Essay on the War on Terrorism

An EssayThe Vietnam War and the War on TerrorismByAllen J. LynchMedal of HonorMay 26, 2004
Preface
World War One was the defining event of the last century. It was the singular cause of the rise of world Communism. It caused the decline and fall of the English, French and Russian empires. It was the direct cause of the rise of Nazism and Adolph Hitler who caused both the holocaust and World War Two. Out of WWII came the nation of Israel, which is one of the root causes of the unrest in the Middle East. In short, we are living with the effects of the “Great War” to this day. It is clear to me that the War on Terrorism will have the same impact on this century that World War One had on the last.
How we fight Terrorism is as important as winning. The War on Terrorism is not just a war against what has been called “Radical Islam” but is a war for the very heart and soul of our country. It is critical, therefore, that we not only win but that we fight it in such a way that reflects our core values as written in the Bill of Rights and our constitution. We could very well win the war but loose the soul of our nation in the process. We, all of us, must be careful how we act and react to Radical Islam and its army of Terrorists. We must be strong both in the militaristic sense and in a moral sense.
It is critical that we have the right people in Washington to lead us in this fight. We need leaders who have the vision and the courage to do the right thing, even if it is politically damaging. We need leaders who can see past petty politics and political agendas to the greater good of all. I believe that the current administration, though flawed, is the only group up for election that can supply that leadership. When we elect a president, we elect his/her team. The current Democratic candidate for the presidency simply does not, in my judgment, understand the gravity of this war. Nor does he have a vision for this nation. Being anti-Bush is not enough to be President. Sadly, the Democratic leadership at the national level simply does not understand that, it has no vision and no plan other than ”beat Bush at any cost”.
Americans at this time in our history need a leader who will do the right thing regardless of what political polls indicate. After eight years of policy by poll, I am glad for a change. This is not to say that Clinton was a bad president. He, like all our presidents, including our current one, had flaws, but at least he had a vision for this nation. Like President Bush’s vision, not all agreed with it, but like the President Bush he at had one. We desperately need a leader who can admit his mistakes and learn from them. We need a leader who will be a moral compass for the nation. President Bush and his team are those leaders. Though I have many problems with President Bush, he has a vision and sadly the National Democratic party does not.
The war in Vietnam and the War on Terrorism
The war against Communism was a global war that had many battles. Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan were the major battles in that war. The war against Radical Islam is also a global war and Iraq and Afghanistan are major battles of that war. Make no mistake; the war on Terrorism is a war against Radical Islam. The war on Radical Islam and the war against Communism are very similar. In fact, there are more similarities than differences. There are also many similarities between the battle for Vietnam and the battles for Iraq and Afghanistan. However, just because there are similarities between the two wars and these two battles does not mean that they have to turn out the same way. We could win the battles but loose the war, unlike in the war against Communism where we lost Vietnam and Korea, (stalemate counts as a loss in my mind), but won the war. The greatest mistake our leaders can make is to be so afraid of Vietnam that they miss the many similarities between the two battles and repeat the mistakes made in Vietnam and in the war against Communism.
Communists and Radical Islam
Let’s first take a brief look at the antagonists: Communists and Radical Islam. The Communists wanted to make the world Communist. Radical Islam has a similar goal, to establish a world of Islamic states. Like the Communists Radical Islam plans to accomplish this by any means necessary. Both the Communists and Radical Islamic leaders have published numerous works that have mapped out their goals in achieving the final objective of world domination. The Communists told us what they were going to do through the works of Marx and Lenin, Mao, and so on. The Muslims with the Koran and religious writings of the Islamic Brotherhood, Whhabism, and other factions. These writings, like those of the Communists, map out their plans for how they will fight the war. Our reaction to these works is the same as our reaction to Communist speeches and writings the same reaction we had to Hitler’s writings - disbelief. We choose to think that those who want to kill us and change our way of life really do not mean it.
The Communists believed in their cause enough to fight and die for it. Those who fight for Radical Islam, the terrorists, believe in their cause enough to fight and die for it. The Communists believed in their cause enough to live in the worst possible conditions in the jungles of South East Asia and elsewhere where they were routinely low on food, ammunition, medical supplies, and other creature comforts. The terrorists believe in their cause enough to live in the same type of conditions. They believe in it enough to even blow themselves up for it. The Communists believed in their cause enough to fight the mightiest military on earth for over ten years in Southeast Asia. The terrorists believe in their cause enough to fight the same military with the same tenacity as the Communists. I submit that the terrorists, as misguided as they are, are very brave and dedicated fighters just as were the Communist fighters. They are just as dedicated to their cause as were the Communists. Calling them names or not respecting their bravery does us no good. In fact, it weakens our resolve because it underestimates their ability to fight and to win. We must not fall into the trap of underestimating our enemy!
The war in Vietnam and Iraq
The levels of War Fighting
The war in Vietnam was fought on three basic levels. It was fought on a political level, that involved national and international politics. The military command level, which included the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the theater commanders Finally it was fought on the War Fighter level, that included commanders in the field and their subordinates.
Each level interacted with the other and had a symbiotic and a cancerous relationship at the same time. Policy was set at the political level. The President, based upon his view of the national and international situation with input from his cabinet and the military established policy. Policy was then passed to the military command level which developed the general operational orders. Orders were then passed to the War Fighters, the Commanders in the field who put in place the operational policies needed to achieve the objectives. The warriors put the operation policies into action.
Looking at this process from the bottom up we have warriors and their commanders in the field passing up the chain of command information that was generated from operational orders. As a simple example, if orders were to conduct search and destroy missions with an emphasis on body count. Then the missions were successful if there was an appropriate body count; if the emphasis was “contraband” captured, the amount captured determined effectiveness. Promotions and future assignments depended upon the success of the various missions. As information proceeded up the chain of command each commander was able to claim credit for the success of the implemented policy. This practice created an environment where success was rewarded and failure was not tolerated and truth became the victim. Simply, if a commander wanted a promotion, the proper results had to be achieved whether they were or not in fact achieved. Failure to get those results often resulted in poor efficiency reports and poor assignments upon rotation from the field. President Johnson once said that not an outhouse in Vietnam was hit without his knowing it. Such interference by a President in military operations created an environment that was hostile to truthful reporting of data gathered from the field. America has a history of punishing good combat leaders like George Patton and rewarding politically savvy military leaders who may not be good combat leaders but who tell the politicians what they want. Such leadership dooms a nation. Political considerations should never impact how a war is fought.
Management by objectives, the management style popular in the sixties, put pressure on commanders to achieve those objectives. Many times while I was in Vietnam, we killed Viet Cong, (VC) water buffalo, VC dogs and such to get the appropriate body count. A lieutenant or sergeant who simply wanted to do his job and get home could easily feed commanders exaggerated information, and in some units this practice was encouraged by a chain of command that rarely ventured into the field. Many commanders simply wanted to pass up the chain of command information that would help their career. In Vietnam, many commanders commanded from the TOC (Tactical Operations Center), now referred to as “behind the wire” by the new soldiers. The Vietnam war had a lot of “leadership from behind the wire” which was no leadership at all. This made it easy for company commanders, platoon leaders, and soldiers to just “give them what they want.” Search and Destroy became Search and Avoid. If commanders wanted body counts, everything that was dead was Viet Cong or North Vietnamese Army (NVA) - dogs, people, water buffalo, whatever. The result was a crisis in leadership throughout the military that lasted throughout the late sixties and well into the seventies.
The great fear is that the same set of “management by objectives” is happening in the war on terrorism. I got an e-mail from a young officer who told of how her commanders were leading from “behind the wire,” only venturing out when there were visits by very important persons, (VIP) or the press and then coming out to lead missions and then to disappear behind the wire as soon as the VIPs were gone. There must be an environment within the command level in this war that encourages “out in front” leadership and a true assessment of intelligence – it cannot be based upon desired results but on actual real truthful information even if it doesn’t fit what the President or chain of command wants or wishes to happen. Only by the processing of good information and adapting to it will we win. We cannot afford the luxury of the “just give them what they want” attitude. The command structure must give up assumptions based upon a narrow view of the war they want to fight. They must adapt to the war they are actually fighting. This is not to say that military commanders are not adapting to changing situations but there is a danger of this turning into a very political war. Clearly the evidence of the infighting within the Whitehouse during the planning stages of the Iraq war is or could be a precursor of political vying and career protection that will work its way down the chain of command. Our military leaders must be able to adapt to the changing battlefield environment without fear of making mistakes. Honest mistakes must be accepted as such and not result in a damaged career. Fear of making a mistake can paralyze a commander into inaction or worse wrong action.
The War Nationally
Throughout WWII Republicans and Democrats spoke publicly with one voice. There was one President, one Congress and one Nation united to win that war. Sadly our political parties are now more interested in getting elected and gaining control than in wining the war. The enemy must love our divineness. We are already divided all he has to do is conquer. During WWII the press was also united with the nation and spoke to inspire those on the home front by the telling of the great work our military was accomplishing. Now our press is more interested in selling advertising space than in helping to lead this nation. Listen to any commentator, any television news program, read any newspaper and you’ll hear our beloved country being maligned. Yet rarely will you hear a positive story about all the good our troops do for those we are fighting to protect. The negative stories so outweigh the positive that it seems as if the American media is being paid by the enemy. They have become a true fifth column and clearly are not to be trusted.
Like WWII and Korea the war in Vietnam was supported initially by both parties. Democrats and Republicans disagreed on domestic issues but when it came to the war on Communism there was generally bipartisan agreement. It was unheard of then to second guess the President on war issues and certainly not publicly. It was not until President Johnson decided not to run for a second term did his own party start to second guess him.
The American people also initially supported the war in Vietnam. But as the war dragged on and the civil unrest increased more and more mainstream Americans started to question the war. This questioning increased as more men were drafted into service and certain deferments started to be lost. As more and more of those who had college deferments were drafted, the anti-war movement grew. All of this, combined with mounting causalities and a war where there was always a “light at the end of the tunnel” but no end to the tunnel, caused many Americans to stop supporting the war.
One question always leaps to the front of any discussion about the Vietnam war. Why and how could a ragtag military beat the best equipped military in the world? Usually our reply is that we were never beaten on the battlefield. But military victories are irrelevant when the war is lost anyway. Generally, it was a difference in goals that caused our defeat in Vietnam. Our goal was to destroy the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army and their ability to pursue combat operations. Their goal was to get America to leave Vietnam by any means necessary. Our goal and the enemy’s goal were incompatible. Simply put, we could have won if our goals were compatible. It was the lack of faith by the American people in the war effort that forced our pull out. We could not change our goals and the way we fought as a result we were not able to defeat their goal and methods of operation. We may have won militarily but they won politically, and in Vietnam, politics was the “silver bullet” they needed to win.
There were less philosophical reasons that allowed North Vietnam to win. The enemy was in the war to win a clear victory, which was to get America out of Southeast Asia by any means necessary. The North Vietnamese never lost sight of that goal. They knew by virtue of the civil unrest that they were having an impact on America’s will to fight. As long as they killed or wounded Americans, they were successful in their combat operations. Each casualty was an advertisement against the war. Basically, there were two causes that allowed the enemy to continue the fight against such overwhelming odds. The major cause was the inability of the American military to use it’s full force against the enemy. They fought total war while we fought a limited war. We had rules of engagement while they had no rules except one, kill or maim Americans and their allies.
The second major cause was the anti-war movement. They generated such unrest that the people lost faith in the government and the ability of the government to solve domestic problems as well as to effectively prosecute the war. The civil unrest gave the enemy the will to resist. Through the media the enemy was able to gain the moral strength and will to continue the fight even though causalities were high.
The largely anti-war press played a direct part in this process by it’s use of negative reporting of the situation in Vietnam. While positive efforts and victories got little if any play. The best example of this is the TET 1968 offensive. We won the battle and decimated the Viet Cong so badly that they never recovered and were never again an effective fighting force. According to the press however, we lost the battle and TET became a major victory not for us but for the enemy. This type of reporting helped to create an ever increasing mistrust of the government that eventually cost one president his job. The media whether they wanted to be or not became one of the best weapons the North Vietnamese had, just as they are now for Radical Islam.
Then there was the contradictory information given out by the government. We were told “There is a light at the end of the tunnel” but there was no light just more and more body bags and wounded came home. As a result middle America started to question the war and our ability to win. Then as now the government is it’s own worst enemy. Americans generally support the “war against terrorism.” That support, however, is soft and will soon be lost unless the President does something to regain the momentum he had after September eleventh. He needs to tell the people the truth and set clear goals so we know when victory is achieved. Americans will not long tolerate a war that doesn’t have a clear definition of victory or at least a clear exit plan. The President must use his “bully pulpit” to keep the people informed about the progress of the war and how victory is defined.
The Warrior
Another serious problem is the over use of the National Guard and Reserves. This overuse of the Guard and Reserves will result in an overall shortage of qualified troops for deployment. Members of the Guard and Reserves cannot tolerate the financial hardship such deployments are causing their families. Even if the servicemember wants to re-enlist, the family and financial pressure may be too great. It is expected that there will be a mass exodus from the Guard and Reserve programs once they return from deployment. The same is holding true for the active component, though at this time there is not a problem with retention. Should servicemembers believe they are being misused, they will leave. This happened in the seventies after Vietnam and in the nineties under President Clinton.
We should not mistake the motivation of those serving. Many believe we should be fighting in Iraq and that they are doing something that is worthwhile and necessary. However, the families who have to endure hardships of military service while those who do not serve are able to live just as if there is no war, will soon, if it hasn’t already, start to tell. Every day more and more employment problems are being brought forward. Many servicemember’s families are also coming forward with financial problems caused by the deployment. The effects on morale will be devastating if there is not a means of serving those who serve.
The “stop loss” programs will also impact. The service of those who have volunteered to serve being extended while those who never serve are able to just go on with their lives will weigh heavily on both the active and reserve components. It is one thing to extend those who are serving if every one in the country is in the same boat. But this is not the case and will, if continued, cause a drop in re-enlistments for both the reserves and active duty. I believe the Guard and Reserve will suffer most because of the impact multiple activations have on family and finance. Unless the government, who is ever so slow to react, mandates some type of income compensation for the Guard and Reserves, I predict there will be major problems in this area. We should not be misled by the soldier who “sings the company song.” As the reality of family and financial hardship starts to hit home, even the most “gung ho” soldiers will want to first take care of family, feeling, and rightfully so, they have done their part. The President easily forgave the Iraqi war debt but has failed to properly address veteran issues in his own country. His calling the funding or passing of certain veteran bills “budget busters” is insulting to those who serve, especially when they are fighting so others will have a better life. Nor has he properly addressed the hardships faced by the families of activated servicemembers. Again, he has failed to properly and tangibly address the financial hardships of deployed servicemembers. We have money to fight the war but not to “Care for those who have borne the battle.”
War fighting
We must adapt our method of war fighting to match the enemy’s methods. Just as in Vietnam, we are hoping that the enemy will fight us on our terms. He will not because he knows he’ll loose. So he will fight us the only way he knows how, the same way the Viet Cong did ambush, booby trap, sniper, small unit action and of course his best weapon the suicide bomber. Because the enemy is ready, willing, and able to die to accomplish his mission of getting America and it’s allies out of Islamic countries, if we do not adapt our method of fighting to his we will loose just like in Vietnam. The enemy knows one thing, send enough wounded and body bags back to the United States and the anti-war movement will be in the streets and the American people will loose their will to fight.
This is the lesson they learned from Vietnam and Somalia. This enemy like the VC and the NVA, will die by the thousands to accomplish it’s mission. Only by fully understanding the enemy can we understand his methods of fighting and what motivates him. Only by knowing the enemy can we fight him on his terms and win. The major mistake we made in Vietnam was that we did not understand the major goal of the enemy. We did not fight him on his terms and we lost. This is not to say that we didn’t have major successes in out – “Viet Conging” the Viet Cong. But our military commanders could not adapt their methods to small unit actions and kept looking for that major engagement that never came. We dropped millions of tons of bombs on targets in Vietnam but to no avail. We are still dropping millions of tons of bombs and again to no avail. Air strikes are great in there place but I submit using bombs to attack snipers etc. is like using a 357 magnum to kill a fly. You get a lot of holes in your wall and the fly flies a way to buzz another day. We are doing the same in this war that we did in Vietnam looking for that major engagement that will never come. The enemy in this case like in Vietnam has no reason to change his tactics because they are working. Until we learn to fight on his terms and win on those terms, we will find ourselves being sucked deeper and deeper into a quagmire; If not in Iraq then in other countries.
We must understand that the enemy takes a long view of history. This means viewing all actions in terms years not days weeks or months. They are in this for the long haul not short-term objectives. If we are to win, we must convince them that we are more than capable of continuing this fight as long as necessary. America cannot treat this war as a short term conflict if we do we will loose.
Internationally
Internationally, we had many friends, who, though they gave no troops, supported our fighting against Communists in South East Asia. Then we started to loose that support. The longer the war dragged on the more support we lost. Then, as now, the United Nations was impotent when it came to addressing Communist aggression in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and other parts of the world. As it was then, so it is now.
We had allies in Southeast Asia, those countries who gave us moral support and in some cases troops. Just as now, we have nations that send some troops not enough to really be effective but enough to lend moral support. The question that remains is if the war in Iraq turns into a sustained conflict with no end in sight, how long will those countries maintain even token troops. The terrorist attack in Spain has caused it to change governments and to pull their troops out of Iraq. Will others soon follow? What message is this sending to the terrorists but to continue to do those terrorist activities that work. We as civilized nations were weakened by Spain’s actions. Just as the demonstrations in Italy weakened us. The enemy is more than willing to die for his cause…. are we? If we are not, then they will win.
Closing
It is very interesting to note that greed and corruption greatly influenced France, Germany, and Russia in their decision-making process when it came to Iraq. No one knows how many other nations, businesses, individuals were involved in this corruption. We, as a world leader, cannot afford to be corrupted. If we are fighting for the heart and soul of this nation, we must have a moral compass that always points toward truth. Is this naïve thinking? Is this wishful thinking? Not if we set our national mind on achieving it. Not if our national leaders put aside their differences and lead this nation as honorable men and women. Not if the national leaders set a standard for the rest of us to follow. Not if both parties learn to disagree without being disagreeable. Why cannot we come together to win this war?
We must learn that we can differ and still be honorable. We must learn or relearn that truth is worthy of national effort. We Americans must set a higher standard of conduct both on the national and international level. We must demand a higher standard of conduct from our politicians. We can no longer afford to continue as we are, fighting amongst ourselves. If we continue as we are, we will surely loose, even if we win the war on Radical Islam. If we are to win, we must learn to speak as one nation. Both parties must put aside their political differences and speak with one voice when it comes to the war on Radical Islam. If we don’t, the cost will be in the lives of those fine men and women who put it on the line for us everyday. It will be in the loss of our national character.
We must not only fight to destroy the enemy’s will to resist, but we must learn how to win the “hearts and minds” of those we fight. We cannot do this by thinking like Americans, we can only do this by learning their mind set. By looking at life through their eyes. We must learn to think like the enemy to understand what motivates him and how we can use that motivation to win them to our side. We cannot do this by the old methods, by following the old doctrine of war fighting and politics. We must adapt to the changing situations as a united nation who can put aside partisan politics for the greater good. This does not mean that we do not debate or criticize or campaign. It means that on matters of international issues we as a nation speak as one voice. The President and the Democratic candidate must, when it comes to this war speak as one voice. Until that happens we will continue to give the enemy reason to continue to fight.
May God Bless American and may we come together as one nation with one purpose and one voice.