The simple answer is you win a war by breaking the enemy's will to fight. The simple answer is the basis for all tactics, techniques, and strategies employed by any power willing to win a war.
The traditional manner in which this is accomplished is by killing more of the enemy than they can recruit or replace. Some would argue that this is not possible in our current situation but it is true, even in this war.
But how then does one account for "losses" in Viet Nam and Somalia? During Viet Nam we killed the enemy at a rate of 2000:1. In Somalia, there was only one battle of significance where we killed the enemy at a rate of between 50:1 and 500:1. By any account, militarily, tactically, we won. Yet, many will say we lost both wars. We did not. Washington DC lost.
Washington DC did not have the will to win in Korea, in Viet Nam, nor in Somalia. The military did all that was asked or allowed of them. MacArthur was fired for not only knowing what it would take to win in Korea, but also demonstrating he had the will to do so. And he was fired for bucking the orders of the duly elected POTUS. And the POTUS had concerns over the ability of the American people to take on the Yellow Hordes that MacArthur knew they must, to win.
Another traditional tactic of breaking the will to fight is to prevent the front line troops from attaining the necessary supplies to fight efficiently. South Viet Nam fell, not because they didn't have the will to fight, but because they didn't have the means to fight. Congress didn't just mandate a pullout of troops but also an end to supplying our ally with bullets. When our ally ran out of bullets, they ran out of will and ability to fight. Two years after Our Departure, our betrayed ally fell to our enemy.
But Viet Nam also provided a different successful strategy. The enemy, which was not only Ho Chi Minh
The Communists launched a different means of "breaking the will to fight." They appealed directly to the American People. It was an incredibly effective technique with multiple prongs. Once set in place, it went unchallenged due to backlash from a previously effective campaign.
McCarthyism had initially sought out Communists inside the US for exposure and convictions. Initially, it was a blow to the Communist Party-USA, but turned into a witch hunt, not only due to McCarthy's own zealousness, but also because the Communists capitalized on it and used that zealousness to turn it into a circus. The results: Spotlighting Communists was given the connotation as a zealous political witchhunt and given the name McCarthyism.
So, having defanged the ability of prosecutors to call a Communist a Communist, and with many Communists taking on a "different name" that was less obvious and more appealing, few realized that organizations "espousing peace" and various other causes to end the Viet Nam War were led by American Communists. This is a far cry from saying the average protestor was a Communist. They weren't. The average anti-war protestor believed the rhetoric they were spouting.
It took a life its own. Despite record low casaulties (for that time), casaulties were used as one "reason" that the war should be ended. Despite historic enemy casaulty ratios, it became politically incorrect to report the successes. Despite the fact that the American Soldier continued to fight honorably, every excess and abuse was reported.
Each prong of the propaganda attack had a goal of breaking the will of the American people to fight. And the average person in it believed what they were saying.
The press became accomplices, though not necessarily because of ideology. Even then, the press fed the people what they wanted to read. When it became unpopular to report Troop Victories, they reported only the negative. Positive reporting resulted in accusations of being the propaganda tool of the government and "objectivity" was the excuse for reporting friendly to the enemy propaganda machine.
The US Government did not help. Whether they failed to understand the nature of the campaign or failed to see it as potentially as effective as it turned out to be, their response was ineffective and actually fed into the enemy's campaign. US Officials simply did not comprehend how to effectively state their case without demonstrating the accusation of propaganda was true. It was unprecedented that the "free press" had turned against the protection afforded it and rather than argue its case, the Government closed down the information flow to them.
Throughout the 70's and 80's, the same culprits participated in rallies and causes designed to erode popular support for any battle against the Warsaw Pact, ChiCom, and their allies. With the US licking its wounds from a "loss" in Southeast Asia and the body politic reeling in the popular dissent from openly confronting Communism, the front was brought to Central and South America.
With open confrontation out of the question, the US Government kept its actions secret, only further fueling the protestors against them when it was made known. And with the world in a state of polar opposites of Communism vs. Capitalism, or Democracy as it began to be called, "capitalism" became the dirty word.
The US Government was forced to choose between allowing the enemy to take over or propping up brutal dictators in many cases. Though abuses occurred on both sides of these conflicts, only the allied abuses were publicized. Congress yanked funding from allies like El Salvador against Marxist guerillas and from supporting the Contras against a brutal Communist dictatorship.
The School of Americas was opened not only to teach effective tactics but how to apply them without abusing human rights to Latin American military leaders. Its effectiveness caused it to become the target of a propaganda campaign of the same machine, a campaign that continues today with less fanfare. Protestors enjoy pointing to the exception from the rule, Noriega, but are tightlipped about Chavez, both of whom enjoyed American Training before abandoning the Human Rights classes they were taught.
Breaking the will to fight was the goal of all of these efforts, but the primary enemy from 1945 to 1990 was the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact, and Communist China with their myriad of minions. These enemies had the ability to launch a Third World War with a great chance of destroying the US and Western Europe, but it was more often a war of proxies.
Some of those proxies were Middle Eastern Terrorists. As far as the Superpowers were concerned, any group that would attack the other should be trained and supplied to do so. If the other Superpower could be tied down sufficiently in a myriad of small wars, the big win would be more likely.
Afghanistan proved to be a part of the end for the Soviet Union. Their expansion of Communism into a Nation of stubborn and hardy people in difficult terrain was the bridge too far. American Proxies were armed with SAMs and Rifles in a land they knew and the cost became too great for the Russian people to bear. In a reversal of roles, in an unlikely place, Russian mothers realized their was no strategic value for their sons to die.
But the United States had used a myriad of excuses to its people to avoid entanglements with the terrorist proxies during the Cold War. Still with the end of the Cold War, the terrorists found themselves underfunded and without a major sponsor, even if through a middleman. Islamist terrorism decreased significantly as the organizations sought new sponsors and found financing through illegal governments and crime. The 90's were the calm before the storm.
America continued to ignore the terrorist attacks such as the WTC Attack, the Cole Attack, the Khobar Towers attack, the Kenya and Tanzania Attacks, and two declarations of war by Osama Bin Ladin. The million dollar cruise missile retaliatory attacks were not only ineffective, but moreso as they were characterized as the tail wagging the dog. Politics was getting in the way of providing for the Common Defense. Some have even argued that sacrificing a few sheep was better than putting our Sheepdogs at risk, ie. that the random act of terror does not justify an active war against the terrorists.
As a Sheepdog serving in the Military on 9/11, I was on the range, improving my shooting skills when we received the word, just as the 2nd plane hit. As a Sheepdog, that grew up with the threat of Nuclear War, that served during the Cold War, that fought in Desert Storm, that had felt the frustration of unauthorization to fight against terrorists for all of that time, we held our breath and hoped that we would finally be unleashed against an old enemy.
As far as we were concerned, it took too long for our pack of Sheepdogs to get to the fight. We knew this would not be a war won quickly, but we did understand that the will of the American People would be tested. We were less certain of how the "ideologically" impure anti-war groups would react, but we could see the press were still not our friends. We saw the repercussions of enemy claims that they were "just a wedding party," even as we talked to the Soldiers that the "wedding party" was shooting at.
We knew we needed to be authorized to fight this enemy for the long term, that it would not, could not be a quick and easy Victory over a Nation-State that signed a declaration of surrender, but a war of pursuit of the enemy across many national boundaries as he hid within the very populations we risked our lives to protect. We were less certain of the "Graveyard of Empires" and the effect it would have on US Forces, but we came with different tactics and strategies than did the conquerers that had been conquered there.
It was with relief that we watched the press leave Afghanistan to cover Iraq. Perhaps, we would finally be able to do the job without "friendly fire" in the media. Afghanistan had been the "just war" but Iraq allowed the anti-war crowd a rallying cry. The same people who had asked me for years why Bush Sr had not finished Saddam were suddenly accusing Bush Jr of a vendetta. In between the two, an administration had been plagued by the antics of a dictatorial tyrant that continously tested American Resolve, but had no alternative and no will to take him out.
Saddam had been a right wing tyrant for decades and a willing pawn against other enemies, but also an astute player of all sides. He lamented that though he had an unbroken record of supporting anti-Israeli terrorists, he did not receive the same Arab praise for his dedication to that cause. As with many geniuses, he was able to logically draw false conclusions readily apparent to those of lesser IQ. Too often the most intelligent of people are too smart to listen to the experts they pay for advice. He and Hitler are but two examples of that.
So, with the anti-war crowd being so silent about Afghanistan, it was strange that they suddenly found their voice on Iraq. It seems that they were less ideologically pure or simply too politically astute to protest the "just war." Nevertheless, Iraq afforded them a rallying cry, particularly when "WMD" became only "nukes" in the popular perception, and when no "nukes" were found, despite yellow cake, mobile chemical labs, and even 500 chemical munitions being discovered, the press still perpetuates that "no WMD" was found.
The campaign to break the will of the American People to fight in Iraq lasted in earnest from 2002-2008 and had unlikely sponsors. A Political Party took up the cause publically while supporting the war privately. It brought them to power in Congress in 2006 and to the Executive in 2008, even after their campaign slogans were demonstrated to be false.
And though the slogans had gotten them elected and even caused the previous administration to accept some of their terms, RealPolitik set in. Little changed in Iraq policy except the names. A pledge to pull out in 16 months changed to a pledge to rename the remaining Troops "non-combat" in 19 months. Whether politics allowed the new party in power to recognize the fragile Victory in Iraq or not, it was truly a Victory they could not deny and it needed further protection lest it become a loss on their record.
Perhaps, they even refuse to acknowledge the Victory for sake of the knowledge it can be reversed. Perhaps, they are astute enough to recognize the difficulty of seeing a campaign of their acknowledgement followed by their own words recognizing the renewed conflict.
Nevertheless, the anti-war crowds have turned to other campaigns. The timeline in Iraq is set. The Victory is achieved. Their new targets are Gitmo and Afghanistan. Their slogans are tailored to the new causes and they are diverse. The debate over Gitmo is particularly interesting as it is an argument with no merit. Combatants are not necessarily criminals and their detention is governed by the Geneva Conventions, not the US Constitution.
The anti-war campaign against Afghanistan again rests on spotlighting the exception to the rule, the seldom dishonorable actions by a rare member of the Military that has no honor, and the seldom collateral damage in a war that has seen very little of it.
As the collective memory of the American People has largely forgotten the abuses of our old Communist foes and the excesses of any government afforded absolute power, many of the old slogans have been dusted off and given a new name. McCarthyism is just as dirty a word as it was in the 80's. Acknowledging that Communists exist and noting their alliance with Islamists can cause people to tune out. But pretending it is untrue or refusing to say these dirty words does not change the facts. Facts remain no matter if they are known or are believed to be myths.
But readers should not confuse the difference between leaders of an organization and their motivations, with the beliefs of their followers and their sincerity. A well spoken leader can easily convince their followers they are something other than their reality. The most effective lie is still mostly true. And the lie being told today by the anti-war crowds is a lie of omission.
The lie being told today is the omission of the 99% of honorable, valourous and generous acts of our Troops. The lie being told in the MSM is the 1% truth of the few defeats, the few losses, the few setbacks, the few challenges not overcome. It is the lie of highlighting the obscure, the exception, the dishonorable that has somehow managed to put on a US Uniform.
Whether the motivation of the MSM is profit, politics, or propaganda does not matter. What does matter is that they have become willing accomplices in attempting to defeat the American Will to Fight.
Stumble It!
