I believe this to be true. Unfortunately, to win you must be ruthless, and Americans can no longer stomach the ruthless behavior that it takes to win. You must not only crush the enemy and his war making capability, but you must also (and here is the critical part) crush those who support the enemy; especially "civilians." Is this immoral? At some level all war is immoral. But what is more evil than ruthless war, is allowing war to drag on and on, draining blood and treasure, without a clear path to victory.
GunnyL may not like this particular example, but Tecumseh Sherman clearly understood: “War is cruelty. There’s no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” These words were not spoken by some barbarian from the 8th Century. They were spoken just 143 years ago by a top US military commander, educated at West Point. Sherman prosecuted the war precisely as he spoke. Not only did he crush the “insurgency,” he also crushed those that backed it up. When the war was over did the armed rebellion fester indefinitely? No. The spirit of the insurgency was crushed. To Sherman it would have been more cruel to merely destroy enemy combat forces thereby allowing the insurgency to live on. There is another factor that contributes to the failure to win modern war that Sherman understood quite well. I’ll offer this quote, and you can draw your own conclusions: “If I had my choice, I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.” Loyal sons of the South despise Sherman, who can blame them? But they cannot deny that Sherman was an extremely effective military commander that crushed the spirit of his enemy and extinguished the war without subsequent insurgency.
Eighty years later did America confine itself to merely destroying German combat units? In February 1945, the British and the Americans sent more than 1200 heavy bombers to attack the city of Dresden. No one knows for sure, but perhaps as many as 135,000 German civilians were killed. When the war ended three months later was there a significant insurgency? No. Not only did we destroy enemy combat units, we also destroyed the spirit of the people backing them up. Again, “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” The short form: kill 3000 thousand of our men at Pearl Harbor, and we will drop nuclear weapons on your cities. Was there a Japanese insurgency against American occupation? You know the answer.
We used to know how to prosecute war and win. But somehow winning became immoral. And losing was acceptable because at least there was not much collateral damage. I submit that smart bombs are more immoral than carpet bombing. Smart bombs leave enemy supporters alive and ready to help kill again. In Viet Nam, the subject of this thread, it was Lyndon Johnson who lost his moral compass. He restricted the military from attacking North Viet Nam, the source of the insurgency. He prevented the military from attacking the Russian and Chinese supply lines to North Viet Nam. He did not order the military to attack the North Vietnamese "civilians" that backed up the war, much less their supporters in China. Johnson turned 550,000 American combat troops into a giant police force, confined to a corner of the battlefield that did not contain the source of enemy supplies or the supporters of the enemy. Please make no mistake, regardless of government press releases, we were not in Viet Nam fighting merely to quell a civil war, or push the North Vietnamese out of the South. We were fighting the Russians and Chinese through their proxy. Despite the immoral constraints imposed from above, the US military won every battle in Viet Nam; an amazing performance. But overall, they had no chance to crush the enemy and its supporters. You can thank Lyndon Johnson.
The same immoral policy is currently being played out in Iraq. The aseptic rules of engagement prevent America from winning the war, even though it will never lose a battle. Bush prevents the American military from attacking the financiers of the insurgents in Saudi Arabia, he stops attacks against enemy supply lines in Syria and Iran, he blocks attacks on the civilians that back up the insurgency. Given these constraints, if General Petraeus pulls out a win, it will be a miracle.
PS. Why 1148?
