Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Mr_Jefferson_24

(8,559 posts)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:27 PM Jan 2016

Emancipating the Military, Containing the Citizenry

By Fred Reed

....In Vietnam, something new happened. The press covered the war freely. Reporters went where they pleased, beyond the control of the military. Their publications ran the results. National magazines printed horrific photographs of what was really happening.

Truth tells. The coverage was one of the two factors that forced Washington to quit the war. The other was the passionate unwillingness of young men to be forced to fight a war in which they had no interest. The war, a source of meaning for Washington’s thunderous hawks and fern-bar Napoleons, was getting them killed.

The military of Vietnam wasn’t very good at fighting, and neither is the military of today. GIs in Asia would assault a hill, usually of no importance, and, after three days, with the aid of helicopters, helo gunships, napalm, artillery, and fighter-bombers, would capture it. This would be called a triumph. The astute observed that if the Americans had to fight on equal terms, without overwhelming material superiority, they would last perhaps ten minutes. This is now a recognized pattern. Note that numerically superior and hugely armed American forces have been outfought for years by lightly armed Afghan goat herds. Since neither the wars nor the soldiers in them are of much importance, this doesn’t matter.

The Pentagon learned a lot from Vietnam: It learned that its greatest enemies are the press and the American public. The burning question became how to keep the goddam public from interfering in wars which were none of its business and, particularly in the award of large contracts....


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44030.htm


10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

DustyJoe

(849 posts)
1. Dear Fred Reed
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:49 PM
Jan 2016

For myself and on behalf of all the combat vets of the Vietnam war and the wars referenced in reeds drivel.
Your statement of

The military of Vietnam wasn’t very good at fighting

deserves a fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

GIs in Asia would assault a hill, usually of no importance

Correction you asshat, GIs would be ORDERED into an assault.

Hey reed, Join the military and serve with an actual combat infantry unit
and get back to us.


That is all



daybranch

(1,309 posts)
2. Not good at fighting?
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 06:08 AM
Jan 2016

It was well known to the Vi et Cong who we decimated in 1968 that they had to always fight with great numerical superiority to win, It was also said by the NVA that they would fight an American soldier when their numbers were five to one or more. As a machine gunner in Vietnam and a member of battalion recon, a small unit, I readily dispute what you say. The macho bravado my unit showed led us to great numbers of actual engagements and a larger body count, which we had to prove, than the rest of the battalion. If you would really like to know something about our fighting ability rather than deriding us without real knowledge, the most accurate book I know of is Charlie 3rd of the 22nd:Absolution, Pretty much the real story. The civilian press in Vietnam traveled a great deal to where they wanted but they usually manged to avoid any actual fighting actions and pretty much covered things after they were over or from positions of relative safety. You who were never there impugn our bravery so often but Vietnam for the grunt required individual bravery and often sacrifice above that of WWI, WWII , and more recent conflicts. I learned this from discussion and statement by WWII vets and those of middle eastern conflicts. Our heroes were not flash in the pan one time heroes,but rather persevered over and over in conditions more bleak and more frightening than what is occurring now.
One thing you should know, at 4 years old, when my little boy was asked if Vietnam was a big war or a little war, by a 30 year old man who had never been in the combat, said "Any war you are in is a big war". If you want to know how well we fight, how brave we are, take a shot at it. When you have PTSD, TMI, or other mental or physical ailments, you will know more of what you speak. Do not ever tell me, we were not very good fighters. It is hard enough for veterans to admit we were in a war as pawns of the rich , but justifying their decisions and eventual failure by saying we were not good fighters is wrong on too many levels. Go Bernie!

marble falls

(57,089 posts)
3. I think the point is good. Too bad it was made by slandering Viet vets ...
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:09 AM
Jan 2016

who did everything they were asked to do in the field over and over with distinction. The grunts didn't lose the war. The politicians did and the public turned on their duplicitous leaders and wanted the war over and us back home.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
5. what would "winning" have looked like? And how would Vietnam be more our bitch
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:44 AM
Jan 2016

than the country is today?

Don't they make our Nikes for ten cents a day or something like that?

Did we want them to do it for five?

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
7. Did you see the documentary SIR, NO SIR?
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:00 PM
Jan 2016

Some troops disobeyed immoral or suicidal orders and it is no slander to say they did so.

Those who disobeyed orders at My Lai and the thousands of others less well known massacres were the true heroes.

daybranch

(1,309 posts)
9. You do us a great disservice by saying we were not good at fighting.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 10:43 PM
Jan 2016

We fought as most soldiers do to protect our buddies in arms and the heroism displayed in Vietnam certainly matched that of previous and subsequent wars. I know after Vietnam and the realization by the rich that it was not profitable as they hoped, there were many articles neglecting their role in the war and their subsequent change of mind, but they needed a scapegoat and and why not blame the lowly soldier for failure.
General Westmoreland was particularly good at this as he continually deployed the sky soldiers in the Iron Triangle against great odds and then later on telling the world the war was just unwinnable. Even saying he was afraid to send troops there, when he in fact knew that I and many others did go there and fight very successfully if you match their numbers killed to those we killed.
Probably the most feared place in South Vietnam was the Black Virgin Mountain, the capital of the NVA government in South Vietnam. I led members of the Phoenix group up that mountain and we killed many communists without losing any of our own. Other times on that mountain, we fought and captured NVA. In fact one of my unit, found himself under attack by 3 NVA as he shaved alone by a mountain stream . In response he used his washing plastic tub to beat them into submission and bring them in as prisoners.
In short you should shut up . We were young and ignorant and like so many soldiers from the revolutionary war on we have been abused and insulted because it is necessary to hide the actions of the rich by scapegoating the soldier. You should be quiet until you know of what you speak.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
4. "fern-bar Napoleons"--is there any better descriptions of neocons like
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:42 AM
Jan 2016

Richard Perle, Doug Feith, and the like?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Emancipating the Military...