I found this collection of wisdom earlier today, and I was struck by this quote and how it flies in the face of the “nuke ’em back to the stone age” rhetoric:
Words to Live By:
You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life — but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. – T.R. Fehrenbach
So I looked up Colonel Fehrenbach and learned that he wrote the definitive history of the Korean War and drew some keen observations about troop readiness and realistic planning from it.
Severe peacetime budget cuts after World War II left the U.S. military a shadow of its former self. The terrible lesson of Korea was that to send into action troops trained for nothing but “serving a hitch” in some quiet billet was an almost criminal act. Throwing these ill-trained and poorly equipped troops into the heat of battle resulted in the war’s early routs. The United States was simply unprepared for war. As we enter a new century with Americans and North Koreans continuing to face each other across the 38th parallel, we would do well to remember the price we paid during the Korean War.
The whole business of “serving a hitch” was how Vietnam was fought with its one year tours, 15 years later. Doesn’t sound like anyone learned from Korea.
This raises some questions about the care and feeding of a standing army: keeping your troops trained to a high degree of readiness has some costs associated with it and some risks as well. With the possibility of wars against states or non-state militias or bands of loosely-organized terrorists, the rules of engagement will vary: how to train for that? Where one scenario will allow for the full range of options — air support, armor, artillery — another may only permit close combat in urban settings. I don’t know how one could support a range of specialties and justify the cost. If the pax Americana was a workable strategy (eg, it had support from our allies and its costs defrayed by someone other than the US taxpayer), it might work. The obvious conclusion anyone would draw is that the US becomes an imperial state, in name as well as in fact. With US troops in 130 countries, what other conclusion can you draw?
Or are we actually pursuing the muy borracho doctrine described by Mr Barlow?
And now it’s off to read September 11 and Its Aftermath.