Like the Vietnam war, the war in Afghanistan does not need American troops but the long term commitment from the U.S.
Ben
insurgency with a budget of $300 million USD. Diem's tough stance
and dictatorship kept communists under control. No significant
territories lost to communist. Communists could only attack RVN
positions and withdraw but could not hold. Without American troops,
communist could not use the cause of fighting against foreign invaders
to recruit VCs and South Vietnamese troops were more than willing to
die 10 to kill one VC. After 100 VCs took over a small hamlet at Ap
Bac (population 300), ARVN moved 1000 troops to push VCs out of Ap
Bac. Over 80 ARVN were killed just to kill 8 VCs a 10 to kill 1 ratio.
U.S. government and media (Karnow, Sheehand) criticized RVN for this
inefficiency, but they did not know that the 10 to kill 1 is the
traditional Vietnamese fighting strategy. Ho Chi Minh started the die
10 to kill 1 strategy in the Cao Bang victory that decimate the French
garison in Cao Bang in 1950.
This strategy continued with success in many battles such as Camp
Holloway, Tet, Con Thien, Khe Sanh, Dakto, Lam Son 719.
U.S. government and advisors were wrong when they did not let South
Vietnamese to fight communist by themselves even to die 10 to kill
one.
After U.S. troops entered S. Vietnam in 1964-1965, China sent 160,000
troops to North Vietnam to prevent an invasion of North Vietnam.
Communist block then escalated aids to VCs by arming them with AK 47
automatic rifles while South Vietnamese troops were still armed with
Carbine M1 rifles.
Th presence of U.S. troops made South Vietnamese became reliance on
U.S. troops to fight for them. They no longer want to die 10 just to
kill one VC. They would rather run than to fight to avoid casualties.
The presence of U.S. troops also gave communist a reason to recruit
people to join to fight against foreign invaders. For every VC killed
by U.S. tropps, 5 other Vietnamese joined the VC. Communist reproduced
faster than the number of VCs/NVAs killed by allied forces. After
suffering so much casualties at Tet and Khe Sanh and the cost of war
became to high, Americans gave up. Had U.S. troops not comming to
South Vietnam in 1965, it could stay on with the war until after the
communist block Soviet) collapsed.
The same situation is happening against in Afghanistan.
The Northern Alliance forces were winning before more U.S. troops
arrived. Now the Taliban is stronger.
The U.S. should let the Afghans to fight and die for their own freedom
and not rely on U.S. troops. Without U.S. troops, Taliban would have
no reasons and cause to recruit the Afghans to fight foreign invaders
and the U.S. can provide aids to Northern alliance to fight for 100
years and keep the Taliban under control.
Mark Test
news:14cb0aad-beab-4cf4...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Th presence of U.S. troops made South Vietnamese became reliance on
> U.S. troops to fight for them. They no longer want to die 10 just to
> kill one VC. They would rather run than to fight to avoid casualties.
An interesting take....I would also argue that the US strategy was vastly
different and stoopid compared to the ARVN strategy. ARVN took
and held villages, with a small number of troops, thus keeping the VC
inurgents
out in the jungle where they were impotent. The US entered and never
held a village, never attacked Hanoi for fear of China entering the
conflict, and
started a strategy of search and destroy (only in the South mind you)......
so if I were an ARVN faced with that f*cked up strategy I'd quit too.....
Mark
hcobb
avoided all of these problems over the years.
-HJC
David E. Powell
It was Jack Murtha who cut off US involvement in Afghanistan after the
Soviets pulled out. Google "Charlie Wilson's War." He stopped it from
Congress.
David E. Powell
The US strategy changed in the later part of the war. By the 1971-72
era much of South Vietnam had been pacified, and as you said, ARVN was
stepping up big. The VC had mainly been driven out.
Of course then came the bargaining table, and finally the cut off of
fuel, weapon and supply shipments to the South Vietnamese.
Ben
wrote:
The U.S. should have let South Vietnamese to defend their land in
1964. They may not do well at the beginning but then they will learn
how to defend themselves. With thousands of U.S. casualties and the
high costs of wars in Indochina and the Middle East, the U.S. could
not afford to maintain a long term commitment to South Vietnam.
The U.S. today should let the Afghans and Iraqi own their wars to
minimize the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This will make the
war affordable for a long term commitment. Like Vietnam, more troops
is a bad solution.
Ben
Eight years ago, Pres. Bush and VP Chenney refused to send an extra
1,000 troops to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora. They could have sent
the troops in to do the job and get out to let the Northern Alliance
own the war against the Taliban.
Ben
> "Ben" <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:14cb0aad-beab-4cf4...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Th presence of U.S. troops made South Vietnamese became reliance on
> > U.S. troops to fight for them. They no longer want to die 10 just to
> > kill one VC. They would rather run than to fight to avoid casualties.
>
> An interesting take....I would also argue that the US strategy was vastly
> different and stoopid compared to the ARVN strategy. ARVN took
> and held villages, with a small number of troops, thus keeping the VC
> inurgents
> out in the jungle where they were impotent. The US entered and never
> held a village, never attacked Hanoi for fear of China entering the
> conflict, and
This U.S. strategy turned out to be very ineffective or stupid. At the
DMZ, NVAs sieged Con Thien and Khe Sanh with unlimited manpower and
weapons across the border in the North. Because the U.S. could not
send troops to destroy their sanctuary in North Vietnam, the pressure
NVAs put to Con Thien and Khe Sanh became too much for the U.S. to
defend these posts. Had the U.S. not withdrawn from Khe Sanh NVAs
would double the number of soldiers to siege Khe Sanh the second time
and it would eventually fall into NVA hands like it had happened to
Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The 10 die to kill 1 is costly to NVAs but it
worked very well.
With the 10 die to kill 1 strategy, the only way to win the war is to
break the will of the enemy and destroy the sanctuary in the North
that reproduce enemy's supply of human resources and weapons. As the
U.S. could not invade North Vietnam and could not afford to suffer
more casualties, the war cannot be sustained.
Today the sanctuaries of terrorists are in various Arab nations and
Pakistan. If U.S. troops continue to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, it
will continue to suffer more casualties as the Islam world provides
unlimited supply of manpower and ammunition. As U.S. economy worsen
because the burden of wars, the U.S. eventually will have to get out
to avoid a collapse of its economy.
Jack Linthicum
Unlike the Vietnamese situation Afghanistan has no real division of
religions to screw up. Bringing the Catholic North to Saigon to lord
it over the Buddhist South was a sign of lack of realization. Just
drawing a line, as in Korea, was not the answer for Vietnam.
The Taliban are merely Fundamentalists of the Wahhabi persuasion, same
religion different interpretation. The harsher views of the Taliban
are beginning to irk the population.
Ben
> On Dec 1, 3:37 am, Ben <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 9:01 pm, hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And now if only Sec. Def. Cheney hadn't cut and run, we could have
> > > avoided all of these problems over the years.
>
> > > -HJC
>
> > Eight years ago, Pres. Bush and VP Chenney refused to send an extra
> > 1,000 troops to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora. They could have sent
> > the troops in to do the job and get out to let the Northern Alliance
> > own the war against the Taliban.
>
> Unlike the Vietnamese situation Afghanistan has no real division of
> religions to screw up. Bringing the Catholic North to Saigon to lord
> it over the Buddhist South was a sign of lack of realization. Just
> drawing a line, as in Korea, was not the answer for Vietnam.
>
Duong van Minh to overthrew Diem in 1963. After 1964, Buddhists
continued to insist that the regimes that replaced Diem were against
them. They set up demonstrations against the military junta generals,
U.S. embassy, burned U.S. library in Hue, set up frequent self
immolation, led I Corps to fight against Central government in 1967.
South Vietnamese knew communist agents were in the Buddhist church but
could not arrest them for fearing of possible American punishments
like in 1963. The Buddhist church went on and demanded U.S. withdrawal
of troops in 1972. In March 1975 the Buddhist church helped to disarm
200,000 ARVN soldiers trapped in I Corps after Thieu withdrew from I
Corps. In April 1975, Duong Van Minh and Buddhist church took over the
government of South Vietnam and ordered a surrender. With Buddhist
resistance against the U.S. and RVN government, South Vietnam could
not fight effectively to survive because of abuses of religious
freedom.
Today various religions also used religious freedom to destroy
America. Many high ranking imams preached publicly against the U.S.
government and called for jihah war against America. They are
protected by U.S laws. U.S. security knew about major Hasan long
before he murdered soldiers at Fort Hood but could not detain him.
In Minneapolis, radical Islam leaders preached Somalian refugees to
send money to terrorist groups at home and to return to Somali to
fight. FBI knew these people and arrested several lower level agents
but could not arrest the top leaders in the church. With the FBI hands
tied by religious freedom, more Americans are joining terrorist jihah
against the U.S. Eventually they would get inside U.S. military, FBI,
and U.S. government and congress to bring down the U.S. like religions
had done to South Vietnam.
The French recently banned the hood that cover the face of French
islam citizens in public area to identify terrorists hiding inside the
mask. The Swiss vote to ban minarets for fearing of spreading
terrorist jihah against Europe. But the U.S. could never ban religious
activities against America. And so the U.S. may follow the fate of
South Vietnam in 1975. Because U.S. government could not protect
America, it's time for Americans to take up actions to defend America
against any religions who want to destroy America.
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
> Today various religions also used religious freedom to destroy
> America. Many high ranking imams preached publicly against the U.S.
> government and called for jihah war against America. They are
> protected by U.S laws. U.S. security knew about major Hasan long
> before he murdered soldiers at Fort Hood but could not detain him.
> In Minneapolis, radical Islam leaders preached Somalian refugees to
> send money to terrorist groups at home and to return to Somali to
> fight. FBI knew these people and arrested several lower level agents
> but could not arrest the top leaders in the church. With the FBI hands
> tied by religious freedom, more Americans are joining terrorist jihah
> against the U.S. Eventually they would get inside U.S. military, FBI,
> and U.S. government and congress to bring down the U.S. like religions
> had done to South Vietnam.
> The French recently banned the hood that cover the face of French
> islam citizens in public area to identify terrorists hiding inside the
> mask. The Swiss vote to ban minarets for fearing of spreading
> terrorist jihah against Europe. But the U.S. could never ban religious
> activities against America. And so the U.S. may follow the fate of
> South Vietnam in 1975. Because U.S. government could not protect
> America, it's time for Americans to take up actions to defend America
> against any religions who want to destroy America.
One thing that you can do is ask for Article IV section 4 to be
activated. (Voter -> state government -> US Congress)
[quote]
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
[/quote]
I read that as meaning that freedom of religion does not extend to
organising violence. The lawyers may disagree.
Andrew Swallow
Mark Test
news:f8647be8-72da-4bbf...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
=============================================
Very true....I was talking about the 63-68 era.....The ARVN held their
own after we pulled out in '72....then fell to the Communists because
America would not re-supply them....with no more bullets, they lost and
we lost in '75....
(IMHO, one should always avoid losing to communists)
Mark
Mark Test
=============================================
While the North were backed by Moscow and China? Is that
how you want America to back her allies? By saying "defend yourselves"?
Reminds me of that French gal that said "let them eat cake"....
Mark
Mark Test
==============================================
OBL is more than likely beneath tons of rubble at tora bora.....yet
AQ still exists......btw OBL did not plan the 9-11 attack.....this isn't
WW2 where killing the leader will end the war.
Mark
Kerryn Offord
then they must have bombed him in Tora Bora recently (Last few years)
Because well after the Tora Bora attacks they have verified Videos of
OBL.. still alive and talking...
Surreyman
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No religion wants to destroy America.
This anti-Islamism is rabid rot.
Target the extremists of whatever religion once they get into
terrorism.
Targetting religions as a whole would simply recruit many more
extremists.
Surreyman
Ben
> "Ben" <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
What I said is the U.S. should let RVN take over all combat duties
while U.S. continue to provide aids and advisors like Soviet and
China did. Before 1968, RVN did not draft all people of 18 years old
while North Vietnam already did so. While most college and
universities in the North closed, there were plenty of young students
in South Vietnam got deferment. When 4,000 VC took over Hue Citadel,
RVN troops should be used to push VCs out, not U.S. soldiers. The U.S.
did not give RVN a chance to fight for their own. By the time U.S.
troops withdrew in 1973, the U.S. also cut the supply of their
ammunition and military hardware.
The U.S. also made a big mistake by selecting generals who are not
willing to fight and die for their own country to lead South Vietnam.
Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap were frequently defeated by the French
but they went back to the jungle and continue to fight. Americans
selected Big Minh, Thieu, Ky and the junta of generals to lead RVN and
none of them were willing to fight. Thieu, Ky and the junta generals
rather fled than fight, Big Minh quickly ordered a surrender even
before communist troops entered Saigon. At that time he still had 40%
of troops and territory. In NVA army, these backed RVN generals would
never made pass the rank of major because they lack of ability and
willingness to fight in poor conditions.
A complete RVN taking over of combat duties Vietnamization (?) in 1964
would let the law "survival of the fittest" which would quickly
eliminate Minh, Thieu, Ky, and the junta generals and allow more
competent willing to fight until they die and not surrender young
generals to lead RVN. Without heavy U.S. casualties and a more willing
to fight S Vietnam, support for the Vietnam war would continue and the
U.S. would not be forced to get out of Vietnam.
The U.S. should let the Northern Alliance to fight on their own with
U.S. aids and air supports in Afghanistan. The NA will learn how to
survive, become more fit to survive. They may be very brutal and kill
the Taliban or Al Qaida followers without mercy, but they would be
much more effective than the nice and human right respecting American
troops fighting with hands ted.
Jim Yanik
news:oVmRm.38375$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad:
> "Ben" <pb5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:50088cbe-2fd4-4904...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Nov 30, 9:21 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
One thing for certain,the US keeps demonstrating that we are an unreliable
and inconsistent ally. Obama has shown that to Poland,Czech Repuublic,and
Honduras.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Ben
If the U.S. could quarrantine and sent all Islam followers to intern
camps like Roosevelt did to the Japanese in WW II, terrorists in the
U.S. would be neutralized. Airports will be safe again.
In war you must destroy enemy sanctuaries to stop reproduction and
resupply of human resources in order to win. Allied forces bombed all
cities under enemy control to the stone age during WW II, and even
used nuclear weapons to destroy Japanese reproduction and resupply of
war.
Without doing that, the U.S. would loose the war like South Vietnam.
The South Vietnamese lost the war but they have many nations to
migrate and resettle as new home. If Americans lost the war, they have
nowhere to go.
War sucks, but if you don't want to use brutality then don't go to war
just to loose it later.
La N
> unreliable and inconsistent ally. Obama has shown that to
> Poland,Czech Repuublic,and Honduras.
You just couldn't help yourself, could you...;p
- nilita
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
>
> Very true....I was talking about the 63-68 era.....The ARVN held their
> own after we pulled out in '72....
No, the ARVN did not hold their own, as the '72 Easter Offensive showed (and
as many other lesser known battles showed).
The '72 Easter Offensive required massive U.S. military intervention to save ARVN.
ARVN was a joke...part of the U.S. klusterfuck...propping up a phony country.
>
> Mark
>
>
--
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Jack Linthicum
And for every one of those 5 million you imprison you will create
another million terrorists. We lost the war in Vietnam because we
transplanted the Catholics of the North to the Buddhist South, where
they played the overlord.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
> ..yet AQ still exists
No, there is no organization "AQ", it is apparently anyone deemed anti-U.S., and
a useful concept to keep the wars going...perpetual war.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
>
> Because well after the Tora Bora attacks they have verified Videos of
> OBL.. still alive and talking...
Who verified? There has never been an independent verification of any
of the "discovered" or "surfaced" videos or tapes. Only some secret U.S.
government organization "verification".
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
>
> What I said is the U.S. should let RVN...
...the fate of any losing side...who to blame (WHO!!)...how they
were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could have
just one more chance...
So pathetic...
Kerryn Offord
It's not even as if it was something new...
Mark Test
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> One thing for certain,the US keeps demonstrating that we are an unreliable
> and inconsistent ally. Obama has shown that to Poland,Czech Repuublic,and
> Honduras.
>
I just watched BBC Parliament showing a (British) select committee,
the Obama White House can not understand why the British keep
mentioning the Special Relationship. Obama obviously does not think
that it is important.
Note: The Special Relationship is a friendship based around a
military, intelligence and economic alliance that includes the USA
and the UK. The USA is at war.
Andrew Swallow
Ben
war is over, and treat them well like the Japanese in 1944.
President Roosevelt put 1 million Japanese in camps, Stalin put 20
million Soviets in Guglag, Communist Vietnam put a million South
Vietnamese in reeducation camps. They all could be done.
Because of the Israel-Arab conflict, millions of terrorists exist in
the world today regardless of what the U.S. will do to the American
Islams.
Surreyman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, 10% of all terrorists are probably left-handed.
So imprison all left-handed USians.
Surreyman
tankfixer
says...
What is false in his statement ?
95 Thesen
~~~~~~~~~~~
Ben,
I think you may indeed understand American culture.
The internment of Muslim residents may happen, if the
next major act of terrorism equals or exceeds 9-11.
Major Hasan's assassination of 13 people is far below
the 9-11 threshold, but it did result in the closing of at
least 5 large Shiite institutions and the seizure of
associated properties.
History shows that Americans can be swept by hysteria
whenever there is a perceived threat by a distrusted
minority. Americans will go to martial law in a heartbeat
and they will literally burn out and massacre a violent
minority. A recent example are the riots against the
Negro veterans of W.W. I. Black communities from
Oklahoma to Florida were destroyed or decimated.
Houston was spared a pogrom only because martial
law was declared and no person white or black was allowed on the
streets for 48 hours.
One problem with an American hysteria against Islam
is that Indians (Hindus) look and dress similarly to the
Muslims. I fear that a lot of innocent lookalikes would
suffer, should a panic seize the general public about
radical Islam.
David H
~~~~~~~~~