Iraq Isn't the Philippines

[Bill Moore]

The professor makes many valid points, and I don't agree that the intent is to neglect the military lessons of the past, as many of the TTP from several different conflicts may be viable in Iraq. I think the key take away is that you can't compare Iraq and the Philippines; they were two completely different problem sets. You design a strategy to solve a problem based on that problem and all the factors influencing that particular problem set. I think what he is saying is that you can't blindly template the tactics used in Malaysia, Nigeria, or the Philippines because they worked there and expect them to work in Iraq. Our strategy in Vietnam was flawed, but I laugh when I hear so called experts state that the British approach in Malaysia would have been a better approach. We were not only fighting insurgents, but NVA regulars. The insurgents were more of a fifth column. A Malaysian type strategy would have been doomed to failure in Vietnam, but it was a perfect strategy for the problem in Malaysia.

The author’s last paragraph is misleading and out of character with the rest of the article. I won't touch Iraq, but will revisit Vietnam as an example. I think we should have learned our lesson about limited wars during the Korean War, and if we weren't prepared to do all that was necessary to win in Vietnam, then we shouldn't have engaged there. I think limited war briefs well within the halls of Congress where hand wringing bureaucrats are willing to play at war, but not courageously commit. I believe in limited objectives, but not limited war. Going into Iran to rescue the hostages was a limited objective (it failed, but it still illustrates a limited objective). Going into S. Vietnam, but not being willing to defeat the state sponsor N. Vietnam was a limited war. What did President Johnson say, "they don't bomb an outhouse unless they have my permission"? We lost over 50,000 men, billions of dollars, national prestige, and the Vietnamese lost millions of people. As the author stated Vietnam is a better place now, but what he didn't say was how many thousands of S. Vietnamese were brutally murdered or put into reeducation camps, and millions opted to risk their lives to flee S. Vietnam under communist rule. Yes, S. Vietnam was not a nice place to be when we were there, but it was a hell of lot worse when we left. I think we should consider the words of a former CEO of Coca Cola who felt we could have converted Cuba and Vietnam over time, among other hostile communist nations at the time, by engaging them with trade and other business ventures. They may still call themselves communists, but in reality they would be capitalists and have a much better quality of life, a quality of life they wouldn't give up easily, meaning at that point we could have real influence without killing anyone. We would have common economic and social interests. Maybe our DIME is broke, but America's ideas are not, they work if given a chance.