Posted by Pat Henry on August 28, 2001 at 04:44:39:
During this War the US stupidly adopted the idea of "seach and destroy"
warfare. Unlike WW2, when we focused on taking real estate and crippling enemy
manufacturing capabilites, instead of body counts. Stated simply, you don't
use B-52's in an undeveloped jungle setting (Ho Chi Min Trail). I've never
heard that we bombed the Ardan Forest, during WW2, it was Berlins ball bearing
factories.
I believe this difference was cause by the fact that the Vietnam War was a
"Political War". Frankly, the US could have easily have won, if the politicians
where not involved, and before China entered the fray.
More recently, the Gulf War, we captured real estate and held it untill Wars
end, and before that we bombed factories, bridges and such. With that we had
our victory secured. I believe a review of history will show that all wars
have ended with victors holding more land.
Posted by Bill on August
28, 2001 at 05:04:02:
In Reply to: Vietnam posted by Pat Henry on Aug.
28, 2001 at 04:44:39:
Ultamatly war is a political action. The Gulf War in particular is a good
example of a unified political front. So what did the English have to deal
with at home and in the rest of Europe.
