Will conservatives support our troops when they mutiny?

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6923

Will conservatives support our troops when they mutiny?
by Dennis Rahkonen | Apr 19 2007


snip//

Three circumstances finally brought the Vietnam debacle to an end.

First in importance was the fact that Vietnamese guerrillas and North Vietnam's regular army prevailed against the American superpower.

Then there was the highly potent, domestic antiwar movement that routinely filled U.S. streets with militant protests while also engaging in student teach-ins, neighborhood organizing, voter registration, draft counseling, and other forms of pivotal defiance.

But it was the realization, so demoralizing to those who wished to continue the war, that "their" army was literally dissolving before astonished eyes that made withdrawal from Vietnam inevitable. A final congressional cutoff of war funding was anticlimactic. Johnny had already put down his gun.

Considering that George Bush's Iraq folly represents equally as futile an effort to trump objective reality with stubborn, subjective will as was once attempted in Vietnam -- and also because his escalating, open-ended "surge" erects a human shooting gallery in which U.S. troops will be mercilessly picked off -- it's only a matter of time before already severely eroded military morale in Iraq decisively breaks down.

Disobeying commands that would result in certain slaughter has already taken place.

One such incident happened in Ramadi. A squad from the Second Battalion, Fifth Marines was asked to duplicate a mission performed by another Marine squad that had been completely wiped out -- to take the same path, invite fire, and hopefully expose Iraqi insurgents to cover fire. Fearful of a second massacre, the chosen squad, to a man, refused to move out. At the last minute, an alternate mission was authorized, thereby avoiding possibly violent insubordination.

Significantly, it's been reported that roughly half a dozen generals have indicated they'll resign if Bush expands the Iraq war through an attack on Iran. This adds an entirely new dimension to the overall dynamic.

more...

[INDIA]

1. This article doesn't pass my BS test.

1. "First in importance was the fact that Vietnamese guerrillas and North Vietnam's regular army prevailed against the American superpower."

We didn't leave Vietnam because the NVA and Vietcong were "prevailing" agaisnt our military. That's a misrepresentation. We left because of political reasons, stemming from high casualties incurred while killing FAR FAR more casualties on the enemy. I don't feel like looking it up, byt I think it was 50,000 US dead compared to 1,000,000 + NVA and Vietcong dead. People forget the famous Tet Offensive was a massive military defeat for the NVA, but a political victory because of how it played back home.


2. "A squad from the Second Battalion, Fifth Marines was asked to duplicate a mission performed by another Marine squad that had been completely wiped out"

If a Marine Squad had been completely "wiped out" that would mean close to 20 deaths in a single day. I don't remember the Marines ever taking such a huge loss in one day, besides Fallujah and the helicopter crash. AND the author doesn't cite a date for the incident, or where he got his info, (since an event like that would be kept DL) etc.

3. AND FINALLY the author forgets the HUGE difference between the volunteer military of today and the draft military during Vietnam. Almost everyone in Iraq right now signed up or reupped AFTER the war began. They knew the potential of going to Iraq, and they accepted it. Many in Vietnam didn't, and the morale/attitude reflected that. The military of today is 180 degrees different than the military of Vietnam.

[Demeter]

2. Fragging, anyone?

Considering how the numbers out of Vietnam were totally fraudulent, how can you speak with such authority?

[bemildred]

3. Hmmmmm ....

1.) If numbers were all it took, Russia would be part of the German empire, and China would belong to Japan. While it is true that war is about killing the other guys, simple arithmetic has never been enough to tell who won. The Vietnamese kicked the French's ass, and then they kicked ours. It cost them hugely, but nobody in his right mind claims they lost. How can you claim that such a small nation lost with such an outcome, against such an adversary as the USA in the 60s? It's preposterous.

2.) They got twelve in one day in Ramadi, that is pretty close to a squad, even in the Marines. Since we adopted force-protection measures, that has (thankfully) been harder to do. I'm not sure he has the unit affected right.

3.) The US ground forces are much different than 40 years ago, most importantly they are much weaker, and attempts have been made to compensate for that with technology, and that doesn't seem to be working well at all.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Looking at your counter-argument -

1) You are absolutely correct, except in the assessment of Tet. Yes, it was extraordinarily costly to the VC, particularly, but it was a political victory both there and in the states because an enemy that was supposedly 'on the ropes' was able to strike, nationwide, almost simultaneously hitting virtually every US and allied camp, overrunning many before being beaten back. And this was just weeks after Westmoreland's "light at the end of the tunnel". It was obvious, both to us and to the Vietnamese, that we had no idea what we were doing there, that our intelligence sucked, and we severly underestimated the capabilities of the enemy.

2) "Wiped out" doesn't necessarily mean killed. A squad that suffers three or four killed, and 90% of the others wounded and thus put out of action could be considered "wiped out". Such a scenario is far from unbelievable.

3) Even volunteers might be unwilling to take orders that put them in a meat grinder for no purpose. Many people blame the collapse in VN on the fact that so many troops were draftees, but draftees have served, and brought victory, in every major war the US had fought prior to VN. It was not the quality of the troops - it was the lack of quality of the leadership.

We are the unwilling, led by the incompetant, doing the impossible, for the ungrateful. Sound familiar?

[Palladin]

5. This is the forbidden topic

that scares the bejeezzus out of the imperial elite of both parties. Their main worry is not about the ranks, but the officers, meaning field grade or higher, and those with a traditional service academy background. The officers' oath is to the Constitution of the United States. Enlisted is to the Commander-in-Chief. An enormous psychological and moral difference, considering that any professional military officer cannot help but have the most profound contempt for the jackass and thug now jointly exercising the office of Commander-in-Chief. You won't find Bush and Cheney, Pelosi and Reid, or AIPAC, mentioning the topic publicly at all. They'll just keep hoping the military keep on saluting the rank, not the man, but the ground is moving under their feet here. Let's hope that there is still enough traditional Constitutional patriotism left in the high military that they help us all transition back to a republic, rather than a Praetorian Guard -driven empire. Tom Jefferson and Andy Jackson would want it that way, I think.

[bemildred]

6. Frankly, the rising numbers of mercenary companies has me worried.

Along just the line you have outlined. I do not think it is some sort of accident. We could wind up with a coup, or a civil war.

[Palladin]

7. Right. Most of these merc outfits

have been founded and are run by ex-military officers. Both these ex-officers and the ex-enlisted who do the real dirty work can make ten or twenty times what they made in uniform and not be answerable to anyone, and completely outside even the military justice system. As long as they are employed overseas, they won't have any incentive to interfere with home politics, but if the imperial government runs out of money to keep paying them, or there's suddenly no work for them, then there could be trouble. These also are the kind of forces who made and broke the Caesars of Roman times, in addition to the home Praetorian Guard. Human nature and motives have not really changed in several thousand years, so history may repeat itself.

[bemildred]

8. I see you know your history too.

I don't fancy that the spoiled stooges in the US Congress will hold up much better than the Roman Senate did when threatened with force. Once the US Army is thoroughly degraded in Iraq, there will not be much to stand in their way.