America’s Wars and Failures
George Friedman
Founder and Chairman at Geopolitical Futures, Senior Advisor at Gallup
Sixty years ago, in 1962, the United States made the decision to go to war in Vietnam, deploying major ground and air forces to the battle for the first time. This was a fraction of the men and aircraft that would serve there over the years to come. It was a line that the Kennedy administration realized it was crossing. It saw U.S. involvement as a minor, even experimental, move. But when a nation sends its soldiers to war, a logic takes hold. As men die, the nation assumes it is for a vital interest. Leaders cannot declare the experiment a failure because they cannot admit they experimented with the lives of soldiers. A death requires a worthy reason, and establishing that the death was not in vain is incompatible with “cutting and running,” in Lyndon B. Johnson’s words. Intervention is difficult. Withdrawal under fire is agony.
To understand American strategy between 1962 and now, we have to understand what John F. Kennedy was seeing and thinking when he made the first major commitment. Kennedy was crafted by World War II, and the senior military men were as well. In World War II, America understood its enemy. Germany was ruled by Hitler, and Hitler and his subordinates were clever, ruthless and like us in that they fought a war of engines and industry. We understood that Hitler was an unprincipled tyrant. Japan was an empire ruled by a brutal government and, as we saw in China, merciless fighters. We also knew that like the Germans and Americans, they were fighting an industrial war. We knew the enemy, we never underestimated its strength, and we timed our war to coincide with industrial production. We knew the value of allies, the uses of aircraft carriers and tanks, and how to train men for war. We mastered this and more. And we would fight to the end, no quarter asked nor given.
The United States outstripped North Vietnam and the Viet Cong in every measure that won World War II. We did not realize that we didn’t understand our enemy. They were not industrial, nor were they divided between communists and a range of factions. Clearly the non-communists in the south hated the tyranny of the north. The anti-communist population had to be mobilized and armed with the best equipment, and the U.S. flag, along with the Vietnamese, would fly over Hanoi. Crowds in the south would line the roads welcoming the Americans even if the United States didn’t take Hanoi. The purpose of intelligence is to predict what others will do, and just as the CIA failed to understand the consequence of the Bay of Pigs, it didn’t understand Vietnam. It, too, was stuck in World War II.
领英推荐
Worldwide trainer of multinational corporation managers and teacher of youth
2 年This is all very nice analysis after the fact. But I remember Robert McNamara's Fog of War series where he said it is important to have empathy of the opponent's position. However, American key interests have nevertheless won every war- the weapons industry. More bombs dropped on Vietnam than during World War II. And big steel won, too and big finance to finance the war. They did it in Afghanistan,and maybe to do it in Ukraine. Putin is being used as their number one salesman so to speak. And the generals for buying all these weapons got nice jobs in the Raytheons Eisenhower and Trump both knew what they were talking about the military industrial complex. Geopolitics and such as democracy or Orthodox value or communism promotion are the side shows or at least secondary now to big business with the nation-state and its general citizenry cannon fodder to this end. Certain interests just want long wars. Who wins, who loses or whether a stalemate are largely immaterial. And in the aftermath, a number of the war business supporters are needed even by "former enemies" in rebuilding. Look at Vietnam and even post Cold War Russia. Capeesh buy Raytheon and retire early? Sad?? as they have an ever ending future like endless wars.
Historian, Game and Model Designer, Retired Librarian
2 年Contrary to "geopolitical" neocons ... and Nazis ... wars are NOT necessary, and should not be *allowed* to happen ... or to be promoted. 5 October 1946 Economist, from Nuremberg: Starting a war is the worst war crime of all, because it begets all the others which follow ... as we have seen in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and after our Budapest peace agreement breaking 2014 Kiev coup. More, later.
Solutions Consultant (M.Sc.)- Architecture, Planning & Communications
2 年War should only be used as a last resort when all other options, including complete cut off of relations, fail. When any country talks of aggressive moves against another, talk of taking down another, it raises questions about the aggressor and might have the opposite effect of making the aggressor look weaker in comparison. Besides, there are too many criteria to fulfill to wage war, including a steady supply chain of weapons rolling off manufacturing and assembly lines as well as soldiers who are unified in high morale. This usually happens when one is defending ones country and fighting off invaders. So the defense side has stronger esprit de corps than the offense side. Strength comes from within, and the strongest do not fear rivals or competitors due to true confidence. It is always better to use resources to build up internal strength than to waste them on destroying an external rival.
Civil Engineer/ Retired Captain, USCGR
2 年Shades of Sun Tzu.