The Critics are Wrong

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the North Vietnamese who were able to take over South Vietnam in a matter of days with all American forces having been withdrawn.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 24^th 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)