It appears “we” cannot do even “one-thing-at-once” effectively at this time. How the situation resolves will look different in the rear view mirror if it manages not crack in the meantime.
The Russkies do do a good military parade, and I'm certain they took less of a morale hit, than my Army at their loss. Both Milley and McKenzie should have tendered their resignations. Some combination of feckless leadership, incompetence, and lies should consign them to the dustbin of history. Alas
nit, I would write it as:
Saigon fell on April 30, 1975, after the US Congress refused to honor our promises (direct as well as covered in the Accord) to fund replacement weapons for the South Vietnamese.
You are so right. “It was the duty and responsibility of his military advisors to warn him of the likely consequences of his actions, to recommend alternatives, and, as Napoleon put it, to tender their resignations rather than be the instrument of their army’s downfall.” Harry Summers, “On Strategy”, about the Viet Nam war. Lesson not learned.
We haven't been serious about actually WINNING a war since the 1940s. Everything since then has been about containment and/or placating "allies" at the time. We don't have the political gumption to prosecute all out war anymore, and it shows in how we've turned our military forces and foreign affairs people into unpopular and misguided propaganda departments. And it doesn't help that we keep abandoning our allies and our own people behind the lines, ever more visibly. If given a vision that most everyone can support, I think we could turn our production line situation around in short order. Unfortunately we don't have the political leadership for that. And our military leadership, while always political in nature, seems to have become more so the last few decades.
Worthwhile on this and many other pertinent matter see Gershaneck "Political Warfare : Strategies for Combating China’s Plan to "Win Without Fighting"", Marine Corps University Press, 2020 https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Political%20Warfare_web.pdf
Well put. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan were self inflicted disasters because of domestic politics. Not actual analysis of foreign affairs, nor diplomatic necessity , not even because of national self interest. Domestic politics. A truly professional military officer would have resigned as you so well put it. I am not sure that what I am seeing of changes to the culture at West Point and Annapolis is going to produce military leaders who might do just that. Of course that may be the idea.
I am not all that certain about Russia’s lack of industrial capacity or wealth especially when they have the support of China, NK, Iran and some of the former Soviet republics.
I also suspect our support of Ukraine has been far greater than Pentagon accounting would admit. Let’s rebuild the Key Bridge before we send Ukraine another cent.
I would wonder why people are not committing seppuku over this, but seppuku restores the honor you have lost, and you cannot restore what you never possessed.
The idea that Russian combat power is on the decline in meaningful terms is a conclusion, CDR Sal, that isn't in evidence. Is it less than D-0? Yes. Does that fact mean that Russia is meaningfully less committed to some form of war termination on terms generally favorable to it? I don't think so. Also, Ukrainian meta-military factors are not uniformly positive, either.
The problem is that while your strategic summation is generally correct, its also somewhat inadequate.
Of course no Western nation benefits from a Russian "victory," but the closest thing we have to a formulation of Ukrainian victory is the return of Ukraine to 1954 Soviet Presidium defined boundaries, that frankly likely isn't going to happen, either. The best chances for that were burned up in the Spring Offensive. Western resources aren't infinite, and rebuilding them are time lines that aren't strategically advantageous.
So, at some point we need to come up with what reasonable Ukrainian victory conditions look like. That needs to be generated from real ends-ways-means analysis, and not some magic appeal to international law, customary or otherwise. Lots of the pro-Ukrainian analysis seems at some point to circle back to the innate morality of the Ukrainian cause. At this point, that's overcome by events. This is now a firepower contest, as dictated by the ability of both the contestants to man-train-equip forces in the field, and potentially deliver some decisive blow to the opponent. I don't see that occurring in the near future with the facts as they are.
It appears “we” cannot do even “one-thing-at-once” effectively at this time. How the situation resolves will look different in the rear view mirror if it manages not crack in the meantime.
Moving and well said - thank you!
Now do Van Herck and Guillot, both of whom allowed their battlespace to be overrun.
The Russkies do do a good military parade, and I'm certain they took less of a morale hit, than my Army at their loss. Both Milley and McKenzie should have tendered their resignations. Some combination of feckless leadership, incompetence, and lies should consign them to the dustbin of history. Alas
nit, I would write it as:
Saigon fell on April 30, 1975, after the US Congress refused to honor our promises (direct as well as covered in the Accord) to fund replacement weapons for the South Vietnamese.
"....what have we done in the Pacific to effectively counter PRC courting of those nations they are not directly threatening?..."
uhmmm........crickets.....
Amen.
You are so right. “It was the duty and responsibility of his military advisors to warn him of the likely consequences of his actions, to recommend alternatives, and, as Napoleon put it, to tender their resignations rather than be the instrument of their army’s downfall.” Harry Summers, “On Strategy”, about the Viet Nam war. Lesson not learned.
We haven't been serious about actually WINNING a war since the 1940s. Everything since then has been about containment and/or placating "allies" at the time. We don't have the political gumption to prosecute all out war anymore, and it shows in how we've turned our military forces and foreign affairs people into unpopular and misguided propaganda departments. And it doesn't help that we keep abandoning our allies and our own people behind the lines, ever more visibly. If given a vision that most everyone can support, I think we could turn our production line situation around in short order. Unfortunately we don't have the political leadership for that. And our military leadership, while always political in nature, seems to have become more so the last few decades.
IYH Thank you Commander, as usual for your efforts.
One small comment on that poll and Thailand: IMHO shows it's indisputable that the CCP political warfare apparatus is the best in the world.
One has to study in depth this mo (alas US capabilities have purposely been allowed to atrophy): the 1930-2020 CCP push across many fronts using direct, indirect carrots & sticks which turned Thailand from the most pro-US state in SE Asia to PRC vassal https://web.archive.org/web/20210706145848/https://twitter.com/daniel_bilar/status/1412425665404604419
Worthwhile on this and many other pertinent matter see Gershaneck "Political Warfare : Strategies for Combating China’s Plan to "Win Without Fighting"", Marine Corps University Press, 2020 https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/Political%20Warfare_web.pdf
Well put. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan were self inflicted disasters because of domestic politics. Not actual analysis of foreign affairs, nor diplomatic necessity , not even because of national self interest. Domestic politics. A truly professional military officer would have resigned as you so well put it. I am not sure that what I am seeing of changes to the culture at West Point and Annapolis is going to produce military leaders who might do just that. Of course that may be the idea.
I am not all that certain about Russia’s lack of industrial capacity or wealth especially when they have the support of China, NK, Iran and some of the former Soviet republics.
I also suspect our support of Ukraine has been far greater than Pentagon accounting would admit. Let’s rebuild the Key Bridge before we send Ukraine another cent.
The last US ground combat unit, 3/21 Infantry, left Vietnam 11 Aug 72, not in 1973. They had been guarding the US airbase at Da Nang. See —
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/last-u-s-ground-combat-unit-departs-south-vietnam
No American Army or Marine units were operating in the field in Vietnam in 1973.
I would wonder why people are not committing seppuku over this, but seppuku restores the honor you have lost, and you cannot restore what you never possessed.
The idea that Russian combat power is on the decline in meaningful terms is a conclusion, CDR Sal, that isn't in evidence. Is it less than D-0? Yes. Does that fact mean that Russia is meaningfully less committed to some form of war termination on terms generally favorable to it? I don't think so. Also, Ukrainian meta-military factors are not uniformly positive, either.
The problem is that while your strategic summation is generally correct, its also somewhat inadequate.
Of course no Western nation benefits from a Russian "victory," but the closest thing we have to a formulation of Ukrainian victory is the return of Ukraine to 1954 Soviet Presidium defined boundaries, that frankly likely isn't going to happen, either. The best chances for that were burned up in the Spring Offensive. Western resources aren't infinite, and rebuilding them are time lines that aren't strategically advantageous.
So, at some point we need to come up with what reasonable Ukrainian victory conditions look like. That needs to be generated from real ends-ways-means analysis, and not some magic appeal to international law, customary or otherwise. Lots of the pro-Ukrainian analysis seems at some point to circle back to the innate morality of the Ukrainian cause. At this point, that's overcome by events. This is now a firepower contest, as dictated by the ability of both the contestants to man-train-equip forces in the field, and potentially deliver some decisive blow to the opponent. I don't see that occurring in the near future with the facts as they are.
What is our record in that area? Since WWII, only Korea stands as a testament to our resolve. Everything else, not so much.
Stop this goofy, strange (dare I say 'queer' using the original definition...) foray into a faux morality... Today.
https://www.state.gov/lgbtqi-human-rights/
https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2024-03/240322-us-embassy-pride-flag-beg-1059a-ef2502.jpg
Its wreaking havoc in the Muslim sphere from Africa to Asia.
And everywhere else, mars our Foreign Policy as profoundly unserious and capricious.