Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:39:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:32:45 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:37:47 -0800, Charles Hamblin wrote: December 30, 2011|By Tony Perry | Los Angeles Times Reading Lewis Sorley's scalding biography of Army Gen. William Westmoreland, "Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam," is like watching a slow-motion replay of an oncoming train wreck. The result of this collision is known: failure of the U.S. military mission, 58,000-plus dead Americans, the U.S. divided and at political war with itself, a once-proud military left tarnished, exhausted and in disrepute. Sorley, a West Point graduate and retired Army lieutenant colonel, is unsparing in his analysis of Westmoreland, the top U.S. general in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968 and then Army chief of staff in the latter years of the war. In Sorley's view, the general whose rock-like jaw and prominent eyebrows made him look like a Hollywood casting agent's dream of a military leader was arrogant, duplicitous, vain and not altogether smart. When he arrived in Saigon, there were 16,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam; when he left there were 535,000. In between, Westmoreland delivered a litany of speeches and statements asserting that the war against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong was being won. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec...orley-20111230 The war, of course, was not being won, was never being won, and most likely never could have been won, but contrary to the view still offered today by apologists for the war, it was not lost due to feckless American politicians or an insufficiently committed public - it was lost because of utter incompetence and arrogance at the top. I especially liked this in the review: When Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the coalition forces in the Gulf War of 1991, in his book "It Doesn't Take a Hero," wrote that the Army had lost its integrity because of inflated counts of enemy bodies in Vietnam, Westmoreland was furious and tried to pressure Schwarzkopf into changing the text. "Nothing came of those efforts and the criticism stood." Westmoreland was lying about the body counts, everyone knew he had lied about them, yet more than 30 years later, he didn't want anyone pointing out the obvious. Of course, either the reviewer or Sorley still makes one big error: For readers of modern military history, Sorley's take on Vietnam precedes his work: Westmoreland's dogged determination to stick with a "search and destroy" policy was disastrous; his successor, Gen. Creighton Abrams, was more successful in building the South Vietnamese forces, but the U.S. lost the war because Washington failed to follow through on promises to support the government in Saigon once U.S. troops left. The regime in the south never had a shred of legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Vietnamese, plus their army was worthless - they wouldn't fight. We lost the war because whether we were fighting it, or our proxies were, it was unwinnable. It was not ever a war against communism - it was in the eyes of the Vietnamese, a war against imperialism. One of the biggest problems wiwth the Vietnam debacle was the micro-managing by Johnson and some of the legislators, who knew considerably less about military affairs than those actually doing the fighting. As a crew member on Puff the Magic Dragon (AC-47 for those who know), it was always a source of frustration to us to be told that we couldn't shoot here or there because there were "too many friendlies" in the area, or that we had to stand down to honor some Vietnamese holiday or other. Of course that didn't stop THEM from shooting at us. Politics played a very large part in that mess. Westmorland was just a part of the problem. If the damned politicians, from both parties, would stay out of military operations and let the military loose to take care of business instead of having to "win the hearts and minds" of the enemy, we wouldn't have such messes. Jim The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. A point well taken, Ed. However, once they did send us there, they should have gotten the hell out of the way and let us do our jobs. Jim |
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On 2/4/2012 9:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. And then getting in the way... But I have no problem with your thesis. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
lost webpage - using weedwhacker string for "thread locking" - ie nylock | Metalworking | |||
I am looking for a local source for "Rockwool" / "Mineral Wool" /"Safe & Sound" / "AFB" | Home Repair |