Rummie resign? Only in a terrorist fantasy.....
For the long Easter weekend here in Italy (soon to be France's lapdog), we went over to the other side of the country to Puglia to see the daughter. When I came back, I read that some "disgruntled" former generals were calling for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. Like the President and the former Joint Chief of Staff, I feel that I should add my voice to his defense. However, not having worked with him personnally, I will let the facts do the talking.
If we are going to consider whether or not Secretary Rumsfeld should resign or not, let's first compare him to other defense secretaries for the last 50 years. 50 years ago, who was the defense secretary? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? For the EmptyTV generation, it was John McNamara. Who was John McNamara? Go ask anyone who remembers the Vietnam War and how badly President Johnson and John McNamara micro-managed the war. Instead of issuing a broad strategy for winning the war to the military and let the professionals take care of the problem, we went to Vietnam without the foggiest idea of how to win (sound familiar?). The US military was hamstrung by rules of engagement, designed not to win the war, but to avoid pissing off the Russians and the Chinese Communists. If you wanted to look up the word "Inept" in the dictionary, you would see the face of John McNamara (along with Jimmah Cartah's). Words by themselves do not convey the incompetence of John McNamara.
Fast forward to today. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld are the direct opposite of those two buffoons from 1966. They issue the broad strategy (if the liberals would pull their heads out, they would see it) and then let the military, the experts, do their job. If Johnson and McNamara had done in Vietnam what President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have done, the Vietnam war would not have lasted until the fall of Saigon in 1975. It would have been over in two to three years due to the fact that the US could have unleashed it's massive bomber force on North Vietnam in 1966 when the North Vietnamese air defenses were much weaker instead of waiting until 1972. How many men died due to Johnson's/McNamara's idiocracy? Their names are ingraved on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington D.C.
So, before calling on Rumsfeld to resign, these generals should get their facts straight or at least remember what life was like during the Vietnam War since they are all old enough to remember what a fiasco the Vietnam War was, thanks to a Democratic president and his incompetent defense secretary.
posted by The Great El-ahrairah @ 05:25
3 comments
3 Comments:
First of all; I need to correct both your math and record. The Secretary of Defense 50 years ago (in 1956) was Charles E. Wilson. 40 years ago, in 1966, the Secretary of Defense was ROBERT McNamara. Secondly, you have oversimplified the whole issue of the Vietnam War to a few overused talking points. I could just as easily point you to any number of military leaders who thought that Vietnam was a mistake to begin with as well. But I don't believe in trading talking points. Suffice it to say, your analysis of both Secretary McNamara and LBJ is ridiculous. My feeling from my studies of Vietnam, LBJ, and McNamara (including but not limited to "The Fog of War") shows that many people made many mistakes and bad judgments. However, the main reason we lost the war is not because of American incompetence, though that didn't help, but because the NVA/VC beat us. We were overcome by a superior enemy on his own terrain who fought well and achieving political as well as military victory, winning hearts, minds, and lands. The fallacy of air supremacy wins insurgent wars is showing its ugly face in Iraq again. I do not discount the need to use air power, but it cannot be counted on to defeat entrenched insurgencies.
"the NVA/VC beat us"?
Son, you need to learn alot of history. There was not a single battalion-level or larger engagement in the Viet Nam war that was lost by US troops. Not one. Even the NVA later admitted they got clobbered during the 1968 Tet offensive.
Furthermore, when our military forces left in 1973, South Viet Nam was a stable, albeit imperfect, democracy with a strong military that controlled virtually all their territory.
However, the Democrat-controlled Congress, taking advantage of Richard Nixon's resignation, cut off all military aid to the ARVN in August of 1974. President Ford later made the situation worse by publicly stating that the US would not come to the aid of South Viet Nam.
Given those two factors, it's not surprising that when the NVA launched it's final offensive in early 1975, the ARVN was unable to hold them off (without spare parts, ammo, and supplies, it's kind of hard to fight a war). When the NVA tanks rumbled into Saigon, the only US troops in the country were those evacuating the US embassy.
Had there been US combat troops there, the NVA wouldn't have even gotten close. And that's not speculation, either. Based on their record from 1965-1972, the US Army had no problem beating the VC and NVA.
We didn't "lose" in Viet Nam. We gave it away.
Thanks for correcting my math, but you need to really get a clue. To say that Johnson and McNamara did anything other than prolong the US involvement in Vietnam is ridiculous. LBJ and McNamara were just another pair of liberals who thought that they knew much better how to fight a war than the generals. If the US had employed it's airpower in 1966 against North Vietnam like it did in 1972, the war would have been over very, very quickly. Insurgents can't fight when there is no one giving them any kind of support.
Cap'n Holly pointed out that there was never a battalion-level or larger engagement in Vietnam that ws lost by US troops. Why? Because of US airpower. US airpower has changed the way the war in Iraq is fought. If you don't believe me, ask the terrorits who fear to even go outside of buildings, etc., because they know that Hellfire-armed UAVs could be overhead just waiting for them to show their faces. We may probably never really know how many terrorists have gone to meet Allah after having a close encounter of the Hellfire kind.
So, instead of reading all the left-wing dribble about Vietnam that has no basis in fact, why don't you really use that brain of yours and actually learn about the Vietnam War. Or would that cause you to question your liberal ideology? We can't have that can we? A liberal who actually seeks out the truth?
Post a Comment
<< Home