From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.war
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:06:31 GMT
Reply-To: chf0@gte.com
Followup-To: soc.culture.british
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

In article <1992Jul30.105902@axion.bt.co.uk>, ravis@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Avis) writes:
|> 
|> In article <NIGEL.92Jul29184225@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov>, nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes:
|> |> In article <1992Jul29.150823@axion.bt.co.uk> ravis@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Avis) writes:
|> |>  
|> There is a big difference between garrisoning a country and defending it.
|> It's a big step between spending money to send your citizens across the seas
|> to live in nice comfortable bases ans actually getting them to risk
|> death and injury. The North Vietnamese realised that the USA had no
|> real stomach for a prolonged ACTIVE role in Vietnam because it wanted
|> `The Big Win'. But the whole strategy could only ever lead to a score
|> draw without a continuing defence of South Vietnam.

The US failure in Vietnam was not military in nature, but political.
Sagging morale and discipline problems towards the end of the war were
caused by lack of clear direction and support from home.  Lack of the
"will to win".  But that came directly from US public opinion and the
political leadership, not from the military.  Despite that, US forces
won *all* of the major battles they participated in in Vietnam. 

|> But there are VERY few armies with quite the capacity for collapse and
|> self-destruction. 

Piffle.  The US military has a long history of victory in combat - not
collapse, as you maintain.  And even in the only lost war in American
history - Vietnam - the failure was not on the battlefield. 

|> Witness the roughly 10,000 friendly fire casualties in
|> Vietnam, 

Would you please post the source of this meaningless statistic.  I say
meaningless, because numbers of friendly fire casualties are
meaningless when taken out of any kind of reference.

|> the collapse during the first major Chinese offensive in Korea

A failure of intelligence, to be sure.  But perhaps you remember a
place called Chosin?  

|> and the weakness of line US infantry against their German
|> counterparts in WW2, despite massive fire-power advantages.

Another meaningless assertion.  What do you mean by weakness? That
they were not as good, man for man, as the Germans - the best troops
in the world at the time?  And wasn't it those same "weak" US troops
who moved farther, faster, and captured more territory in less time
than any other army had in history?

"No one arrives for battle less well prepared than the Americans. But
no one learns faster" - badly paraphrased from Erwin Rommel.

|> A REAL professional service is the French Foreign Legion. Formed
|> from the scum of many different nations, discipline is based on
|> unquestioning obedience and swift retribution for those who
|> renege on their commitments. They will fight any war, no matter
|> how desperate or unpopular and will fight virtually to the death.

And yet, their history of winning battles is much less enviable than
that of the US military.  

|> Richard Avis (Mr. Forgettable)
-- 
Curt Fennell			* chf0@gte.com
Unix System Administrator	* (617) 466-2142
GTE Labs, 40 Sylvan Road	* "Get down off that cross!
Waltham, MA, 02254		*  Somebody needs the wood"
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:10445 rec.games.empire:2287 alt.war:1516