Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
That an insurgency cannot exist without passive support from civilians is true.
|
Goes right back to a basic concept of war. The victor owns the battlefield at the end of a battle. For example, US Navy was devastated in so many battles against Japanese in The Slot. But the Japanese withdrew everytime. Therefore it was an American victory. A devastating but still American victory.
Problem with Westmoreland's outright violations of war principles in Vietnam was demonstrated by his nonsense called 'Search and Destroy'. For when a sweep completed, only the enemy held that terrain. The 1965 battle in la Drang Valley, praised as a victory by Westmoreland, was a devastating defeat for Americans. At the end, Americans did not hold the battle field. Instead Westmoreland would cite enemy casualties to call it a victory.
Why did VC win? Americans saw everyone as gooks. VC would live in the village, work for the farmer, or pay the farmer for the chicken. Therefore a farmer knew who his friend was - and therefore who remained on the battlefield after a battle.
What we learn applies to Iraq. Same thing. Victory required nation building in the very first months. Looting (that George Jr's administration denied) demonstrates how Americans were losing a battlefield (while proclaiming 'Masson Accomplished'). We did not have enough troops to meet a definition of a victory. We did nothing - no nation building - for seven months. By that time, insurgents were so welcome that famous pictures show insurgents setting up a mortar all morning and even using a transit right outside the walls of Abu Ghriad. Why could those insurgents spend all morning setting up for their attack? Because again, who controlled the ground?
It is Military Science 101. To hold the ground, one must hold the hearts and minds of those who control and live on that land. Instead our government only made enemies as Americans also did in Vietnam.