If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
Guy Alcala wrote: There is absolutely no support in the historical record, none, for Ed's belief that LB II somehow 'won' the war or even that it brought about significantly better terms, or that Nixon and Kissinger were even trying to accomplish that. Nope. The historical record categorically confirms the fact that LB II won the VN war: it - and it alone - convinced the N. Vietnamese that the gloves were coming off, for the very first time. Bull, John. LB I, the mining of the harbors, the stopping of their invasion with heavy casualties did that. What on the LB II target list, other than Hanoi Radio, hadn't we struck before? They had a choice: return to the Paris talks with a fortright attitude toward peace, or return completely to the stone age at home. They had already agreed to the same terms in October, but pulled out in November when the US tried to reopen the talks and negotiate for new conditions which were asked for by President Thieu, which they refused (as we expected they would). They then agreed in January to essentially the same terms as in October, when we abandoned our attempts to try and get the major changes Thieu wanted. What exactly were we going to bomb that we hadn't already? How were we going to do so, since Nixon knew perfectly well that he couldn't continue the bombing once Congress came back? See below. For the very first time, the N. Vietnamese approached the talks with something other than deceit and delay in mind: their continued survival. You're sort of right, you've just got the timing wrong. Their attitude shifted after the failure of the Spring offensive (due to LB I as well as ARVN resistance), not after LB II. Here's the letter from Nixon to Thieu dated October 16, 1972 (from "The Palace File"), describing the change in attitude: The White House Washington "Dear President Thieu: I have asked Dr. Henry Kissinger to convey to you this personal letter regarding our current negotiations with North Vietnam which now appear to be reaching a final stage. "As you know, throughout the four years of my Administration the United states has stood firmly behind your Government and its people in our support for their valiant struggle to resist aggression and preserve their right to determine their own political future. "The military measures we have taken and the Vietnamization program, the dramatic steps that we took in 1970 against the cambodian sanctuaries, the operations in Laos in 1971 and the measures against North Vietnam just this past May have fully attested to the steadfastness of our support. I need no emphasize that many of these measures were as unpopular in the U.S. as they were necessary. "At the negotiating table we have always held firm to the principle that we would never negotiate with North Vietnam a solution which predetermined the political outcome to the conflict. We have consistently adhered to positions that would preserve the elected government and assure the free people of Vietnam the opportunity to determine their future. "Until very recently the North Vietnamese negotiatiors have held firmly to their long-establishedposition that anysettlementofthewarwouldhaveto include your resignation and the dismantlement of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam and its institutions. "It now seems, however, that the combination of the perserverance and heroism of your Government and its fighting forces, the measures taken by the United States on the 8th of May, 1972, and our firmness at the conference table have caused a fundamental shift in Hanoi. In the course of Dr. Kissinger's recent meetings with the North Vietnamese negotiators in paris, it has become progressively more evident that Hanoi's leadership is prepared to agree to a ceasefire prior to a resolution of the political problem in South Vietnam. This is indeed an important reverse in doctrine and must represent a decision by them which cannot have been taken lightly. They know the weakness of their own political forces in the South and therefore the risks involved in reaching an agreement that does not meet their poltical objectives must indeed for them be great. "The consequence of this change in strategy has resulted in a situation wherein we and Hanoi's negotiators have reached essential agreement on a text which provides for a cessation of hostilities, the withdrawal of remaining allied forces, the exchange of prisoners of war, and the continued existence of your Government and its institutions after the ceasefire takes effect. In addition to the document itself a number of private assurances have been obtained designed to meet the security concerns of your country and whose implementation we consider an essential part of this agreement. "Dr. Kissinger will explain to you in the fullest detail the provisions of the proposed agreement which he carries with him and I will therefore not provide further elaboration in this message. I do, however, want you to know that I believe we have no reasonable alternative but to accept this agreement. It represents major movement by the other side, and it is my firm conviction that its implementation will leave you and your people with the ability to defend yourselves and decide the political destiny of South Vietnam. "As far as I am concerned, the most important provision of this agreement, aside from its military features, is that your Government, its armed forces and political institutions, will remain intact after the ceasefire has been observed. In the periodfollowing the cessation of hostilities you can be completely assured that we will continue to provide your Government with the fullest support, including continued economic aid and whatever military assistance is consistent with the ceasefire provisions of this government. "I recognise that after all these years of war a settlement will present an enormous challenge to your leadership and your people. We all recognize that theconflict will now move into a different form, a form of political struggle as opposed to open military confrontation; but I am of the firm conviction that with wisdom and perserverance your Government and the people of South Vietnam will meet this new challenge. You will have my absolute support in this endeavor and I want you to know it is myfirm belief that in this new phase your continued leadership of the destiny of South Vietnam is indispensable. "Finally, I must say that, just as we have taken risks in war, I believe we must take risks for peace. Our intention is to abide faithfully by the terms of the agreements and understandings reached with Hanoi, and I know this will be the attitude of your government as well. We expect reciprocity and have made this unmistakably clearbothto them and their major allies. I can assure you that we will view any breach of faith on their part with the utmost gravity; and it would have the most serious consequences. "Allow me to take this occasion to renew my sentiments of highest personal regard and admiration for you and your comrades in arms. Sincerely, Richard Nixon [Nixon then added the hand-written note below on the bottom of the letter] "Dr. Kissinger, General Haig and I have discussed this proposal at great length. I am personally convinced it is the best we will be able to get and that it meets my _absolute_ [emphasis in original] condition that the GVN must survive as a free country. Dr. Kissinger's comments have my total backing. RN" Thieu then demanded major changes, but as Nixon clearly writes above he didn't think the DRVN would agree to them, and they didn't. The letters Nixon sent to Thieu in October and November describing this process, and reflecting Nixon's growing frustration with Thieu's intransigence are also available, but you can read the book for yourself to fill in the blanks. Academics can revise history as much as they want, as can bureaucrats and politicians write books glorifying their own involvement and marginalizing the contributions of others (best recent example: Richard Clarke's shameless book-marketing 09/11 committee) - but they cannot change the actual events that occurred. Far too many direct participants (and individuals extremely interested in then-current events) survive to permit them to push their "inspired by a true story" fiction on an unsuspecting public. And what does the most powerful direct participant have to say? Nixon again, here's the verbatim text (again, from "The Palace File") of his ultimatum to Thieu, telling him to sign the Ceasefire Agreement (without the major changes Thieu demanded in October), or be prepared for the U.S. to abandon the RVN completely: The White House Washington January 20, 1973 "Dear President Thieu: "Thank you for your January 20th letter, which I have carefully read. "No point is served in reviewing the record of our exchanges, regarding the Agreement and the protocols. While it may be true that the latest texts of the protocols did not reach Saigon until January 11, it is also true that your representatives in Paris were continually without instructions during the various negotiating sessions in November and December. We were thus forced to proceed according to our own best judgement. During this process we kept your representatives fully informed, while continually asking in vain for your goverment's suggestions. "In any event, all these considerations are now beside the point. The essential fact is that the situation in the United States makes it imperative to put our relationship on a new basis. It is obvious that we face a situation of most extreme gravity when long-time friends of South Vietnam such as Senators Goldwater and Stennis, on whom we have relied for four years to carry our programs of assistance through Congress, make public declarations that a refusal by your Government of reasonable peace terms would make it impossible to continue aid. It is in this situation which now threatens everything for which our two countries have suffered so much. "Let me now address the specific proposals you have made in your letter. We have made innumerable attempts to achieve the very provisions you have proposed with respect to North Vietnamese forces [Thieu's continiuing demand that they be specifically required to withdraw from the RVN, which had caused the talks to fall apart in October, and which the US had abandoned trying to get], both in the text of the Agreement and in formal understandings. We have concluded that the course we have chosen is the best obtainable. While there is no specific provision in the text, there are so many collateral clauses with an impact on this question that the continued presence of North Vietnamese troops could only be based on illegal acts and the introduction of new forces could only be done in violation of the Agreement. It seems to me that the following clauses in the Agreement achieve this objective: -- The affirmation of the independence and sovereignty of South Vietnam in Articles 14, 18(e), and 20. -- The provision for reunification only by peaceful means, through agreement and without coercion or annexation, which establishes the illegitimacy of any use or threat of force in the name of reunification (Article 15). -- The U.S. and DRV, on an equal basis, pledging themselves to against any outside interference in the exercise of the South Vietnamese pople's right to self-determination (Article 9). -- The legal prohibition of the introduction of of troops, advisers, and war material into South Vietnam from outside South Vietnam (Article 7). -- The principle of respect for the demilitarized zone and the provisional military demarcation line (Article 15). -- The prohibition of the use of Laotian and Cambodian territory to encroach upon the sovereignty and security of South Vietnam (Article 20). -- The fact that all Communist forces in south Vietnam are subject to the obligation that their reduction and demobilization are to be negotiated as soon as possible (Article 13). "In addition, we are prepared to give you a unilateral U.S. note which sums up our understanding on this issue. Ambassador Bunker will show you a draft of a note which we will deliver in Saigon on the day of signature of January 27. "With respect to your concern about the protocols, it seems to us that Article 6 in the ceasefire/joint commission protocol would permit your police forces to continue carrying carbines and rifles since the continuedpresence of North vietnamese forces obviously constitutes 'unusual circumstances'. Nevertheless, I shall instruct Dr. Kissinger to seek a change in this Article in an attempt to remove its ambiguity. I cannot, however, promise success. "The key issue is different, however. We have now reached a decisive point. I can no longer hold up my decision pending the outcome of further exchanges. When Dr. Kissinger leaves Washington Monday morning, our basic course must be set. As I have told you, we will initial the Agreement on January 23. I must know now whether you are prepared to join us on this course, and I must have your answer by 1200 Washington time, January 21, 1973. "I must meet with key Congressional leaders Sunday evening, January 21, to inform them in general terms of our course. If you cannot give me a positive answer by then, I shall inform Dr. Kissinger to initial the Agreement even without the concurrence of your government. In that case, even if you should decide to join us later, the possibility of continued Congressional assistance will be severely reduced. In that case I will not be able to put into my January 23 speech the assurances I have indicated to you, because they will not then seem to have been a voluntary act on my part. Needless to say, I would be most reluctant to take this fateful step. "Let me therefore sum up my position as follows: First, I welcome your decision to send Foreign Minister Lam to Paris, and I will instruct Dr. Kissinger to to have the fullest and frankest discussion with him. Dr. Kissinger will see him both before and after his meeting with the North Vietnamese to make clear your Government's full particpation in in our actions. Secondly, I have instructed Dr. Kissinger to seek the change in the protocol regarding police forces. Thirdly, with respect to North Vietnamese forces, I can go no further than the draft note that I am asking Ambassador Bunker to transmit to you and which we will hand over to you officially on January 27, the day of signing. Fourthly, if you join us we shall announce the Vice President's visit to Saigon before the date of signing though he could not leave Washington until January 28. "Finally, and most importantly, I must have your assurance now, on the most personal basis, that when we initial the agreement on Tuesday we will be doing so in the knowledge that you will proceed to sign the Agreement jointly with us. "This agreement, I assure you again, will represent the beginning of a new period of close collaboration and strong mutual support between the Republic of Vietnam and the United States. You and I will work together in peacetime to protect the independence and freedom of your country as we have done in war. If we close ranks now and proceed together, we will prevail." Sincerely, Richard Nixon |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 17 Apr 2004 13:42:06 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote: Nope. The historical record categorically confirms the fact that LB II won the VN war That same "historical record" says the 8th Air Force bombing missions into Germany destroyed the Germans war making capability. That "fact" has been disproven countless times. There is history and there is history. A lot of history is interpretive and some is even revisionist. You might say the 8th didn't destroy German industry, but you could just as easily suggest that lack of petroleum products, lack of precision machine tooling, lack of ball-bearings, lack of a viable transportation network, etc. won the war. You could say that. You could also say that the loss of their petroleum source (Ploesti) to the Soviets on August 31st,1944, as well as the loss of the coke supplies of France (Western allies, August-September; can't make steel without coke) had more than a little to do with it. Oh, and the several million German military casualties suffered on the Eastern Front might be due a little credit too, don't you think? ;-) They had a choice: return to the Paris talks with a fortright attitude toward peace, or return completely to the stone age at home. You sound like LeMay. You do realize they already were in the stone age right? Tell me, what critical infastructure did we destroy during LB II that wasn't already operating at less than 25%? For a stone age country, the seemed to generate an incredible number of electronic emissions, starting with the early warning radar that would ping us on the tankers through the command/control that integrated the MiGs, SAMs and AAA fire. Precisely how much of this did they make themselves, so that we could target the production facilities? Zero. Or maybe the transportation that managed to ship arms and materiel to sustain the combat operations in the south. They did build bicycles themselves, I'll give you that. All other road/rail vehicles came in from outside the country. Academics can revise history as much as they want There's no doubt that this does occur, but not in this case. You could prove your point simply by providing some sort of proof that the bombing during LB II was causing such damage that the NVN government feared they would be defeated if it did not stop. I think the simple cause/effect relationship of recalcitrance in Nov-Dec, then in just eleven days an agreement is signed and within six weeks C-141s are flying in and out of Gia Lam bringing the POWs home is all the proof required. Ed, the only problem is that you ignore all that had gone before and was still going on throughout, none of which you were aware of at the time. See my other post. Far too many direct participants (and individuals extremely interested in then-current events) survive to permit them to push their "inspired by a true story" fiction on an unsuspecting public. While I was only 4 at the time, you can consider me one of your; "individuals extremely interested in then-current events". In fact, nearly every one in the USAF should be interested in getting the real scoop on LB II, because learning the wrong lesson is often worse then not learning a lesson at all.... Absolutely true, Santayna. The lesson of LB II taken in the context of an eight year war against NVN is that the Powell/Bush doctrine is correct---don't enter a war without a clear objective. Once committed, win quickly with overwhelming force. When victory is achieved have a defined exit strategy. And hope like hell that the other side's definition of losing is the opposite of your definition of winning, and that they will accept and conform to your exit strategy. Neither may be the case, especially in limited wars. If you think the lesson of LB II is something different, you're in the wrong business. Actually, LB II did have a clear strategy, but it wasn't the one you state. It was more "By bombing NVN before Congress comes back into session and cuts off all funds, I can convince Thieu that we will continue to back him should the DRVN violate the accords, while also convincing the DRVN that it's not worth it for them to hold out for the whole loaf but accept the same offer they'd previously agreed to before Thieu queered the deal, so we can get our PoWs back and get the hell out of there with as much dignity as we can muster." Nixon was successful on the first three counts, and the fourth was arguable. "Winning the war" was never his goal with LB II; he knew that the war could only be won in South Vietnam, unless we were prepared to obliterate North Vietnam and risk a direct confrontation with the PRC and/or the USSR. Politically (and morally), that wasn't an option, unless you feel that Nixon was willing and able to order the AF/Navy to destroy the Chinese and Soviet factories that were producing virtually all the north's war needs, along with the Eastern Bloc cargo ships that brought much of it there, and the north's own food supplies? Or how about just nuking Hanoi, Haiphong, and the Red River Delta in general? Guy |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote: Guy Alcala wrote: There is absolutely no support in the historical record, none, for Ed's belief that LB II somehow 'won' the war or even that it brought about significantly better terms, or that Nixon and Kissinger were even trying to accomplish that. Nope. The historical record categorically confirms the fact that LB II won the VN war: it - and it alone - convinced the N. Vietnamese that the gloves were coming off, for the very first time. Bull, John. LB I, the mining of the harbors, the stopping of their invasion with heavy casualties did that. What on the LB II target list, other than Hanoi Radio, hadn't we struck before? Wrong question. (And my time near there was long over by then...) The appropriate question is : "Did they think that LB I was an anomaly (like the old Rolling Thunder program) that wouldn't be resumed for years? If so, LB II convinced them we were serious and would keep up - and increase - the pressure. Nixon was NOT LBJ - though his motivation was likely just as political: do what is necessary to END this thing ASAP, without it going down in the history books as another Dien Bien Phu. If it meant the destruction of all of NVN's capability to wage war, so be it. (Not a bad objective during any war, eh?) They had a choice: return to the Paris talks with a fortright attitude toward peace, or return completely to the stone age at home. They had already agreed to the same terms in October, but pulled out in November when the US tried to reopen the talks and negotiate for new conditions [...] I don't particularly care WHY they pulled out. LB II convinced them to *change their ways* - which you conveniently would like to ignore. The fact that Nixon also had to "up the ante" with the SVN government as well (Take the deal or we're outta here right now...) does not diminish in any way the "motivation" which was provided to the the N. Vietnamese to "coax" them back to the bargaining table: LB II (and in general, the entire series). Please refrain from confusing political goals and wartime objectives - or attempting to dismiss military successes as merely inconsequential "tools" of diplomacy. There is no doubt they are tools - but unrivalled as a *enabler* of diplomacy; without the will to use this tool effectively (which Nixon possessed and LBJ did not) you get the Third World Debating Society actions of the UN. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Friendly Fire Notebook
From: Dweezil Dwarftosser Date: 4/18/04 2:19 AM Pacific Nope. The historical record categorically confirms the fact that LB II won the VN war: it - and it alone - We won the VN war??? Really? Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 07:48:39 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: On 17 Apr 2004 13:42:06 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote: That same "historical record" says the 8th Air Force bombing missions into Germany destroyed the Germans war making capability. That "fact" has been disproven countless times. There is history and there is history. A lot of history is interpretive and some is even revisionist. You might say the 8th didn't destroy German industry, but you could just as easily suggest that lack of petroleum products, lack of precision machine tooling, lack of ball-bearings, lack of a viable transportation network, etc. won the war. You could say that. You could also say that the loss of their petroleum source (Ploesti) to the Soviets on August 31st,1944, as well as the loss of the coke supplies of France (Western allies, August-September; can't make steel without coke) had more than a little to do with it. Oh, and the several million German military casualties suffered on the Eastern Front might be due a little credit too, don't you think? ;-) Which, I think, makes my point. The victory comes from a complex intermix of events. To discount the impact of the 8th AF on Germany's capability to continue is to grossly over-simplify. It may be a return to the cliches of AF vs Army dialog in which the regular repitition of "boots on the ground" or "a tank on the front lawn of their O'club" is refuted by anecdotes of the rapid termination of hostilities after Aug 6 & 9, 1945, or Dec 29, 1972, or or Desert Storm's 100 day air/100 hour ground war. They had a choice: return to the Paris talks with a fortright attitude toward peace, or return completely to the stone age at home. You sound like LeMay. You do realize they already were in the stone age right? Tell me, what critical infastructure did we destroy during LB II that wasn't already operating at less than 25%? For a stone age country, the seemed to generate an incredible number of electronic emissions, starting with the early warning radar that would ping us on the tankers through the command/control that integrated the MiGs, SAMs and AAA fire. Precisely how much of this did they make themselves, so that we could target the production facilities? Zero. Or maybe the transportation that managed to ship arms and materiel to sustain the combat operations in the south. They did build bicycles themselves, I'll give you that. All other road/rail vehicles came in from outside the country. So, how did it get into the country and to the point of application if as BUFFDRVR contends there was no critical infrastructre left for LB II to attack? Can you say harbors, marshalling areas, roads, rail, bridges, cranes, etc? Academics can revise history as much as they want There's no doubt that this does occur, but not in this case. You could prove your point simply by providing some sort of proof that the bombing during LB II was causing such damage that the NVN government feared they would be defeated if it did not stop. I think the simple cause/effect relationship of recalcitrance in Nov-Dec, then in just eleven days an agreement is signed and within six weeks C-141s are flying in and out of Gia Lam bringing the POWs home is all the proof required. Ed, the only problem is that you ignore all that had gone before and was still going on throughout, none of which you were aware of at the time. See my other post. Ahh, what a cruel accusation after all these years. Do you really consider that I ignore all the history or that my perspective is so narrow? Far too many direct participants (and individuals extremely interested in then-current events) survive to permit them to push their "inspired by a true story" fiction on an unsuspecting public. While I was only 4 at the time, you can consider me one of your; "individuals extremely interested in then-current events". In fact, nearly every one in the USAF should be interested in getting the real scoop on LB II, because learning the wrong lesson is often worse then not learning a lesson at all.... Absolutely true, Santayna. The lesson of LB II taken in the context of an eight year war against NVN is that the Powell/Bush doctrine is correct---don't enter a war without a clear objective. Once committed, win quickly with overwhelming force. When victory is achieved have a defined exit strategy. And hope like hell that the other side's definition of losing is the opposite of your definition of winning, and that they will accept and conform to your exit strategy. Neither may be the case, especially in limited wars. If you think the lesson of LB II is something different, you're in the wrong business. Actually, LB II did have a clear strategy, but it wasn't the one you state. It was more "By bombing NVN before Congress comes back into session and cuts off all funds, I can convince Thieu that we will continue to back him should the DRVN violate the accords, while also convincing the DRVN that it's not worth it for them to hold out for the whole loaf but accept the same offer they'd previously agreed to before Thieu queered the deal, so we can get our PoWs back and get the hell out of there with as much dignity as we can muster." Nixon was successful on the first three counts, and the fourth was arguable. "Winning the war" was never his goal with LB II; he knew that the war could only be won in South Vietnam, unless we were prepared to obliterate North Vietnam and risk a direct confrontation with the PRC and/or the USSR. You've said a mouthful, but unfortunately even those of us with the largest orifice sometimes can't get the whole thing in. You might also put it into the context of presidential politics. The Nixon policy of Vietnamization that started in '68 had already been nearly completely implemented. It was acknowledged at all levels that all we wanted was a "withdrawal with honor" and release of the POWs. Let's also acknowledge that the Oct termination of LB was just prior to election and that both the Nixon administration and the NV/VC were using it to their advantage. Once elected, and prior to inauguration for his second term, with four years ahead of him, Nixon felt free to flex our muscle to wrap things up quickly. He did. The final point you make is a good one. The clear differences in ROE between Rolling Thunder when we were decidedly tentative without a clear knowledge that it was possible to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle and the wider latitude for action in LB and finally LB II is evidence. After eight years we had developed a much better picture of the relationship between Vietnam and China, as well as the split between the Soviets and Chinese. And, we knew that the Viets were Soviet clients rather than Sino-proxies. Neither of the big players were going to get confrontational and both benefited from our political unrest. Politically (and morally), that wasn't an option, unless you feel that Nixon was willing and able to order the AF/Navy to destroy the Chinese and Soviet factories that were producing virtually all the north's war needs, along with the Eastern Bloc cargo ships that brought much of it there, and the north's own food supplies? Or how about just nuking Hanoi, Haiphong, and the Red River Delta in general? Ahh, now there's a picture to contemplate. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Friendly Fire Notebook
From: Ed Rasimus Date: 4/18/04 10:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: On 18 Apr 2004 14:26:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Friendly Fire Notebook From: Dweezil Dwarftosser Date: 4/18/04 2:19 AM Pacific Nope. The historical record categorically confirms the fact that LB II won the VN war: it - and it alone - We won the VN war??? Really? Arthur Kramer Well, Art, if you get the chance to visit the Wall, you'll find 58,325 names on the wall. If you check most historian estimates of losses to the NVN and VC, you'll get numbers of dead ranging from a low of one million to a high of three million. By numbers, we won. If you measure the victorious side by who owns the land at the end of hostilities, the fall of Saigon in 1975 says they won. But, if you visit Hanoi today, you'll find a real "Hanoi Hilton" that offers an "American breakfast" included in the room rate. If you visit Ho Chi Minh City, you'll find a bustling, free-market entrepenurial economy. And, you'll find tour packages available at any travel agent in the country touting the scenery, history, and hospitality of a visit to Vietnam. If you measure the success or failure thirty years after, it looks more and more each day like capitalism and Western values beat Communism every way. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 Geez Ed, I guess you are right. We did win the VN war. ((:-)) Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Sounds like your wearing your heart on your sleeve.
Hardly, my biggest concern today is that STRATCOM re-invents itself as "SAC reborn", which may be in progress. No, my beef with Michel is in his first chapter where he bashes SAC about its "ORI mentality" and then makes a mistake by throwing spears at SAC, LeMay and their contribution in Korea during that conflict(Michel makes a *completely* false statement about SAC's contribution to 7th AF during 1951-1952). In my opinion, that entire chapter is of little value to the rest of the book. I agree completely with Michel about the horrible job SAC did in nearly every regard during LB II, but when read in the context of the first chapter, it looks like he's got a gripe with SAC. In fact, he admits he once had a "gripe" with SAC. In that first chapter Michel claims (and since I lent my copy to someone I'm going to have to paraphrase) that all fighter pilots in TAC, PACAF or USAFE *hated* SAC and dreaded an assignment to any SAC unit. What the book jacket tells us is that Michel was an F-4 pilot, one that obviously had issues with SAC. Bottom line, I thought the book was great, but the first chapter was not needed, contained historical innacuracies and overall detracted from Michel's overall premis. The option to extend beyond the original three day effort was because we still had targets to hit and we were still inflicting heavy damage. The bombing was always going to be extended until the NVN delegation returned to Paris, Nixon's memoirs as well as Kissenger's bear this out. Many of the first B-52 targets struck weren't even recce'd until the 3rd day. Why? Because damage inflicted was a secondary concern. I'm not saying either. He doesn't get a pass because of attendance and his work is excellent. So you can actually research facts from a library and produce a factually correct writting? BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
If it meant the destruction
of all of NVN's capability to wage war, so be it. (Not a bad objective during any war, eh?) Except that, outside of the mining of Haiphong harbor, and the required strikes against SAM sites, LB II attacks weren't designed to destroy their capability to wage war. Our strikes that continued further south against their mechanized ground units were designed to destroy as many fielded forces as we could, but these were not part of LB II. I don't particularly care WHY they pulled out. LB II convinced them to *change their ways* - which you conveniently would like to ignore. I don't believe either one of us is ignoring the fact that the NVN returned to Paris, what we're saying (or at least I am) was that had Nixon forced Thieu to agree to the initial agreement, without the bombing, the end result would have been the same. Neither one of us is arguing LB II was a waste of men and equipment, but it's over stating its impact on the war in SE Asia to claim; "it ended the war". If you mean it was the last large scale operation for US forces in SE Asia, then yes, it ended the war. If you mean without it the war would have gone on longer, you're wrong. Please refrain from confusing political goals and wartime objectives In this case, they're inseperable. And that should be the lesson learned from LB II, not that if you bomb a nations capital round the clock for 11 days with enough aircraft, you'll win any war. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
You might say the 8th
didn't destroy German industry, but you could just as easily suggest that lack of petroleum products, lack of precision machine tooling, lack of ball-bearings, lack of a viable transportation network, etc. won the war. Except that the only real shortage they had that you listed was petroleum....and eventually land as the Army rolled into Germany. The 8th AF bombing campaign depleted POL stores and forced Germany to use men and equipment to defend from air strikes that otherwise would have been used with front line units. Except, at SOS and even ACSC you'll "learn" the 8th AF bombing campaign "won the war in Europe". For a stone age country, the seemed to generate an incredible number of electronic emissions, starting with the early warning radar that would ping us on the tankers through the command/control that integrated the MiGs, SAMs and AAA fire. Thanks to the Soviets and Chinese certain parts of their military were in the 20th Century, but most of their military (supplied via Schwinn bicycle) and the infrastructure and population were not far removed from at least the Bronze Age. Or maybe the transportation that managed to ship arms and materiel to sustain the combat operations in the south. Ed, that transportation network consisted of a hundred or so WW II era French trucks and a few hundred bicycles. Hardly "hi-tech". I think the simple cause/effect relationship of recalcitrance in Nov-Dec, then in just eleven days an agreement is signed and within six weeks C-141s are flying in and out of Gia Lam bringing the POWs home is all the proof required. That's simply wrong. Yes, LB II was a *part* of making the above happen, but to claim it was the single reason, or even the main reason is wrong. If Nixon and Kissenger had not stiff armed Thieu into blessing the already agreed upon peace plan, LB II would have lasted until congress returned from break and voted to suspend all funding for the war in SE Asia. You're trying to make a simple cause-effect relationship out of a situation with more than two "moving parts". However, what you say is also being taught in Air Force PME, which IMHO is tragic. Absolutely true, Santayna. The lesson of LB II taken in the context of an eight year war against NVN is that the Powell/Bush doctrine is correct---don't enter a war without a clear objective. Once committed, win quickly with overwhelming force. When victory is achieved have a defined exit strategy. If you think the lesson of LB II is something different, you're in the wrong business. I'd say your first statement is the lesson learned from the entire conflict. The lesson learned from LB II is that air power can be as much a political weapon as a military one and used in conjunction with political forces can allow the U.S. to achieve limited political objectives. The lesson being taught, and the wrong one IMHO is; If we had just done LB II in 1965, the war would have ended in 1966.Or; LB II ended the war because of the tremendous damage we caused to the North Vietnamese, forcing them to sue for peace (without admitting they had already agreed to it). BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Friendly fire" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | March 19th 04 02:36 PM |
B-52 crew blamed for friendly fire death | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 0 | March 16th 04 12:49 AM |
U.S. won't have to reveal other friendly fire events: Schmidt's lawyers hoped to use other incidents to help their case | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 18th 03 08:44 PM |
Fire officer tops in field — again | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 13th 03 08:37 PM |
Friendly fire pilot may testify against wingman | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 11th 03 09:32 PM |