A failure in generalship - Page 3

Blademaster · 04-29-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigfella

OOE,

Fair enough, but you would have to admit that the best equipped, trained & supported divisions were in Cambodia. I would suggest that for Vietnam to put up the defence it did while simultaneously fighting an even larger war in Cambodia was a pretty impressive achievement. It says something for the morale of those people. I would have expected them to be just as determined against an American force. I would also assume that many of those in local militias during the mid-60s would also have been combat veterans of the French War.

On any potential invasion of the DRV, I don't doubt that PAVN forces would have been crushed whenever they met properly constituted US conventional forces. I believe, however, they would have extracted a price for that victory, especially outside the Red River Delta & coastal lowlands. Pesonally I wouldn't expect the DRV to waste too many of its best troops trying to hold those areas, but to revert to the strategy of 1946/7 when they retreated to mountainous areas where they could reduce the relative advantage of a modern European-style army.

After the initial invasion America would then have to find some way of securing a nation full of very pissed off people who had 7 years to practice guerilla warfare against the French & a few more fighting in the South. Given that America had managed to rack up 30,000 dead by the start of 1968 (almost all since mid-1965), I don't see why a prediction of losses of that magnitude in a situation of much higher intensity combat against an enemy on home turf with much greater civilian support is out of the question.

I certainly don't think that 20,000 dead within 12 months would be an overly high figure, and then what? You are still trying to justify invading a country that poses you no threat & very definately does not want you there. Given that America was unable to pacify the RVN during that period, despite having a freindly government & support from significant sections of the populace, what possible future could an operation have in dramatically less favourable circumstances in the Nth? Even without the possibility of Chinese intervention it is a scenario guaranteed to scare any politician.

What about Operation LinebackerI and II, the US brought the NV to the bargaining table. As for patrolling NV, you have SVA to do the task. Besides taking NVA territory means that the NVA would be without resources to build another army. CHinese resources were not up to the task.

Moreover, Mao was scared to fight against the US and was willing to cede Vietnam to US to avoid fighting US as CHina was in the midst of the GL and CR throes. Mao was clinging to power and another war with the US with the associated mounting casualties would be enough to remove Mao from power. Chinese intervention was not really an option. Besides, Nixon was making overtures to China during the middle of Vietnam War for an alliance against USSR. Throughout the whole war, US still felt USSR was the biggest threat and continued to send its best troops, weapons, and materials to the Europe theater.

Crossing into the NVA and taking the capital would be enough to tip the war to US. It would reduce the NVA to a guerrilla force, which is something that the SVA was competent to do. SVA wasn't competent to go against a conventional force.

**Shek** · 04-29-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

What about Operation LinebackerI and II, the US brought the NV to the bargaining table.

The North Vietnamese came to bargaining table because we offered them complete withdrawal of US forces and maintaining the status quo, in other words, North Vietnamese forces could remain on South Vietnamese territory. So, they agreed to terms that they themselves had set as preconditions for an agreement. Funny how that worked.

Wiseman · 04-30-2007, 01:38 AM

Looking at my commissioning class, only 1st generation immigrants like me know another language. Whereas, the individuals who were born in the US do not and they don't even bother. Talk about hearts and minds...not much.Sir, as far as further education goes, this is what I hear "Don't worry about grad school, focus on your troop time". To an extent the Army is trying to encourage language with free access to Rosetta Stone. However there are great faults with that program. Frist, it will never help you learn how to write in a Non-Romance language. Just for kicks I looked at what they had for Russian and based on what they teach there, nobody will learn how to write in Cyrillic or even in Serbian which uses both Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. The only way to do it properly is to have them all sent to DLI and have an instructor there work them day and night.

Should we start to have language requirements at the junior officer level instead of waiting until field grade?

Albany Rifles · 04-30-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S-2

"It's because we're still stuck in the rules of a bureaucratic system created back at the turn of the last century under Elihu Root."

Those rules have, on occasion, been suspended in acknowledgement of the nation's needs during times of war. Real war. Not this phooey. Did I say that? Sure, because it's so.

If this military, administration, government, congress, and public REALLY felt and UNDERSTOOD the threat, we'd see the suspension of bueraucratic impediments to the promotion of good men, ideas, and equipment. It comes naturally when the survival instinct kicks in. To date it hasn't- for any of us. Thems the facts.

I have a bit of a dispute over you equipment statement.

As some of you may remember from other boards, I work in the belly of the beast, at an Army program management office. The sepcific project I work on is the Army's property accoutnability system. Because of that I have visibility over the Army acquisition community. It is stunning to see the amount of new equipment which is being put into the hands of troops. Other than World War II I can see no other period in our history where we have rapidly developed and integrated new equipment directly into ground combat units. I would agree that there is some equipment which is taking too long to get to the troops, but for the most part, when the funding is put in place we are getting the gear inot the hands of troops quickly. Look at a mechanized infantry battalion today as compared to March 2003...lots of changes in equipment and structure. It is even more dramatic at the brigade combat team level.

All of that said, the Nation is not at war....DOD is at war.

S-2 · 04-30-2007, 14:36 PM

"...I have visibility over the Army acquisition community. It is stunning to see the amount of new equipment which is being put into the hands of troops."

Thanks alot. Nothing tougher than having to defend a rant. I retract "equipment".

cato · 04-30-2007, 15:11 PM

When reading through this excellent article and thread, I am reminded of just how much dead growth was cleared out by GEN Marshall, and replaced with names from his famous little black book. There hasn't been one general officer relieved, the highest officer relieved (I believe) was a Marine RCT commander during the Nasyria fighting in 2003. Not good.
Cato

Albany Rifles · 04-30-2007, 15:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cato

When reading through this excellent article and thread, I am reminded of just how much dead growth was cleared out by GEN Marshall, and replaced with names from his famous little black book. There hasn't been one general officer relieved, the highest officer relieved (I believe) was a Marine RCT commander during the Nasyria fighting in 2003. Not good.
Cato

I don't think a single National Guard division commander kept his job after mobilization...but i could be wrong. I know they went throught the regimental comamnders with a scythe. Troy Middleton was the only really succesful National Guard officer I am aware of who kept his job and excelled....excelled to the point when he tried to retire in 1944 because of arthritic knes IKE disapproved and said he needed him as a corps commander.

Another point I recalled reading this was the division commanders in WW II all pretty much held the rank of Major General, Army of the United States but in fact almost all were lieutenant colonel or colonel in the Regular Army.

Bigfella · 04-30-2007, 17:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cato

When reading through this excellent article and thread, I am reminded of just how much dead growth was cleared out by GEN Marshall, and replaced with names from his famous little black book. There hasn't been one general officer relieved, the highest officer relieved (I believe) was a Marine RCT commander during the Nasyria fighting in 2003. Not good.
Cato

What would we all give for a person with the ability & powers of Marshall during WW2?

I would humbly suggest that the presence of such a person in the current environment would have led to a VERY different set of outcomes in Iraq.

WECIV · 05-01-2007, 00:52 AM

"Most posers get busted and booted before they even make captain."

Now, Shek, that is just not true. If our leadership was so good we would not be in the cluster**** that we are in now.

W

**Shek** · 05-01-2007, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WECIV

"Most posers get busted and booted before they even make captain."

Now, Shek, that is just not true. If our leadership was so good we would not be in the cluster**** that we are in now.

W

No, it absolutely is true, as I've seen it and had many colleagues who've told me stories as well.

You said that folks have lied, and yet, you haven't produced a single name. I've got no problem with criticism, but I won't let unsubstantiated claims go untouched. Name names. Who's lied, and what were the lies.

**Shek** · 05-01-2007, 04:24 AM

NPR : Article Cites 'General Failure' of War Leaders

Albany Rifles · 05-01-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shek

NPR : Article Cites 'General Failure' of War Leaders

I admire several things about him but he has the guts to also include himself as part of the problem.

Those of you who are familiar with the US Army are aware of the after action review process. For those who are not, let me fill you in. The AAR process is used during all operations to determine how good your plan was, how well you executed it and how you could do it better in the future. Trust me, the communist commissars could learn a thing or two from the Army about how to stand up in front of your peers and subordiantes and lay out all of your shortcomings and failures. While the AAR process is supposed to highlight the positive as well as a the negative (you always have to come up with 3 good things, and 3 bad things) it is an excellent tool for self examination.

This process is used at every echelon from a vehicle crew training in a simulator to the Theater Army staff after Operation COBRA II.

What Yingling has done is conduct a AAR on the command climate of the US Army. I hope my Army wises up and corrects the errors.

Oh, and BTW, the process above is pretty brutal at the tactical level, i.e., platoon leader, battalion staff, company commander level. Posers are found rapidly during this process and either are "mentored" into mending their ways or shown the door. Do a few make it through? Of course, it is not a perfect institution. But it does a pretty good job of weeding out those unfit to command; and, ultimately, that is what being an officer is about.

WECIV · 05-01-2007, 12:50 PM

"Rose tinted glasses, accentuate the positive, etc. there are a few, but not lies."

Where I come from those are lies. You can only have a 3GW force if you have thorough/total honesty. Honesty leads to true transformation...not technology and "rose colored glasses. Said glasses lead to casualties and loss.

W

**Shek** · 05-01-2007, 13:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WECIV

"Rose tinted glasses, accentuate the positive, etc. there are a few, but not lies."

Where I come from those are lies. You can only have a 3GW force if you have thorough/total honesty. Honesty leads to true transformation...not technology and "rose colored glasses. Said glasses lead to casualties and loss.

W

To lie requires that one either knows or believes that the information they present is false, and then presents it with the intent of deceiving. This is a moral issue.

That is different from someone who doesn't understand the counterinsurgency fight and so concentrates on the wrong metrics, and then presents correct stats on the wrong metrics and thereby presents an incorrect picture.

What we've seen in Iraq is the latter and not the former - the rose colored glasses are a factor of competence and not dishonesty. So, either you've got the goods or you don't. Lay it out for examination - name the "liars" and their "lies." I will not let you impugn folks without evidence.

WECIV · 05-02-2007, 21:58 PM

I need not give you examples, you just admitted they do lie. Take a logic class sometime. Situational ethics are not ethical, no matter what tint you paint it.

W

04-30-2007, 01:38 AM	#33 (permalink)
Wiseman *Military Professional* Join Date: 12-10-06 Posts: 14 Country:	Looking at my commissioning class, only 1st generation immigrants like me know another language. Whereas, the individuals who were born in the US do not and they don't even bother. Talk about hearts and minds...not much.Sir, as far as further education goes, this is what I hear "Don't worry about grad school, focus on your troop time". To an extent the Army is trying to encourage language with free access to Rosetta Stone. However there are great faults with that program. Frist, it will never help you learn how to write in a Non-Romance language. Just for kicks I looked at what they had for Russian and based on what they teach there, nobody will learn how to write in Cyrillic or even in Serbian which uses both Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. The only way to do it properly is to have them all sent to DLI and have an instructor there work them day and night. Should we start to have language requirements at the junior officer level instead of waiting until field grade? Last edited by Wiseman : 04-30-2007 at 02:02 AM.

04-30-2007, 14:36 PM	#35 (permalink)
S-2 *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-11-06 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 2,304 Country:	A.R. Reply "...I have visibility over the Army acquisition community. It is stunning to see the amount of new equipment which is being put into the hands of troops." Thanks alot. Nothing tougher than having to defend a rant. I retract "equipment". __________________ "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq	lulldapull	The War in Iraq	35	05-20-2008 03:48 AM
Our failure in Afghanistan	Ray	Operation Enduring Freedom	1	03-06-2007 06:32 AM
Agni-III test launch was a failure!	Asim Aquil	South Asian Defense Topics	162	07-17-2006 13:48 PM
Analysts call Raptor a failure	Gun Grape	Military Aviation	133	05-15-2006 15:25 PM
Failure Isn't An Option	Shek	The War in Iraq	94	07-07-2005 01:04 AM

04-30-2007, 15:11 PM	#36 (permalink)
cato Regular Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 129	When reading through this excellent article and thread, I am reminded of just how much dead growth was cleared out by GEN Marshall, and replaced with names from his famous little black book. There hasn't been one general officer relieved, the highest officer relieved (I believe) was a Marine RCT commander during the Nasyria fighting in 2003. Not good. Cato

05-01-2007, 00:52 AM	#39 (permalink)
WECIV Regular Join Date: 11-13-06 Posts: 88 Country:	"Most posers get busted and booted before they even make captain." Now, Shek, that is just not true. If our leadership was so good we would not be in the cluster**** that we are in now. W

05-01-2007, 04:24 AM	#41 (permalink)
Shek *Military Professional* Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,780 Country:	NPR : Article Cites 'General Failure' of War Leaders

05-01-2007, 12:50 PM	#43 (permalink)
WECIV Regular Join Date: 11-13-06 Posts: 88 Country:	"Rose tinted glasses, accentuate the positive, etc. there are a few, but not lies." Where I come from those are lies. You can only have a 3GW force if you have thorough/total honesty. Honesty leads to true transformation...not technology and "rose colored glasses. Said glasses lead to casualties and loss. W

05-02-2007, 21:58 PM	#45 (permalink)
WECIV Regular Join Date: 11-13-06 Posts: 88 Country:	I need not give you examples, you just admitted they do lie. Take a logic class sometime. Situational ethics are not ethical, no matter what tint you paint it. W

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)