Posted on May 10, 2020
Why the Battle for Hamburger Hill Was So Controversial
3.14K
86
19
23
23
0
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
Well they (the NVA) was right. All they had to do was maintain a resistance and inflict mass casualties as they saw American public opinion was growing more negative with time.
Almost compare it with today’s war in Afghanistan. A war that began with mich American sensationalism but after 18 years has very little public appeal (Why are we there?).
Almost compare it with today’s war in Afghanistan. A war that began with mich American sensationalism but after 18 years has very little public appeal (Why are we there?).
(6)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
CPT Lawrence Cable And the history of all warfare where foreign force facing an insurgent or guerrilla style resistance, for sustained operations until victory is achieved foreign forces need the support of both host nation population and the people back home; especially if you’re a Democracy or Republic. That has always been a strategic concept long before any country invaded Afghanistan or Vietnam.
So yes civilian and military leadership should portray an exit strategy to gain favorable public opinion. The original book “Starship Troopers” gives good examples of this. We even debated Desert Storm in HS as to why Coalition forces stopped short of Baghdad. Deposing S. Hussein was not one of the approved exit strategies yet many Veterans would disagree. Liberation of Kuwait not the liberation of Iraq was what the public was told. Appreciate your valid points.
So yes civilian and military leadership should portray an exit strategy to gain favorable public opinion. The original book “Starship Troopers” gives good examples of this. We even debated Desert Storm in HS as to why Coalition forces stopped short of Baghdad. Deposing S. Hussein was not one of the approved exit strategies yet many Veterans would disagree. Liberation of Kuwait not the liberation of Iraq was what the public was told. Appreciate your valid points.
(2)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
MAJ James Woods - The concept of Warfare changed drastically in the 19th and 20th Century, driven by the "Enlightenment" in the West. Prior to that time Warfare was a business and was more about economic and territorial gains, no matter in what terms that conquest is placed. The Islamic expansion is a good example, where the religion codified the rules of rape and plunder, or the Mongols, who were probably the champions at it. But even the British Expansion was about dominating commercial markets to benefit the home islands. Fighting for ideals only is a fairly new thing, but eventually there has to be some practical reason or you lose the support of the population.
(1)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
CPT Lawrence Cable Hasn’t changed that much. The technology, yes. The philosophy of war, no. There’s a reason why military leaders still embrace military history and ancient principles of warfare, like The Art of War, today.
“Fighting for ideals” is not a fairly new idea. Even “The Crusades” was an ideal and I wouldn’t say that was recent history.
“Fighting for ideals” is not a fairly new idea. Even “The Crusades” was an ideal and I wouldn’t say that was recent history.
(2)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
MAJ James Woods - But when you look at the actual conduct of the Crusades, they plundered towns like everyone else at the time and there were a number of feudal kingdoms set up in the Middle East during the period. While the Justification was to free the Holy Land, the results were conquest of territory and plunder from the enemy. Even the 100 Years War was as much about the struggle of the new merchant class to overthrow the feudal system dominated by the Church, so once again about money and power. The Spanish Conquest of the Americas, the martially oriented East India Companies of the Dutch, English and French, the Ottoman Conquest up through the Siege of Vienna were as much about economic gain for the conquerors as the ideals they often used as justification.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next