My View as a Veteran
Lately there have been discussions by critics of American involvement
in Afghanistan, and connecting it to poor strategy in Vietnam and Iraq. As a retired Air Force pilot (23 years) and
Vietnam Veteran, I cannot stand by and listen to the political and academics condemn
our efforts in those conflicts, and I would add Korea to the list. Were the outcomes open to criticism, sure;
these wars were not “won” in the true military and national sense.
Vietnam – in 1965 as a young fighter pilot, we were briefed
on plans to attack North Vietnam from the air long before they had installed
their Russian air defense system which cost us aircraft and lives later in the
war. Needless to say we did not have
the political will to bring about a quick victory. In my view, the reason was a fear of China
involvement and a lack of understanding of the enemy. In my second tour of duty in Vietnam I saw
rules of engagement which prevented us attacking certain targets; and a
munitions shortage (denied by the political leaders) but was fact. So we fought a war without achieving total
victory, we never lost a battle, but we allowed the enemy to have sanctuaries,
and “safe” targets we could not attack.
We did eventually step up our pressure which led to peace talks. However, they were not adhered to by the
North Vietnamese who were able to take over South Vietnam in a matter of days
with all American forces having been withdrawn.
I believe our lack of political will was based on Watergate and prevented
an American response to the breaking of the peace agreement; our leaders were
consumed with domestic politics and we let the enemy have their way. A complete victory was never the plan
due to political constraints and concern over China and Russian involvement.
There are examples of wars,
although small, that were won quickly with overwhelming force and a clear objective
of victory. (Granada under President
Reagan, and Panama under President Bush).
Although they were smaller conflicts and did not involve a Russian or
Chinese threat, the military was given a clear mission to win the conflict and
secure the goal.
Iraq – President Bush authorized our military to invade Iraq
and defeat them with overwhelming force; it was achieved in a few days. Unfortunately, I believe, the president was given
some bad intelligence that the Iraq leadership would be removed/defeated from
within so our final movement to Bagdad was halted and an agreement short of
surrender was secured. The 24th
Infantry Division was on its way to Bagdad and probably would have secured
complete victory and a change in leadership, but was stopped. Later, as we all know, Iraq invaded
Kuwait, and we returned to fight another war in Iraq, again our objective this
time was to achieve a surrender of the Iraq Army and remove their leadership
which was achieved. However, we failed
to manage our victory in many ways that are well known, but the tragedy was
pulling our forces out of Iraq and allowing the enemy to grow and threaten
again. So for a third time we entered
Iraq to defeat ISIS and fight over some of the same ground. Poor political decisions were responsible
for what happened in Iraq; and today there remains a threat in that country.
Afghanistan – A justified war began after 911, with strong
public support. However, the objectives
were limited and our military was not given a clear mission for total defeat of
the Taliban. Why? I believe political concerns gave the enemy a
sanctuary in Pakistan and that remains today.
The Korean War is another example of providing
the enemy a “safe space” that we were prevented from attacking. The concern over China didn’t deter a Chinese
intervention against us, but we took no action against China.
The criticism that has recently been aimed at our military
leaders, some of it deserved, but I believe the premise is based on a limited
and faulty understanding of the wars mentioned.
We have had great leaders in our
military operating under political leadership, but in some cases should push back
when poor political decisions result in limitations on the military’s ability
to carry out the mission. If the goal
is not victory and the rules of engagement limit our forces, then the generals
need to “fall on their sword” and resist sending forces into a “no win”
situation. No win wars are a
product of, lack of will, a faulty
strategy, limited objectives, and restrictive rules of engagement based on
political decisions
If military generals are operating more in the realm of
politics than military strategy and not speaking up then criticism is valid and
the result can be another no win war. During
my career my observations led me to believe that there are two types of
leaders/generals, I call them “political generals” and “warrior generals”. The history of military conflicts from wars
to individual campaigns and battles makes a strong case that our forces prevail
when commanded and led by leaders who are warriors.
Steve Altick, Lt Col
USAF (Ret)
