MG Vallely & Adm. Lyons – “Winning Hearts and Losing Lives” September 24, 2013 | Filed underMilitary | Posted by SUAadmin Editor’s Note – The following paper is excerpted here but you can download the PDF version to continue reading the entire pamphlet. Select the following link for the complete 16 page document and please distribute freely. Winning Hearts and Minds.Pamphlet Winning Hearts and Losing Lives What are the Past and Present Military Strategies for Combating the Enemy? By Paul E. Vallely, MG US Army (Ret.) and James A. “Ace” Lyons Jr., Admiral USN (Ret.) “Always do everything you ask of those you command.” – General George S. Patton It is an honest question to ask if anyone in this Administration or the current senior military leadership would be able to look General George S. Patton in the eye and say they personally would do everything they have asked of today’s armed forces. Understanding the evolution of the U.S. war strategy from the Reagan era to Obama’s ideals will set the stage for the mounting confusion the military is now experiencing to follow, let alone survive. Reagan viewed the military as his strongest weapon in achieving peace and diplomatic success. Obama employs the military as a global friend-winning enterprise. This difference alone demonstrates the willingness, or lack thereof, to recognize the enemy. Reagan took seriously the first charge of the Federal government, which was to provide protection to its citizenry from enemies both foreign and domestic. Reagan understood a healthy, dominant military was the key to commanding respect and yes, even fears, from anyone who would consider disrupting the peace in the United States. In Reagan’s day, the U.S. was feared by its enemies across the world and with good reason. The signal he sent was not a bluff. With Reagan as Commander-In-Chief, our armed forces stood ready at all times to protect and defend the nation. lieutenant-general-george-patton-inspecting-troops-in-the-european-theatre-of-operations-1944 Obama’s approach is more along the lines of: why beat them when you can appease them? Many European nations have tried this approach and their citizens are now paying the bloody and horrifying price for this decision. Ever since Europe began their experiment with multiculturalism, danger has been the result. Riots in the streets of France, the terrible consequences of weakening resolve against shariah law, and the murder in plain daylight of a British Soldier have been the result. It is suicidal for this nation to refuse to learn from the mistakes of its European allies. Since the days of Reagan, the world has changed. The most prominent opponents the country faced in Reagan’s days were different. U.S. school children no longer are taught to duck under their desks in case of Soviet bombs and the focus is not on satellite wars and arms races – not at the moment, anyway. In those days, the threat of Islamic jihad was known, but the spread of communism was the main concern. Even though the motives and fields of war have changed, it still makes sense to take Reagan’s overall objective of achieving peace through strength. Admittedly, the use of the military pre-Obama was not perfect. In fact, numerous miscalculations in strategy committed by the White House can be found from President Kennedy onward. From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, Commanders-in-Chief have neglected or abused the diplomatic role of the military. Following starts and stops between Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy backed slowly into war by sending 16,000 U.S. Military “advisors” into South Vietnam, but he had no clear goal. After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, President Johnson deepened the commitment in Vietnam and President Nixon ended it without a victory. From the start of Vietnam there was no endgame in sight and the high cost of that war is still felt. The financial waste was enormous, but the true cost came in the loss of nearly 58,000 American lives. The Vietnam debacle was the start of the restrictive rules of engagement and going to war without winnable strategies. President Carter was paralyzed when it came to using the military as a powerful diplomatic tool, caving in to Iranian revolutionary Islamic fanatics. Carter did employ some feeble attempts at diplomacy, but ended his term with the Iranian hostage crisis. It can be said that he was not only responsible for the downfall of the Shah, but also the rise of the Islamic terror nation state that Iran has become. The last major diplomatic victory for the U.S. was the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the removal of the iron curtain with credit going to President Reagan’s leadership and vision. Since that time, can anyone point out to me, and America, what diplomatic victories or success we have had? We have spent billions of dollars of shuttle diplomacy around the world. Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry fly across the globe and appear to accomplish nothing! Reagan_salute_1984If one error could be highlighted it would be in 1983 when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with TNT killing 241 U.S. Marines in a building at the Beirut airport (not a proper role for Marines and admitting a mistake by the national security team of Reagan). And a nearly simultaneous bomb detonated by a second suicide bomber in a truck killed 58 French soldiers of the Multinational Force during the Lebanese Civil War in Beirut, Lebanon. The Islamic terrorists were emboldened by the successes and America and her allies have paid dearly in the Middle East ever since. Our failure to respond became Osama bin Laden’s rallying cry that America can not suffer causalities. It should be noted that we had the planes on our carriers loaded and ready to launch the retaliatory strike which would have changed the course of history. We knew exactly where the terrorists were holed up in the Sheik Abdullah Lebanese Army Barracks, but the strike was prevented from launching by our own Secretary of Defense. President Reagan was ill served by that key Cabinet member. In the 1990s, President George H.W. Bush entered a war in order to defend Kuwait against the invasion of Iraq. The wisdom of this decision is extremely debatable. On the one hand, the U.S. was not in physical danger and did not have to enter that war. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein would have controlled one-fifth of the world’s oil supply and that would have indeed affected the world’s economy most negatively. Once again, before Bush made the choice, he should have established a clear endgame. However, Bush unwisely chose to subjugate the U.S. to the United Nations and walk away with the job undone. Instead of toppling Hussein’s regime, we stopped our forces at the gate to Baghdad. When he had the chance, he left the festering unfinished business of the first Gulf war to his son, President George W. Bush. This decision to walk away also freed Hussein to build and fill mass graves with the countless Iraqis he had murdered for their support of the U.S. during the war. Bill Clinton, who needed to learn the military salute properly after he became President, maintained an incoherent foreign policy. Amidst his scandal-plagued time in office, many worldwide events occurred including the Bosnian War, the Black Hawk Down incident, the 1993 bombing of New York’s World Trade Center, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Although he attempted a very public showing of his diplomatic skills, Clinton all but ignored actual attacks. In the end, Clinton had no clear military success to his credit.
Posted on: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 20:58:58 +0000