Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: schloss@marlin.nosc.mil (Tom Schlosser) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Low tech warfare Message-ID: <12509@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 21 Dec 89 04:34:05 GMT References: <12457@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Lines: 60 Approved: military@att.att.com From: schloss@marlin.nosc.mil (Tom Schlosser) > However I have realised that this discussion has started to >digress from what my original posting was about. That was a question as to >whether the US military had learnt any lessons from Vietnam (like the need >for joint political-military action)? And if so what where they and were >they applying them in other places like El Salvador? From my reading and >viewing of the nightly TV news the answer was no. However I could be >wrong. Is anyone willing tell me so? Let me first say that although I work for the Navy, I'm no expert on these matters. Having issued that caveat, I'll take the bait. I think the US learned *alot* from Vietnam. I think this whole discussion is in the wrong orbit entirely. The war wasn't won or lost in Vietnam, it was lost the day Johnson took office. With him in office, the goal of our involvement in Vietnam seemed to be 1) don't lose and 2) don't get hurt. There wasn't the Al Davis attitude we needed (Just win, baby.). The war was extraordinarily minor as wars go, but the politics of it were huge. That's where I think we learned. We haven't sent in troops to help El Salvador, and that's a good thing for two reasons. The first is that we really don't care what happens to these little pipsqueak countries. Certainly not enough to go and get killed for it. We'll supply them with weapons and train them, but it's up to them to do the dirty work. The second lesson was that as long as American troops aren't being killed, the government can really support whomever it chooses. Certainly the Kennedy wing of the Democratic party will have conniptions over the moral aspects of what we're doing, but they always do that no matter who we support. The American people just want to be left alone to earn their money and pursue their hobbies. Just look at the results of this latest rebel offensive. They shot up alot of expensive ammunition, took some casualties and now have to go off and try to regroup. The government forces get resupplied by the US and have their casualties tended in better hospitals. There were a few protests in the US, but certainly nothing politically significant. The Super Bowl is coming up and Nortre Dame finally lost a game, so who cares what happened in (where was that place, honey? Hondurica? El Nicador? Pass the peas.) El Salvador. As a final note, I read recently that it takes about 20 (40?) acres of arable land in El Salvador to make a go of a family-owned farm. There is only 1/4 as much arable land in the country as they would need to successfully carry out a land-grant-based reform package. Their problem is too many people and too few resources. A 'reform' solution will be hard to come by. By the way, how come there has been no mention of the bombing of Hanoi? Seems like the NVA came to the negotiating table pretty quick after their capitol started getting hit. Maybe that was the problem. If I were president, I think I would have told the North Vietnamese that the VC were *their* problem and if they wanted to have two bricks sticking together in their cities, they'd best keep the VC on a short leash. TWS ---------------------------------------------------------- You realize, of course, that this means war. -- Daffy Duck Tom Schlosser schloss@nosc.mil