deaths. It may not be any consolitation to the people that were blown away or died from the after effects of the bomb, but it sucks for a people that are decieved into following a crazy government or leader and are on the receiving end of a military defeat. At least it their case it led to them becoming what was up unitl recently the world's second largest economy.
ReplyDeleteA lesson for us today is to be careful of being deceived by some leader or government that would led us down a similar path. The pre-Hitler German people were technologically and culturally advanced in their day much as we Americans are today, and they got deceived in following and electing Hitler as their leader and it ended in the utter defeat, destruction of their nation and the eventual rape, around 10,000 German women, of their people by the Red Army. Who a nation chooses to lead them has very real and painful consequences. Being uniformed about history and current events can really suck.
Looks like Romney will be the guy running against Obama.
ReplyDeleteJapan had no Air Force and no Navy. Just a bunch of malnourished soldiers with guns. Japan has no way at sustaining a civilization with its own resources. Let alone supporting a war effort. It seems to me that we could have laid siege on the country. A siege could have cost just as many civilian casualties, maybe more, but I feel like it would have been a more humane and honorable way of dealing with them. Nuke or Invasion were not the only choices.
ReplyDeleteI'm not totally disagreeing with the nukes, but I I am hesitant to accept our justification for nuking a civilian population.
You also have to consider the fact that at that point in the war that the decision to use the bomb was made that the war was coming to an end and the post-war map was being made: the Allies and the Soviet Union were carving up the map. If the bombs weren't used then America would have had to invade the mainland Japan with the assistance of the Russians. Such a situation would have led to something like division in East and West Berlin, I don't remember if all of Germany was divided or just Berlin. Part of the reason the bombs were used was because America was concerned about the Russians taking control of all or part of Japan. That would not have been in America's long term national security interest or in the long term interest of the Japanese people as revealed by the quality of life the people in East Berlin. The allies were getting word of what Russia looked like under Stalin and the Russians were being aggressive in taking over territory at that time. America was concerned about a future conflict with Russia. Also the treatment of the German people by the Russians immediately after the war would have given some insight into what would have happened to the Japanese. Avoiding having the Russians from controlling part or all of Japan as a major factor going into the decision to use the bomb. I remember watching a History Channel episode on this topic and that was what some of the people involved stated as reasons to use the bomb.
ReplyDeleteI read a libertarian article on Mises.org saying that dropping the bomb was a war crime. Dropping the bomb was the most humane way to deal with the situation at the time and was considered to be the best thing to do at that time by the president and also looking back on it through the prism of modern times it also appears to have been the right thing to do. I know that is counter intuitive to see how nuking a country could be humane, but a lot of things in the hard and social sciences seem that way: the natural state of object is to be in constant motion unless acted on by an outside force and it seems like raising taxes would lead to the government getting more revenue from taxes but that has not been the case.
ToeJamm, the Japanese weren't going to surrender any time soon. Give them their due credit: they gave no quarter and asked for none. Their soldiers fought to the death and their population was ready to as well. They weren't Europeans. That's why they showed so little respect for POWs. They knew they would never surrender so didn't respect those that did.
ReplyDeletePreparations for the invasion were well under way. If the nukes didn't work, the invasion would have happened.
The only thing that could have changed the equation would have been if the allies decided to go for some modified terms of surrender rather than unconditional. An argument could be made there, but that's in hindsight. The US and allies were outraged at the way the Japanese had carried out their war and wanted to end the Japanese warrior culture just as they wanted to dismember Germany and keep it from rising again.
And in hindsight, it was a stunningly successful policy for the Allies.