Rick,
et al,
Remembering, that this is just my perspective.
Not to nitpick, but I wouldn't call Khe Sahn a victory.
While the battles over Khe Sahn were not perfect, at the end of the day, we prevailed (even if it required a Herculian effort). It was (IMO) a decisive victory; but costly. Probably much more expensive than we would have ever wanted to pay; had we known how it would ultimately play-out.
It's very revealing that you speak of "engagements". TACTICALLY, the prosecution of the war was generally excellent. STRATEGICALLY, it was a bust.
I can't argue with you on this. I think our assessments are close. I don't think our national security decision making processes (NSDMP) are any better today then they were back then.
I am very sympathetic to this view.
To quote only TACTICAL successes, while ignoring the civilian-engineered STRATEGIC failures, and thereby conclude that the war was inherently unwinnable miltarily is unsupportable.
In part, we agree here as well.
However, our difference rests within the fact (IMO) that a "war" (if that is even a good name anymore) becomes unwinable if the civilian leadership and NSDMP ultimately undermine the gains made through military successes and advantages.
Whether we talk about Vietnam or Iraq, the BLUF is that military accomplishments do not always lead to "victory" (if that is even a proper concept).
In Iraq, the original leadership defined the outcomes for the "Victory" Model.
The original version of the
National Strategy for Victory in Iraqmay be found at the following DOD site:
http://www.dod.gov/pubs/iraq_national_strategy_20051130[1].pdf
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
- Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
- Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
- Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
We could write an entire volume set on this subject. At the end-of-the-day, the outcomes determine where we are - and - how we got here; at any particular moment in time:
Short term: "Making progress" is a performance measure. There is a world of difference in making progress by inches, or making progress in light-years.
- Fighting terrorist: Yes, Iraq is fighting terrorism; every day:
- Meeting Political Milestones:
- Prime Minister (PM) Nouri al-Maliki is still PM after Iran, through the cooperation the anti-American Cleric Moqtadar al-Sadr and after al-Sadr embraced him. He lost the election (technically); but refused to surrender power.
Originally Posted by NYT 6 February 2011 said:
Iraq’s Last Patriot:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/ma...6ALLAWI-t.html
When the results were finally tallied, Allawi’s list won 91 seats, the most in Parliament. Maliki came in a close second, with 89 seats. Frustrated and angry, Maliki set about trying to reduce Allawi’s edge. “No way we will accept the results,” he vowed. He demanded a recount. He called some of the winners on Allawi’s list “terrorists held in Iraqi prisons.” Over the next two months, with his consent, a government body of dubious legality looked for candidates — disproportionately, those on Allawi’s list — to disqualify on the basis of their supposed ties to the Baath Party.
- This is an implanted timebomb. All that is required is for a anti-American Cleric, under the influence of Iran (of Axil of Evil fame) to gain power. And that is an undeniable possibility; as al-Sadr moves through the chairs in government.
Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution: said:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of
legislation:
- A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam
- B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.
- C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms
- stipulated in this Constitution.
- Building Democratic Institutions: This is a "feel good" objective. The DPRK [Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (AKA; North Korea)] has such institutions and matching names; but doesn't meet the intent. So it is, that Iraq has institutions that have "democratic" sounding names, but questionable accomplishments.
- Standing Up Security Forces: I think I will let others chime in here:
We can see, daily, how effective our training has been. It is not just about fighting insurgents and terrorists, border control and protective services, but it is also about how the ISF interacts with the people of the nation, and how the nation (using the ISF) interacts with the people. We've seen that most recently.
CSM February 4 said:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0204/Pentagon-fears-Iraq-is-becoming-forgotten-war
Iraq is showing "both a resurgence of Al Qaeda and the empowering of problematic regional players,” said Ambassador Jeffrey.
Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of US Forces in Iraq, likewise warned that “Sunni extremist groups like Al Qaeda will continue to target the government of Iraq, the Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians in order to garner media attention, and to attempt to demonstrate that the government cannot provide security for the Iraqi people.” What’s more, the city of Kirkuk in the oil-rich north is still in dispute between southern Arabs and the northern Kurds.
For these reasons, Austin said, “the threats to Iraq’s stability will remain in 2011.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said:
McCain Questions Stability Of Iraq After Troop Withdrawal - News - Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media
“I have real concerns about whether the proposed civilian-led mission that will take the lead once our troops are gone is sufficient to support Iraqi needs of U.S. interest,” said McCain.
I don't want to be too long-winded here, and have truncated a number of concepts. But the very last short point is this:
Our nations ability to handle conflicts is entwined in the political as well as the diplomatic and military realms. It was simpler, a half century ago, for America to speak with one voice, one nation, a single country to express its national will and determination. "Victory" and "Winning" are now intergally tired to the expression of "national will and determination." Break the country's will to fight, and the "war" is lost. Break the country's confidence in the honesty, integrity, truthfulness in it's leadership --- and it can be lost.
To the point of military capabilities and the compromise. Yes you are correct and
I agree --- this happens in every war. Except, we generally don't fight back to back wars, and America had (only in the past) been characterized or marked by resilience to build ever stronger and better forces than that - that came before it. But the conditions America faces today, its lack of command industrially, economically and commercially, added to the fact that we continue in Afghanistan --- creates a barrier to reconstitute the Combat Arms of this nation. While we've always faced similar problems in the past, we've never faced such a complex problem than we face today.
(Just a thought to where I'm coming from.)
Most Respectfully,
R
