To preface my post I need to include a bit of personal history….I was a grunt in Vietnam…wounded a couple of times….and found NOTHING positive about my experience in combat…with the exception that it gave me a burning desire to see that Americans would not die needlessly for some vague concept issued by the government…my concept was the “Domino Theory”.
The Army Times is reporting on the “positive” aspects of combat:
Research appears to show that many people can emerge from traumatic experiences with greater self-confidence, a keener sense of compassion and appreciation for life, says Brig. Gen. Rhonda Cornum, director of the Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program. Cornum and other experts call this concept post-traumatic growth.
Although the military focuses attention on troops who develop mental health conditions in combat, Cornum says, the majority of war veterans do not suffer post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other problems.
During remarks at the American Enterprise Institute recently in Washington, Tedeschi said some servicemembers found the changes in their lives so profound after combat, they expressed gratitude for having gone through it — even if it cost them permanent physical damage.
The experience forces survivors to “try to figure out ‘Who am I now? … What’s my life supposed to be about?’” Tedeschi says. “We certainly would like to find ways of helping people move in this direction, because it’s a way of mitigating the affects of this trauma.”
All this study was given to a gathering of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, and it therefore smells like propaganda……they are attempting to try and put some sort of positive spin on the war…..let me state for the record….THERE IS NOTHING POSITIVE ABOUT WAR!
Could this be a response to the latest poll that shows Americans are all for the invasion of Pakistan to get the bad guys? Americans also overwhelmingly do not think that Afghanistan is another Vietnam, that from the same poll…let me ask….I already know how short the American memory is….but does the names Laos and Cambodia mean anything to them? (I pause here for reflection)……thought that it would not mean anything….let me help…..Laos and Cambodia were countries that bordered on Vietnam and we crossed the borders in pursuit of the bad guys….remember how well that went (another pause for reflection)…..please do not hurt yourself…it did little to change the outcome of the war in the end.
“Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it”…….sound familiar?
There may be nothing positive about war, but it’s a whole lot better than standing back, wringing your hands in fear and appeasement like both the UK and America (for even longer) did in WW2. We still had to fight in the end and the enemy was a whole lot stronger and more in control when we finally did and it cost a whole lot more lives.
Talk and discuss and try to see the other guy’s point of view – ALWAYS! But, equally, NEVER give in and appease! When threatened, threaten back. When attacked ALWAYS attack back!
Sorry, that’s my opinion 👿
Morning…glad to see you back…it is no problem…I realize that few will see my point of view….please no need to apologize for your opinion…..I would agree with the attacked part…but in the US case they have failed to deliver on what they went to war for…the head of Osama……right now I do not think that 100,000 more troops will make a difference……
You could be right, I’m sure. The sad thing is that, having started, we can hardly afford to lose not, can we? If the best we can do is to hold the status quo, then that’s probably what we’ll end up doing and that’s not good (much as I liked a lot of what Status Quo recorded). Sorry, that was a bit off topic, wasn’t it?
I can more than understand your point of view considering your history and your points do make sense. I think, however, that there are a number of things that are different when compared with Vietnam. Not least is the fact that, in Vietnam the American administration thought it could bomb the North into submission whne the fighters were mostly zealots and not in the least bothered by civilian casualties (except as propaganda). There was NO WAY that strategy was going to work and, in view of the terrain and the North/South split that already existed, the chances of success were close to zero from the start.
Furthermore, the people attacked in Afghanistan were quite deliberately and openly harbouring OBL and he attacked the US directly, so he was a specific enemy. Again, thats different from Vietnam.
The one thing that does concern me is that you clearly know more about war than I ever will since you actually fought in one, but i’m just not sure that your experiences of the situation transfer to this one.
What is clear though, is that the last administration in the US had learned NOTHING from Vietnam and, although the situation is different, they went in with mouths bigger than the facilities they provided and little or no strategy or proper agreements for cooperation from those in the area – like Pakistan who COULD, that long ago, have stopped OSL and the Taliban from running for the hills they way they did!
I see your points….and good points they are…….but the drone attacks into Pakistan smells a lot like the bombings of the Ho Chi Minh Trail…..and that did little to stop anything that was happening in Vietnam…..true that….we were attacked…we were not during the VN war…however the reasoning being used by the admin and the generals seems familiar……I would disagree with you somewhat….anytime one is fired upon in a combat situation it is similar….it boils down to you against them…..(that was a bit off the point but I had to throw it in)…….as with the economy…the government should have been ALL IN or ALL OUT……but just as with Vietnam the only winners in the war will be the military-industrial complex……we use to have a saying in Vietnam…”War is good business, invest your sons”…that has not changed….
I do agree with everything you say. I just think the choices you are discussing don’t exist in reality…
I would simply ask you one question only: if not the US and the UK (and relatively minor input from others), then WHO?
Do you seriously contend that we should do nothing about these evil, EVIL people? If so, perhaps studying the Koran, loudly professing our belief in every word regardless of what we really think and buying all our women burkhas would be the wisest course.
If the VC can win a guerilla war against the mighty United States, then the Taliban CAN rule the world – if we let them – just as Hitler COULD have done, if we hadn’t finally stood up to him whatever the price!
Please do not misunderstand……I think that yes we should have gone after Osama….but with more resolve than we have shown…in the beginning we tried but he got away and then it became a Saddam show…..is there an answer now? Above my pay grade…we blew it even before the Taliban….we turned our back on Afghanistan after the Russian left and that was a fatal error……and I do not think the Taliban wants to rule the world, just their little corner of it……Osama is another story…he should have been whacked back in 1999 (I believe) when Clinton decided not to act……a whole lot of shit could have been prevented…..True evil should be met with force….
On the burkha thing….if you ever go to my part of the South….burkhas are not such a bad idea…..sorry had to throw that in….WWII there was a resolve…I am just not sure that resolve exist today…at least where the government is concerned….
The reply to that from me turned up in the wrong place – see above – my fault, sorry!
Those quotes from the Army Times are repulsive. I assume they’re not packaged with information about veterans’ PTSD, homelessness, drug addiction, etc?
I’m not totally sold on the Vietnam comparison, though there are certainly similarities: Length of involvement, gradually waning public support, tricky terrain, decentralized enemy forces, muddied/shifting objectives, possibility of expansion into neighboring countries (an excellent point, BTW, I had completely missed that parallel).
As someone who served in Vietnam, I’m wondering if you think that fight is more similar to Afghanistan or Iraq?
Hello again Clint…to me it is similar to Afghanistan…reasons are the ones that you mentioned……Iraq , to me, is more like a conventional war…tanks, artillery, bombings, know bad guys, unfortunately it was invaded for little reason other than Saddam was there….like I have said in past posts there is a difference between Afghanistan and Vietnam…there were no snow capped peaks in Vietnam….
I appreciate that some cannot see the comparison and yes I am looking through the eyes of a person that detest war and all its trappings…..I do however see why we originally went to Afghanistan the problem is that reason was abandoned for the sake of getting Saddam and it became a forgotten war for the most part….
Most Americans have missed the parallel…the invasion of Laos and Cambodia was not common knowledge until after the war was settled…..I beleive that similarities are missed because not many want to remember Vietnam…it was a war we lost and therefore we want to forget it…..
Another similarity–the Taleban is gonna have a “Heroin Offensive” …and that also sounds very familiar…..
We could take up a whole blog with this alone and I’m sure you’re right about most of it – certainly Clinton should have acted – but then if the US had never bitten off more than it could chew in Vietnam then maybe he COULD have and then…
You get my point I’m sure and I’d just love to be able to sit in a bar and discuss this with you forever, but I kinda doubt that’s going to happen so…
I’m sure we’ll return to it at some point 😈
Yep…that would be an interesting conversation…….and yes we will return to this at a later date….always a good exchange…thanx