Rethinking Withdrawals

[A Can of Man]

Everyone seems to be obsessed with the idea of withdrawing troops but I argue that the very fact that this is on the table makes wars MUCH harder to win than they normally would be. This is why.

I'll give you the example of a case I know well. When the Korean War rolled around in 1950, there came a three year long war that had a higher casualty rate than World War II. Yet there was no serious word of any kind of pull out. Even after the truce, or even upon a war's end a comprehensive pullout was never in the books, rather if there was another act of aggression from the North, there would be a full scale military response. It is that kind of message that the enemy truly thinks about and wonders if the situation can be won.
Now let's turn that on the flip side and imagine that America had a time table on troop pullout in Korea back then. The North Koreans would automatically know that American resolve was weak and that it was only a matter of time before the Americans would withdraw and that there was hope for complete victory and should continue to press. I don't think there would be a South Korea if that had been the case.
As for the Iraqis, would you side with the United States if you're not sure whether or not they'll be around the following year? Or what if there's a change in President and the new guy's not so crazy about Iraq and decides to pull everyone out? Then the militia/terrorist/patriot what have you will drive up to your door in their Nissan pickup and start pumping fresh air into your brain case. Not just you but your wife, your kids... maybe even other family members. I know for sure that I wouldn't. Not if I was a regular Iraqi dude who wanted nothing more than to go to work, bring back money and feed my family and send my kids to school.
Something to think about.

 

[AikiRooster]

I'm not and never have been for withdrawing our troops. I think it would be the biggest mistake of the war. When times get tough in war, that's good because that usually means your just about to win.

 

[LeEnfield]

To pull out before your mission is completed will be taken by many groups as a sign of weakness. It would leave your country open to even more terrorist attacks, with the terrorist knowing that if America attacked them in their home base, all they have to do is to fade into the background and inflict a few casualties and the cry would go out from the American people to bring their troops home.

 

[DTop]

And I don't think they'd be far off the mark.

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually they'd be spot on.
That's what incidents like Beirut and Mogadishu did. Kill a few Americans and they'll be going home. Just drag time and they will get bored and depressed and leave. The useful idiots at home will start taking your side even! How convenient.

 

[Del Boy]

Absolutely spot on guys. It simply gives encouragement to the opposition, as does all the negative widely publicisied attitudes at home while hostolities are on-going and boys are fighting on the front line. The loud we will finish the job whatever crew in USA are correct in that strategy. And leading that has always been Geo W, it has to be said. He has not faltered re. the challenge.

That strategy would have left challengers feeling that it is not worth taking on USA.

As it is now, with all the lack of stomach for the job on display, the opposite is true.

During WW11 there used to be a word for any such motivation -weakening announcements.


This is an edit - Hey Redneck, while I have been busily putting together a response you have beaten me to it
and said just what I am saying but in a few accurate words!

 

[A Can of Man]

I try to keep it concise.

 

[MontyB]

Actually they'd be spot on.
That's what incidents like Beirut and Mogadishu did. Kill a few Americans and they'll be going home. Just drag time and they will get bored and depressed and leave. The useful idiots at home will start taking your side even! How convenient.

I think you are partially right but I think you have overlooked one important aspect.
People will support a mission they believe in, you don't see the as much opposition to participation in Afghanistan as you with Iraq for example because most people understand and support the reasons for involvement in Afghanistan.

It is also the reason why there were few issues with WW2, Korea and Gulf War 1 as in each case there was a clear right and wrong party where as the reasons for being in Vietnam and Iraq were not as clear cut.

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually the causes for involvement in Vietnam and Korea are in fact identical.
They differ in the way they were fought and the fact that there was more press coverage and TV coverage in Vietnam.
Just case is a very important part of going to war and it is a key factor in Sun Tzu's Art of War as well. It is actually a lot more complicated than all that and I believe that there isn't so much a movement against the war in Afghanistan not only because it is just but because most people are fixated on Iraq.
Not only is it about just cause, it also is a reflection of the overall resolve of our societies in modern times. Just like the operation back in 93 in Somalia, which I argue probably couldn't have had a more just case for intervention, was screamed at by the public and the press as a disaster and demanded a withdrawal. I guess we can say that since interventions which are THAT just don't have half a chance, the ones that seem iffy or wrong haven't got a chance in hell.
If the war takes more than 5 weeks, the public will think it's unjust.

 

[MontyB]

Actually the causes for involvement in Vietnam and Korea are in fact identical.
They differ in the way they were fought and the fact that there was more press coverage and TV coverage in Vietnam.
Just case is a very important part of going to war and it is a key factor in Sun Tzu's Art of War as well. It is actually a lot more complicated than all that and I believe that there isn't so much a movement against the war in Afghanistan not only because it is just but because most people are fixated on Iraq.
Not only is it about just cause, it also is a reflection of the overall resolve of our societies in modern times. Just like the operation back in 93 in Somalia, which I argue probably couldn't have had a more just case for intervention, was screamed at by the public and the press as a disaster and demanded a withdrawal. I guess we can say that since interventions which are THAT just don't have half a chance, the ones that seem iffy or wrong haven't got a chance in hell.
If the war takes more than 5 weeks, the public will think it's unjust.

You can look for reasons to blame "people" all you like but the fact is that people do support just causes and if you arguments are not strong enough to convince your own people that you need to defend yourself then perhaps you are wrong.
Korea, Vietnam (early), Kuwait and Afghanistan, near universal support not only from the US public but the world as a whole because all had justifiable reasons that the people understood and accepted.
Vietnam (late), Iraq, dodgy justifications and protecting even shadier regimes than those we were fighting, public support dies rapidly.

 

[LeEnfield]

I think much of the problem is the TV coverage, now it is not wrong to show what is happening in these conflicts, the problem is the personal slant that the reporters put on the the film coverage to make them self's look good and get bigger pay cheques in doing so

 

[MontyB]

I think the media plays a part in this but I don't think it is a negative one, people are now better informed which means they are able to make up their own minds on the legitimacy of a nations actions, this was not the case in WW1 and WW2 where they were fed what their respective governments wanted them to know.
Just because one person reports an incident differently to another does not mean the incident did not happen.

 

[senojekips]

Just because one person reports an incident differently to another does not mean the incident did not happen.

Nor that the public can't work out for themselves what is really going on. A picture is truly worth a thousand words.

 

[A Can of Man]

MontyB I'm not wholeheartedly disagreeing with you, it is simply that nowadays even the right wars seem to have a public shelf life of fresh milk.

The biggest difference between Korea and Vietnam: The length.

But again we hit upon a subject in the Art of War. Make sure your war is short.
It's not simply a blame on "people," it seems like it's where societies go after a while. Generation MTV as we have it. If it's not done in 4 minute it's too long.

As for the press... when I was in Jakarta during the 1997 riots, I remember how CNN made it look a lot bigger and more violent than it really was in different ways. There was more footage (looped a thousand times) about some riot that happened four days ago and nothing (or little) on how ethnic Chinese people were being targeted. Then there was the Mulucus massacres between the Christians and Muslims and that was underplayed by the world's press because it was simply too dangerous for reporters to set foot there. I think that the press, whose staff come from pretty similar kinds of backgrounds with only a few notable exceptions, wield a lot of power and when you watch the news, it's almost like it's 15% reporting and 85% analysis (i.e. their opinion).

 

[MontyB]

MontyB I'm not wholeheartedly disagreeing with you, it is simply that nowadays even the right wars seem to have a public shelf life of fresh milk.

Then explain why Afghanistan is not being protested, when you hear talk of withdrawals I would be prepared to bet a sizable chunk of change that the vast majority of references are to Iraq.

It's not simply a blame on "people," it seems like it's where societies go after a while. Generation MTV as we have it. If it's not done in 4 minute it's too long.

I don't agree I think you are overlooking the fact that people these days are far better informed than they have been in the past, it is no longer enough to preach patriotism in order to get lines forming at the recruiting office you also need a justifiable reason for people want to sign up for or support a war.

As for the press... when I was in Jakarta during the 1997 riots, I remember how CNN made it look a lot bigger and more violent than it really was in different ways. There was more footage (looped a thousand times) about some riot that happened four days ago and nothing (or little) on how ethnic Chinese people were being targeted. Then there was the Mulucus massacres between the Christians and Muslims and that was underplayed by the world's press because it was simply too dangerous for reporters to set foot there. I think that the press, whose staff come from pretty similar kinds of backgrounds with only a few notable exceptions, wield a lot of power and when you watch the news, it's almost like it's 15% reporting and 85% analysis (i.e. their opinion).

But none the less these events did happen, I am not saying you should believe everything the press tells you but I am prepared to bet that if they say there was a car crash with massive loss of life or a bombing that kills 20000 you can pretty much guarantee there was at the very least a car crash and a bombing the rest of it may well be guess work but the foundation isn't.

 

[A Can of Man]

The reason why Iraq is being discussed more than Afghanistan is because it is the bigger conflict, more troops have died there and it's where more things seem to go wrong than in Afghanistan.

As for the audiences for the news, well I wished most people would think like you do about the reports but the fact is that they do not. They will take all of it for face value because somehow they fail to realize the news agencies are also businesses looking for profit.
It's funny because at the beginning of the invasion the press were like "buddies" of the military with their embedded reporters and then a few years on they jump on every story on when troops mess up to paint a negative picture. You do your job right, no one cares. Screw up once, they make it look like all you ever do is screw up.

 

[MontyB]

Yet Afghanistan has been going two years longer and has far more international participation which doesn't fit the "4 minute attention span" argument.

 

[A Can of Man]

This is actually true.
But again, I think it's just been overshadowed by Iraq.
When Somalia was going on,the intervention reasons were very just, but the conflict dragged on, Aidid wasn't caught and when America took a few casualties, there was an uproar about the involvement and a pullout was ordered.
It's a very possible scenario of what could have happened had there been no involvement in Iraq.

 

[Del Boy]

Then explain why Afghanistan is not being protested, when you hear talk of withdrawals I would be prepared to bet a sizable chunk of change that the vast majority of references are to Iraq.

Afghanistan is protested, and would be protested even more if Iraq was not going on.

It has to be said.

Look at what we have here - even on a military forum, at a time when guys are daily fighting and falling in Iraq; people who are happy to join the forum and then to continually lambast the reasons for being there.

Soldiers read these threads, as do some of their families, and find morale- sapping abuse of their countries' efforts at every turn, mere onlookers missing no opportunity to deride them.

In this conflict, there has been no need for any Lord Haw-Haws to feel the need to intervene here on behalf of our enemies, because we have those only too ready and willing to do the job for them; constantly and thoroughly.

Patriotism is smeared. And worst of all, they cannot even wait until fierce and active hostilities are over before spouting that what the troops are fighting for is immoral and illegal. This from some who have no moral objections in other directions, and have no way yet of knowing F-all about the absolute truths regarding our position in Iraq.

Well - I think that stinks - and I will continue, if allowed, to support the war effort while the fighting rages and leave history to weigh the scales after the dust has settled. After all, we are not recruiting sergeants for our enemies, we do not need our morale to be slowly and steadily eroded by those who think that the Judgement of Soloman is their preserve. Especially the morale of our young.

As I have before - we used to have a word for that.

 

[senojekips]

Ill considered use of "Patriotism" is the last resort of the vacuous who cannot think for themselves.

The idea being, that Patriots defend their country, not the idea of sending the cream of our youth to some foreign country to die needlessly for someone's personal political agenda. There is a vast difference.

Patriotism is about Defence not Offence.