Niel said:

I would submit that a secondary point of my essay was to learn from the past, and adapt the prinicples to the present, rather than slavishly adhere to a cookie cutter approach. The whole point of that article was to understand your environment on its own terms and devise an appropriate solution.
Your first sentence contains a contradicition which is basically my whole point. What you call not "slavishly" adhering to a "cookie cutter approach" is essentially what you end up doing in the first clause of the sentence: "to learn from the past, and adapt the principles to the present." Niel, how does one actually "learn" from the past? And your essay itself actually betrays the "cookie cutter" approach that you deny using. In the first couple of paragraphs you explicitly say when reading Krepinevich you got so mad becuase everytime you saw the word Vietnam in it you could have replaced it with the word "Iraq." How is that not cookie cutting?

And Niel, what if Krepinevich is wrong; or, at least only half right? What if he wrongfully neglected to mention in his book that the reason why Westmoreland had to go conventional with the American Army early on was because there was a substantial regular South Vietnamese communist threat along with a NVA regular threat that he could not just dismiss and go-Galula? What if Krepinevich way overplayed the amount of difference between Westmoreland and Abrams? Basically what if he was just flat wrong in his interpretation of Vietnam? I am sorry buddy, but your essay essentially argues that Vietnam was just like Iraq, only this time since we have the lessons and principles provided to us in books like "The Army and Vietnam" we are on the road to success because we have learned and applied those lessons.

I submit that history doesnt work that way; that the idea that one can derive principles and lessons from history and apply them directly in the present is chimera.

What you have done, though, is elevated his book to the oracle truth of Vietnam and justified its correctness with your story of learning and success in Iraq.

In fact, Niel, as much as you do not want to hear it, your essay fits perfectly in with the Surge Triumph narrative. That Triumph Narrative is based on the trope of Vietnam. That the American Army in Iraq didnt get it, but finally got around to learning through study of books like Krepenivich, and now because of that learning and adapting, we have success, if not victory in Iraq. Tell me how the basic narrative arc within your essay is in contradcition to this?

And Hack, old friend. The colors are almost gone, but naturally life is sweet on the banks of the Hudson.

gian