Why We Tie - America's Politically Correct Wars

Prior to 1952, the United States' record was roughly 10-0 in wars fought. That includes the Civil War and could be one or two higher or lower depending on your definition of "skirmish", "conflict", and "war". Some may not count, or there might be more, but the point is there were no losses. Since 1952, including the Korean War, our record is more along the lines of 2-0-5. This record includes ties in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom. The last two are added in direct result of the foreign policy indecision of the Obama/Biden administration. The two victories are in the "skirmish"/"conflict" category in the form of Operation Just Cause (Panama), and Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada). Why have we started failing to win with our overwhelming military might? Very simple. Modern wars, since 1952 that is, have become a political action rather than the result of failed dilpomacy.



Ask any diplomat and they'll tell you that wars begin because they have failed to properly execute their duties. Or in the case of Afghanistan and terrorism, there was no other party to exercise diplomacy with. Once diplomacy fails and war begins, the handling and prosecution of the war should rest solely with the military commanders such as it did with Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, Chester Nimitz, George Marshall, JJ Pershing, William Sherman, and US Grant, among others. These Generals and Admirals from the Civil War through World War II gave little thought to the political ramifications of their actions. Unlike today. Today, Afghanistan commander General McChrystal requests more troops to succeed, and is publicly ridiculed by the Obama administration in general and our buffoon of a Vice-President, Joe Biden specifically.

This is the man who apparently is influencing our military decisions in Afghanistan. As a result of his idiocy, and the pressure from the left to "draw-down", this country is looking directly in the face of more soldiers coming home in boxes as our troops are denied the resources they need to finish the job. When these two were elected I knew exactly what would happen. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would turn into what the liberals have always claimed they would be, a repeat of Vietnam. Why you ask? Because these wars, like the others of the last 50-60 years, are being fought by politicians rather than our military. Each and every decision that should be made in the theatre of operations is now being made in a committee chamber thousands of miles away by people who don't know a bullet from a pencil, and have no idea how real life works.

This is not a new phenomenon however, it's been happening since Korea. The Korean War never ended. It is still going today, just at a much reduced rate than 1952. The reason is that our troops were not allowed to decimate the North Korean military, but were forced by Washington to accede to the "treaty" marking the 38th parallel as the cease fire zone. Why? Our policticians did not want to expose or offend the Chinese government by revealing their involvment in the conflict. Had General MacArthur been allowed the support he needed, he would have had the tools to cross the Yalu River and demolish the remains of the North Korean military as well as the Chinese assitance they were receiving. Instead, Washington refused to listen to or acknowledge the reports of the Chinese military entering the war, failed to provide adequate troop strength, and the US Marines were forced to withdraw from North Korea after the Battle of Chosin Resevoir. These Marines had actually defeated the 60,000 strong Chinese force surrounding them, but were forced to retreat because of a lack of support back home. The same sad situation would repeat itself later in the Vietnam War.

The Vietnam War was another draw for our troops because of the failure of Washington to properly supply our military commanders with the tools for success. Very simply put, instead of throwing bombs at North Vietnam, our politicians preferred to throw thousands upon thousands of this country's youth into poorly supported fire bases in South Vietnam. Major actions, as indicted by the map at right, were fought for the most part in South Vietnam. There were US air raids against North Vietnam, but few and far between because our diplomats feared the reaction of China and, ultimately, the Soviet Union. Now look at the second map above and to the left. See that little pink area marked "Chinese Buffer Zone"? You guessed it. Once again, Washington was afraid of exposing Chinese involvement in this conflict and established a 50 kilometer zone that prohibited any US troops of going into or conducting air activities. Just one more way that our troops were hamstrung by our own government. In fact, it is my contention that the Vietnam War might not have ever occured or escalated had the US Marines on the Yalu River in Korea been provided the support they needed to finish the Chinese in 1950-1951.

Presently, thanks to Obama and Biden, we are setting ourselves up for a repeat of both of the aforementioned conflicts. I call Desert Storm a tie because our political leadership was hestiant, and, again, afraid of offending world sensibilities by continuing into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. An action which would have prevented the Iraq War we are currently embrolied in. Reasons for these current wars beginning aside, it is clear to me, and has been for a while, that there are only three courses of action left.

First, we can supply the troops with the tools, weapons, and numbers they need to be successful as quickly as possible political ramifications be damned. If we need a large influx of troops into Afghanistan to finish the job, so be it. Let's finish them off and bring every last one of our troops home. Same goes for Iraq.

Or

Bring every last American home from both countries. Now. At one time leaving no one behind.

But

The third option, and the one most likely to occur given the indecision and inaction of the current administration, is to "draw-down" our troops gradually and leave the two regions to smolder pending another conflict years down the road. Furthermore, this gradual retreat would have the effect I mentioned earlier of costing more lives than an influx of troops. It is a proven fact that an inadequately supplied and supported military is only capable of sacrificing the lives of its personnel to no successful end. In other words, we'll bring 80,000 of 100,000 home, but leave the last 20,000 outgunned, outmanned, and fighting for their lives on a daily basis. Part of Obama's campiagn platform was to transfer a majority of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, but now it looks as if neither conflict will have a sufficient amount of personnel to ensure victory.

I have a pretty fair idea of what's going to happen and it doesn't look good. Just as these wars are the legacy of President Bush, how and when they end, and to what degree of success will be the legacy of Obama as much as the ineffective social welfare plans he has in store for our tax dollars.