Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
But you're right, I should slow down. I often forget that others need to catch up
or is it that you're on a different road...
I have covered this before, but whether or not something is "tactical" or "strategic" is not determined by the nature of the task, the platform/weapon used, or the number of stars on the commander's collar. It is determined by the purpose for the action.
I don't think anyone disputes that, nor do I think most dispute your population centric theory. I for one agree with you on both.

Where you and I disagree is on your interpretation -- and that's what it is, an interpretation -- versus my interpretation of what happened in Viet Nam. I agree with Eden and Umar Al-Mokhtār, it is too easy to draw wrong conclusions about Viet Nam from the many and very skewed histories out there. We didn't win every battle by a long shot, most US units were marginally trained and commanded and the VC /NVA initiated about, IIRC, 85% of all contacts. Good units -- and there were some -- did better but by and large our tactical ineptitude contributed to our strategic draw.

It was a political loss, no question, a strategic draw IMO and a series of tactical blunders by both sides.

That however is an aside and we can disagree on all that as we have before. The factor that leads you to believe you're way out front is that no one is following you on the Road to Grand Strategy. Wilf said it well
"I am not that concerned with the Political need which Warfare seeks to address. Politics is enmity, passion, and need. Those are not coherent or particularly predictable or understandable."
We also disagree on practical aspects of that. I suggest that no one really disputes your philosophy though many seem to question either the desirability or the possibility -- or both -- of your proposals to 'fix' the US. Thus the issue is not small war or any war related other than peripherally because national strategy is a political decision and while military aspects must be considered, they are frequently overruled by politicians. Had all military advice been heeded, there probably would have been far fewer wars. As Wilf also noted: "Strategy is not rational."

That's totally true; it is and must be based on the perceptions and beliefs of those who make strategic decisions. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on what should be done and how but unless you're one of the shakers and movers -- a Politician, not a military person -- one as a military person can only give advice and that advice should be rational, logical, provable and not subject to personal whim or belief. To inject those latter things into a military capability, probability, possibility question concerning strategic options is, in the opinion of many, not smart.

It is not smart simply because politicians are devious, want their own way and are quite willing to twist your words and thoughts to achieve their own ends. Provable logic cannot be twisted for very long...