“Burying the Ghosts of Vietnam”
“Burying the Ghosts of Vietnam”
By Bob Cassidy, Small Wars Journal Blog.
Quote:
The recent spate of posts and editorial pieces that have amplified the emerging debate between counterinsurgency advocates and big conventional war advocates, coupled with Phillip Carter’s 12 May Washington Post Online post, “Vietnam Ghosts,” compelled me to post these links (below) to three studies that were published between 1970 and 1980. These studies testified to why the U.S. Government (USG) and the U.S. military failed to achieve their objectives in Vietnam. Also, because the USG and the U.S. military failed to heed, absorb, and institutionalize the lessons derived in these analyses during the two decades following the last study (BDM), the USG was initially ill prepared to counter the insurgencies it confronted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, the 28 November 2005 Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 3000.05, Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations DODD 3000.05, the extant work by USSOCOM and the USMC on the re-emerging notion of irregular warfare (IW JOC), and the latest version (February 2008) of the U.S. Army’s capstone manual, FM 3-0, Operations, together prescribe an emphasis on irregular warfare, stability operations, and counterinsurgency, equal to that of regular, conventional, war. These documents help provide the requisite philosophical and doctrinal balance for a military that must be able to conduct both counterinsurgency and conventional big wars...
Big guys usually avoid fights 'cause they don't
have to prove much. The US generally avoids fights for the same reason.
Sometimes little guys try to provoke big guys out of either a sense of outrage and / or jealousy or for other, hidden reasons. Usually the big guy ignores the provocations. So too has the US on many occasions ignored many provocations.
Sometimes the little guys in their pestering go a step too far and get a reaction far stronger than they expected and even if the outcome is not totally predictable for either the little guy or the big one. On many occasions, it has been presumed the US would do nothing. Bad idea, cause of most of our wars over the years; war is always bad for everyone but sometimes restraint is not the answer and 'strategic' concerns are really a small part of the equation in such cases. Perhaps they should always be -- but they are not.
The plus is that each chastened little guy is a bit wiser. Just as the US rarely has to visit twice... :cool: