The Washington Post reports that the Pentagon has outlined three options and “insiders” have applied three slogans to these options: "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home:"
The use of diminutive slogans in terms of the Iraq strategy eerily calls to mind General Maxwell Taylor’s analysis of 1967 Vietnam in his book “Swords and Ploughshares” (p. 380). Only he offered up four slogans instead of three:“The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
“Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.”
Interestingly (in his book) Taylor identified four basic slogan alternatives for America's North Vietnamese enemies:“I contended that there always had been and still were only four alternatives (in 1967 Vietnam), although each had several variants. The basic four in simplest terms were: 'all out,''pull-out,' 'pull back,' or 'stick-it-out.'"
“'All out' was the solution of the extreme hawks who would increase the military pressure…. (T)he all out partisans also favored a declaration of war and the imposition of wartime controls at home.
“'Pull-out' meant just what it said, to withdraw our forces… just as rapidly as we could safely do so.
“'Pull back' was the de-escalation alternative which usually included… a reduction of offensive ground operations and some abandonment of forward terrain, which could go as far as the withdrawal of our forces into defensive enclaves along the cost.
“'Stick-it-out' was the status quo alternative which amounted to continuing the current strategy…”
General Taylor (as Presidential Consultant) recommended to LBJ that America should stick-it-out and that the president should make every effort to stiffen the backbone of the home front. General Taylor even offered to the then President (LBJ) what his advice would be if he was advising his 1967 communist enemies. It is disturbing to consider it’s relevance to the situation in Iraq today. General Taylor wrote in his book (p. 380):“Just as our side had four basic alternatives, so did Hanoi: 'escalate,' 'play-dead,' 'protract' and 'negotiate…,'
“Their 'escalation' could take the form of increased infiltration, renewed cross-border offensives, the introduction of new and better weapons, the use of foreign (fighters) and possible the opening of a new front…
“The 'play-dead' alternative was the fade-away option…, giving the impression that the war was ending or, at least subsiding.
“'Protract' corresponded to our stick-it-out and implied a continuation of the (their current) strategy…
“'Negotiate' alternative was to resort to the negotiation table as a new sector of conflict and maneuver…"
As we know now, Taylor and the administration misjudged their enemy and got it terribly wrong. In fact the enemy would have rejected Taylor’s gratuitous advice to maintain the status quo, as General Taylor writes (p. 380):“I even ventured (to the president)… what I would recommend to (our enemies) if I were one of (their) advisers. My advice to (them) would be to also stay on his present course of military, terrorist and political action, in spite of the (military) disappointments of (the past)…"
Of course there are many who still remember what "all out escalation" meant: The Tet Offensive of 1968.“(The enemy’s) choice (instead of "stay the course") was for all-out escalation in 1968…”
(http://sundayschoolforsinners.blogspot.com/)
Bookmarks