Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I think without question the reason this war was won quickly was
    because the soldiers fighting the war had both hands free to fight.
    The powers that were during VN never really wanted to win so they
    diden't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. I think the
    60's and 70's saw the worst examples of presidents ever to lead this
    country since the civil war. A pretty fair amount of the Hi tech 	
    munitions used in the gulf were availible during the NV conflict
    but were not used. Why well thats a tough question but I think 
    the beauracrats knew that they diden't have any business there in
    the first place but coulden't admit they had blundered. It's tough
    to fight if your heart isen't in the battle.
    
    The men in wars past have always been the same regardless of which
    war you choose they are pawns of the chessboards of their leaders.
    
    
    -j 
    
    I wonder if wars would end if the politicians wanting the war were
    required to be at the front fighting with "the boys".
    
    

    The difference between a pitched battle and guerilla warfare. The
    difference between a readily identifiable enemy and an enemy
    indistinguishable (and sometimes identical to) the local civilian
    populace. The difference between a fast moving war of maneuver and
    position and a slow incremental war of attrition and garrison.
    
    The difference between a free press and a managed press.
    
    	-- Charles

    you don't play tiddly-winks with the enemy.  you blast the s*!t out of
    him and get it over with.  
    
    i *hate* the fact that we had this war!!!
    
    but, God bless George Bush and the rest of the coalition leaders for
    letting the *real* generals and their military forces fight this one
    the right way!
    
    tony

 The three major factors that lead to the Gulf War being so short and
decisive were that the leadership had clear goals and a willingness to
allow those goals to be acheived, our armed forces have vastly superior
weaponry, and our forces are exceptionally well trained.

 As Charles mentioned, this was clearly a war with obvious and acheivable
military objectives. The demarcation between the battlefield and civilian
populations was much clearer.

 If today's army went into Vietnam even with today's leadership, we would
still have many more casualties than in the gulf war IMO. Geography plays
a large role in Vietnam.

 The Doctah

    i just re-read the base-note and noticed it's title.
    
    yeah... i'd be willing to consider that so called "NON" baby boomers
    might just well be better fighters... and maybe even better at a LOT of
    things, than baby boomers were/are.
    
    there was a VERY interesting series of video documentarys on Public
    Television recently...my father-in-law taped them so we could watch
    them a couple weekends ago.  
    
    the series started by defining "baby boomers" as being that generation
    of children who were born immediately after WWII...around 1944 to 1950.
    
    it observed that the parents of baby boomers were largely folks who had
    lived thru the Depression of the '30s and also WWII, and were trying to
    give their kids more than they themselves had.
    
    the economy of the '50s boomed, suburbia blossomed, colleges
    flourished, and in general, the years of the baby boomers were really
    great years... economically.   
    
    result?  those kids never had to do without.  they never had to live
    in the so called REAL WORLD.  their quest for personal freedoms went
    unchallenged... moms  and dads all over had relenquished control of the
    family unit.  
    
    The "pill" was invented, and the me-first generation was free to
    practice what had before been taboo... sexual freedom, no risk
    promiscuity, and no one seemed to care.
    
    All sorts of events occured nearly simultaneously which caused this one
    generation of kids to become radically different from their forebears.
    
    They never had to learn to deal with authority... and when authority did 
    something they didn't like, they rebelled.
    
    They dropped out of society.  became outcasts from society.  hippies. 
    flower children.  moonies.
    
    Then, just as that was happening:     Viet Nam.
    
    Nobody liked VN.  (except a few politicians and govt. contractors). 
    But, the draft was "in" and suddenly these same kids were told they had
    to go and fight a war they didn't believe in.  And they had never in
    their lives been required to DO ANYTHING they didn't believe in.  
    
    So, many of them ran away from the draft.  And a lot of those who wound
    up in one service or another, were half-spirited about it.
    
    No wonder our military had problems with drugs.  Many of those kids
    were already doing drugs before they were drafted.  Why stop just 'cuz
    you have a uniform on?
    
    put that together with the WAY the war was being fought, it's no wonder
    we were whipped.
    
    Todays military is all voluntary.  Every single one of those men and
    women *chose* to be in the army.  Of course, there is some talk about
    recruitment gone haywire... false pretenses and all that.  But, even if
    that is true, it has to be a very small percentage of the case.  The
    vast majority of enlistees in the service are there because they CHOSE
    to be;  it was a place to get a job.
    
    and they are emotionally better fit for the job then the baby boomers. 
    the men and women of todays military seemed (to me) to be "up" for this
    one.
    
    and there was a clearly defined enemy.  and a clearly defined war-plan. 
    and decisive leadership.  and a country that backed them.
    
    
    tony

    re .5, I think the fact that today's army is all volunteer had a lot to
    do with it.  They also believed that what they were doing was right. 
    That's a lot different than an army made of guys who got drafted
    against their will, and really felt that what they were made to do was
    wrong.  
    
    Also, officers may be much better trained and educated today.  There's
    an article about this in Time magazine this week.
    
    Lorna
    

I'd appreciate it if the discussion could be kept on the topic of men, and
away from general discussions about the military.  Thanks.

				Steve

    
     Steve,
        Considering the topic and subsequent questions pertain to men
    and the military,I think all preceding notes are relevant...
    
    Sincerly,
    
    The Basenoter...

    To separate "men" from the "issues" is difficut if not impossible and
    would only serve to dilute the intent of the base note.
    
    We live in a time where it is becoming increasingly difficult to
    separate civilian from soldier, individual crime and organized
    violence, and, terrorism and war.  "Men" have not changed, their
    environment has changed - to discuss one without the other is fruitless
    at best.
    
    I agree with the basenoter.
    
    Jerry

I just want to avoid the never-ending arguments about the war itself,
several of which have already been shut down.  If you think you can keep
this on a civil basis and keep it relevant to the subject of men, go
ahead - for now.  If the topic becomes a general political argument, I'll
ask you to take it elsewhere.

				Steve

    I thought that the defination of Baby-Boomers were those born from 
    after WWII to 1962?
    
    
    I suppose like that note a ways back stated that the Baby-Boomers were
    an aberation from those generations before, sorta like Disco....
    
    Steve

    lotsa reasons - clear objectives, clear heads on the soldiers,
    battle management left to professionals, clear strategy. Better
    technology. Demoralized, non-partisan opposition. Lack of
    leadership/expertise on the other side. Soldiers treated as 
    valuable team members and not 'cannon fodder'. 
    
    Of all the above I'd say the first, 'clear objective', is the 
    most decisive. In Vietnam the objective changed daily, with
    idiotic measures of success. You don't win by racking up body
    counts, or by bombing targets chosen by politicians instead of
    military strategists, you win by achieving a clear objective.
    The Iraqi military is out of Kuwait.

    
    Maybe we did better in the Gulf because there were more Women in combat
    positions?    Just thought I'd ask ;)
    
    
    
    -m

    re: .13
    I know you were being facetious, Madeline... (I saw the smiley)
    
    But, lest we forget... there WERE a lot more women involved in this war
    than before...  and, I for one, believe their efforts were a very
    significant contribution.  
    
    Thanks to them.  And to the men they fought with.

    Why was this middle-east war so much more "successful" than Viet Nam?

    I daresay the North Vietnamese deserve some credit; I'd say the Viet
    Nam war was their victory, more than our loss. I don't want to make
    heros out of the enemies of U.S. VN veterans, but they DID persist
    despite enormous disadvantages in logistics, armaments, etc. The NVA
    didn't have any air cover either. They *did* have a cause, something
    which our military and political leadership never managed to pass along 
    to the U.S. troops. "The Vietnamese do not value life the way we do..."
    
    I heard something just yesterday about the Republican Guard which we
    bombed and tanked into misery and withdrawal. It turns out that the Guard
    stationed in southern Iraq was the second string, eight or so divisions
    created in 1987 after the original Guard was decimated fighting Iran.
    The remainder of the original Guard was consolidated into two divisions
    and kept near Bahgdad and Hussein, in part to protect Hussein and in
    part to be in reserve for putting down any possible insurrection. This
    original Guard is largely from Hussein's own region and tribe, and are
    loyal to Hussein. They are presently fighting the rebellious troops in
    the south of Iraq.
    
    The point is that the Republic Guard we met in that legendary tank
    battle was NOT the first-line troops, nor were they particularly in
    Hussein's camp, as the rebellion *may* be showing now. They were not
    highly motivated to fight us... especially after six weeks of bombing.
    
    Finally, Hussein deserves some credit: he did an extremely poor job of
    managing the war. To paraphrase the Senator from Texas, Saddam Hussein 
    is no Ho Chi Minh.
    
    I question whether the present infantry is even AS capable as the U.S.
    Viet Nam trooper. The volunteer army is composed of people who didn't
    have anything better to do, either because they hadn't the skills or
    they lacked the imagination. The Viet Nam war was supposed to be fought
    by the poor kids, since the rest of us had college deferments. That is
    greatly exaggerated: lots of college-quality kids enlisted, because we
    were still naive gung-ho types then; lots of kids couldn't hack college
    for reasons like they weren't very mature and didn't do their homework;
    and lots of kids graduated and promptly got drafted. I'd be willing to
    bet real money that the test scores of the current U.S. infantry is
    *significantly* lower than during the Viet Nam era.
    
    Finally, don't characterize all of 1960's humanity based on your dad's
    diatribe about the Spock generation and what you saw in the Doors
    movie. The sixties had lots of people smoking dope and putting flowers
    in national guardmen's rifles and grooving on the vibrations... at
    least five percent did that. Lots of people studied engineering, too,
    or chemistry or metallurgy, and the sixties came in over their radio.
    MOST people took jobs as retail clerks and auto mechanics, just like
    always. The hippy-dippy crowd was teensy and got an incredibly large
    amount of press, because they were new. They were NOT the people who
    fought in Viet Nam; they were too few to be significant. 
    
    Frankly, I think this topic is an insult to the Viet Nam vets toward
    whom we were all offering belated congratulations a couple weeks ago.
    Hey, do you vets think you lost the war because your parents were too
    permissive? I'd like to point out that exactly ZERO of the combatants
    in the U.S. forces in the middle-east were there because their nation
    was at war and they heard the call of patriotism. The vast majority of
    them enrolled in the military with the deep conviction that they'd
    never fight! See the world! Get job skills: become an airline pilot or
    skilled mechanic! They just happened to have the bad luck of being
    enrolled in the military vocational school when the war alarm went off.
    
    Many U.S. soldiers in Viet Nam volunteered because they thought the
    fight was vital to the interests of the United States. Right or wrong,
    they heard the call and they answered. THEY do not deserve our insults.
    
    - Hoyt

    You can't win a war where you can't tell the civilians you are
    fighting for, from the enemy you are fighting against. 

    
    573.15(Hnelson)
    
      I in no way intended to smear the effort given by the men who
    fought in VN..I just asked a question..My apologies to anyone
    who might have been offended..I don't think there is really a
    fair comparison to draw between the two wars..I also don't think
    that the IQ comment was appropriate..You all( Viet vets, PG vets)
    are all heroes regardless of your level of education..
    
    Peace,
    David

    
    Mr. Holt,
    
      My apologies for the lousy reception some Americans gave you
    back then..Perhaps some of the praise for todays PG vets will
    carry over to the VN vets..I truly wish we could turn back time
    and do it right....
    
    David
    

    One problem with VN as shown to a lesser degree in Q8 (a basic tenant
    of war) is that you cannot fight in the country you are trying to save
    (for any real length of time) and have a country in the end that is
    worth anything. In VN we should have fought in N-VN, not S-VN.
    
    
    I can remember in 65 when I was a junior in HS watching ther 'news'
    films about VN. Kinda got you all rosed up to go help. I myself was
    swayed by this good cause (which It was IMHO, just executed criminally by
    LBJ et. al.). At one point in time in late 65, I even thought of
    joining myself.
    
    Steve

This kind of topic really gets me wound up and it really burns me up to hear
people talk about the heroes of the Vietnam war like they were from some lower
level of society.  I'm a baby boomer and I was drafted and my friends died and
were crippled in Vietnam.  For those of you who think you know what war is all
about, I think you're in the wrong line of business.  Nobody likes what
happened in and during Vietnam.  Anybody who thinks that they are a better 
fighter because they were born in this era should take their note down to
Washington and read it to all those dead names on the black wall they might
have something to say about it.



To the moderator:

I think this is a very bad subject to be discussing in this conference and it
should be moved to one named "I CAN DO IT BETTER THAN YOU CAN".


I'm getting emotional now.
I'm gone.

    
    -1
      Just asking questions..I haven't made any statements about the
    value of soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam..I do have a
    observation to make tho'..It gets me angry to here VN vets like
    yourself suggesting your still being treated like lower class
    citizens..Do you only here what the Knee Jerk liberal crowd says
    about you??Did'nt you here me and my family cheering for you
    when you came home???
    
     David

    I agree with .20, This note can stir up alot of emotions in people,
    but maybe it's needed.
    First thing I would like to say is Why compare soldiers????? Today's
    are the same as yesterday.All (men/women) are/were young and served
    their country, to compare them is like comparing one springtime
    from the other, both are the same it's just the time that change.
    
    AS I read though these notes some of the responces upset me. My
    brother served in Vn from 1966-1969 (25th inf div)To this day I
    am still proud of him as well as all those who served our country.
    I am a Baby Boomer (I believe BB was up to 1958-9) but I wasn't
    born with a silver spoon in my mouth( as one noter thinks) My parents
    were young when WWII started and my Dad joined the Army. Just before
    he shipped out he and my mom got married (ripe old age of 17) When
    he got back things weren't handed to them and later (6 kids) he
    just couldn't face the responsibility he left!!!!! So My brothers
    and Sisters grew up without him and just my mom, She was a waitress
    and my dad paid no child support. I was #5 of 6....and I saw alot
    throughout the 60's....I don't really want to go into my life but
    I never did drugs in my life and I'm still going to college on my
    own at night. Most kids I see today have their parents pay for 
    their car, college,food and many even still live at home.
    
    I did 6 yrs 8 mo. in the Army (Jan 75-Aug81) Like many I had no
    money for school. The soldiers that want to fight in the Gulf didn't
    join to fight they joined to get an education and the Bennies I
    don't think many would have signed up if they thought that there
    was the slightest chance of war.
    I tip my hat to those soldiers that went to the Gulf, and I'm proud
    of what they've done. Wars cannot and should not be compared, I
    think that what really need to be done is to have the same type
    of parades for the VN Vets today and lets give them the HERO treatment
    that they should have gotten. 
    
                                        Well I let off enough steam
    
                                              Just my 2 cents
    
                                                       Bob

I wasn't born with the silver spoon either, my father also fought in WWII and
then came home and made 5 kids.  I worked part time to get through a community
college associates degree, then went into the service and then used my GI bill
and working to get through my Bachelor's degree.


Carl.

    re .21, David,
    
    > Just asking questions..I haven't made any statements about the
    > value of soldiers who fought and died in Vietnam.
    
    Your basenote explicitly compared today's military to Vietnam-era
    veterans, and your title asks "better?"  Perhaps you could understand
    that deliberately or not, that looks like an unfavorable comparison,
    and you probably deserve to hear some of the resentment your careless
    words caused.  If you didn't mean to hurt people, then you could
    indicate that you regret having done so.
    
    DougO

    
    DougO
    
      If you even took the time to read all the notes I have posted in
    this topic you should be able to see that I did just that..I have
    said on more than one occasion I am simply asking the question...
    
    Read and Heed please,
    
    David

    
    
    I'm wondering if the lack of drugs and alcohol in this war had
    anything to with it's success.
    
    bonnie

    re:26
    I really don't think that lack of Drug or Alcohol had much to do
    with winning this war or losing the other.
    I think a big factor in the Gulf was the lack of the enemy wanting
    to fight! Just look and all those who surrender (some to the News
    teams), not to mention the World support and allied power. In the
    Mid East they had battle lines that were very clear, Vn they had
    to keep re taking the same hills, and you couldn't (weren't supposed)
    to go over a certain line.    Let's face the fact's the Military
    was allowed to win this?????
    
                                                   Bob

What makes you think there was a lack of drugs and alcohol.  Just because you
didn't see it on TV.  What do you think soldiers in the field look like when
they're using drugs and alcohol?  They don't let anybody get that close to the
troops and a soldier who's sitting out in the desert in the dark watching for
the enemy smoking hashish or anything else looks the same as that same soldier
sitting in the dark smoking a cigarette.  Those desert countries pump out a lot
of drugs.  When I was in the service one person in particular used to go away
every weekend whether he was supposed to or not.  He went to the middle east
to make pickups.  He eventually got caught and went to Fort Leavenworth for 2
years.

    1.  American units with good leadership had outstanding records
        in Viet Nam.  (sources:  BRIGHT SHINING LIE, ABOUT FACE, neither
        of which are "pro-establishment")
    
    2.  Schwartzkopf, Powell, and many of the other architects of victory
        in Gulf War were company and battalion commanders in Viet Nam.
    
    3.  The VC and the NVA most certainly did have air cover -- the
        jungle.
    
    4.  Unlike Gulf War, American military had lousy PR in Viet Nam.  
        (VC and NVA were creamed in the '68 Tet Offensive, but military
        failed to capitalize on this -- many Americans think the U.S. 
        lost '68 Tet.)
    
    5.  Bush stayed out of the way.  LBJ said "They can't bomb an outhouse
        without my approval."
    
    6.  VC and NVA withstood enormous losses, but never gave up.
    
    7.  VC and NVA had Soviet and Chinese back-up.
    
    
    
    

    About drugs and alcohol -- yes, those determined to get them probably
    did, but this time the US government didn't help provide it.  As a
    gesture of respect to the official policies of Saudi Arabia, the US
    military didn't provide alcohol to its troops.  
    
    As for "those desert countries pumping out a lot of drugs..."  yes,
    some Middle eastern countries do produce drugs, especially hashish and
    various opiates.  However, if you take a look at where our troops were
    stationed, you'll notice that they really were in the middle of the
    desert.  You need agricultural conditions to grow any crop, and those
    conditions did not apply where our troops were located.
    
    While I doubt that drugs and alcohol caused our defeat in Vietnam, 
    their presence certainly damaged (and sometimes destroyed) the lives
    and spirit of many, many good men.
               
    					andrew

 The drug and alcohol problem in VN was exacerbated by the duration of the
military action. It seemed to be an endless trip to hell. The action in the 
Persian Gulf, particularly the ground war, was seen by most everyone to be
a very close ended situation and thus less likely to suffer from the types
of morale problems that contribute to the use of drugs. Plus the availablity
was not the same.

 The Doctah

    
    
    Yo Doctah,
    
      The troops were rotated every year right in VN weren't they ???
    
    > endless trip to hell.
    

    yo dyben
    
    a year can be a helluva long time.  ANY amount of time in hell can seem
    like eternity.
    
    don't know you or your age, but if you're younger than 32ish you weren't
    there, and weren't around at the time, and you don't know what it was
    like then.
                                                                
    kinda like fervent anti-smokers who've never smoked saying "Hey!  Just
    quit cold turkey!"

>No excuse for drugs....

 Explanations and excuses are different things. I gave an explanation, without
offering excuses.

 And Sara is correct. Even a year could seem to be an open ended committment
to someone who was there.

 the Doctah

It is naive to think that because you are out in the middle of the desert that
the drugs can't get to you.  If you've got money and you want it, it will find
you anywhere.

Carl

    
    Yo Thigpens_S,
    
      Yeah I am only 30..So perhaps I was to quick to judge..
    
    
    David    p.s.  Anybody know the best way to eat crow :-)
    

Soy sauce with a little salt and pepper.


Carl

>It is naive to think that because you are out in the middle of the desert that
>the drugs can't get to you.  If you've got money and you want it, it will find
>you anywhere.
    
    I'm hardly naive about getting drugs.  I simply stated that our
    troops were not sitting in the middle of an area where drugs were
    growing all around them.
    
    					andrew

    How can you compare the warriors of two different wars when the wars
    were so different!!!!
    
    If was pretty clear that the enemy in the Gulf was; 
    
    	-In the North and the loccation was known unlike Vietnam where they
         could come from any direction.
    
    	-The enemy in the Gulf Was wore a uniform and was easily recognized,  
         unlike Vietnam where the enemy could be an eighty year old grandmother
    	 walking towards you with a hand granade in her hand.
    
    	-There is  big big difference between an all out frontal assault
         with a half million men and gorrila warfare tactics of Vietnam
         where the enemy could pick their best potential time to hit you.
    
    I have the utmost respect for veterans of both wars but I honestly feel
    the the political climate and the two different types of battle fields
    is the reason for the differences in the outcome.  Vietnam could play
    one hell of a headtrip on any soldier,,,,, todays or yesterdays!!!
    
    Bruce
    

re: Note 573.32          Non Baby Boomers better fighters??????             32 of 38
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                          -< No excuse for drugs.... >-
>
>The troops were rotated every year right in VN weren't they ???

    Some were, some weren't. Some spent up to three continuous years, and
    some spent three 1 year periods.

> endless trip to hell.

    The year I was there was the year they Court Martialed "The Hatchet
    Brigade", and also offered Amnesty to all Army Drug Users/Offenders
    promising rehabilitation and counseling. After all the ones who
    wanted rehabilitation came forward and we removed to holdin centers;
    they were the all court martialed.
    
    In a way the US Govt is funny. They'll court martial marijuana users,
    and continue to move beer and liquor and cigaaretted by the shipfull.
    
    I guess its ok to be adicted to alchohol, but unacceptable to have 
    a few joints.  ;^)
    

    

    David,
    apology accepted.  No need to eat crow.  Just please remember to
    question authority, and to be slow to condemn the failings of others. 
    There but for fortune, and all that.  Each of us is responsible for our
    choices and actions, but once a path is embarked upon it can be damned
    hard to break off it, onto another.
    
    Sara
    (a reformed smoker, stupid enuf to have started at 21, took me YEARS to
    quit.  I'm responsible for the stupid decision to start, but have a
    little understanding of how hard it was to quit.)
    

    It's difficult to compare two different wars' warriors.   But we must
    face the fact that attitudes have certainly changed over the years...
    
    My father mentioned several times that he had been too young for
    WWI and too old for WWII.  His emotion was *regret* that he never
    got to fight.  My oldest brother was *thankful* that he was exempt
    from the draft (married, with kiddies) during the Korean conflict.
    My youngest brother was *angry* that Kennedy flubbed the Bay of Pigs,
    and he never *got to see combat* (he was in the army at the time).
    And my husband  was *relieved*  that his draft number did not
    come up during Vietnam.   
    
    As far as I can tell, these were the popular feelings of people in
    these same circumstances during the above mentioned wars.   So maybe the
    "effectiveness" of a war, and the armies fighting it, is due to the 
    effectiveness of the popular  propaganda accompanying it?  
    
    It's also quite possible that our all volunteer army is truly better
    trained, with better technology, than any previous American armed
    forces.
    
    It's allso quite probable that I don't know what I'm talking about.
    
    
    
    -m

My gut feeling is that our troops are better trained, today.  Just as a
business must continue improving to survive, so must the military.  The
military leaders of today have admitted that they have learned from the past. 
VN taught them much, and many of them were there to learn first hand.  Our
government leaders also learned from the past.  President Bush said this
wouldn't be another VN, as he knew that Americans feared this.  Maybe we all
learned from VN.  I hope so.  The country learned you don't motivate the troops
or the politicians by dogging their efforts.  

My concern was, if the fighting had have gotten nasty, how strong could the
American people remain.  As a friend once said at the dog track, after winning,
"This is fun."  My other friend replied, "Of course dummy.  It's always fun and
easy when you're winning."  If we were losing many lives in the desert, Many of
the Americans would have turned their support because they wouldn't have the
strength to face a nasty war.  It's easy to take Iraq when the troops are
ripping up their shorts to make white flags.

And I'm sure the combat area made a difference.  I think the men that flew the
sorties are the best pilots in the world.  I know that technology has paid off
too.  And the men that marched and dropped into enemy territory were ready to
'get it on' and go home.

We won for a lot of reasons.  Mainly, cuz we were right.

db

    I think the reasons the Gulf War came off so easily were that the war
    was fought the way The General wanted to fight it.
    
    I think Hussein expected us to attack Kuwait and try to push him back
    to the border similar to Vietnam and Korea.  The way everything was
    fortified certainly said that's what he expected.
    
    Instead, The General just said "This is all stupid, I'd flunk this
    guy if he were taking courses in military strategy, ..."
    
    ed
    

.44> I think the reasons the Gulf War came off so easily were that the war
.44> was fought the way The General wanted to fight it.

    I think that Mr. Fisher has hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial
    head!  The "quality" of the fighting soldier has not changed
    significantly since our first major engagement in WWI.  The quality 
    of our leadership has changed .... significantly .. since 'Nam.

    Have you *listened* to any of the interviews with Schwartzkopf?  He's
    said time and again that every classical "War College" scenario told
    him NOT to 'go' with the ground offensive .. yet he did.  He (his
    staff) had studied the Iran/Iraq war in detail ... and .. as General
    Schwartzkopf put it "... we were not wrong one single time".  There
    were no surprises.

    If you want a man-to-man comparison ... Schwartzkopf has gonads where
    Westmoreland mush!

    Jerry

    
    it was not a complicated war... deserts are really just big shooting
    ranges; 
    
    No rice farmers getting in the way, no coke girls or boy-sans
    able to plant bombs and get intelligence. No complex alliance systems
    like the Cao Dai or the Buddhists or the francophiles. No triple
    canopy, no Ho Chi Minh Trail, no stalwart Bo Dois dragging those 2
    mortar bombs down from the North, often ending up in forgotten graves..
    
    No doubt about who the enemy is now; can anyone tell we who it was in
    VN?
    

.46> ..can anyone tell we who it was in VN?
    
    Start with Westmoreland and work your way up.

                      <<< Note 573.20 by MILPND::CIOFFI >>>
                    -< ARMCHAIR GENERALS AND POLITICIANS. >-

<<This kind of topic really gets me wound up and it really burns me up to hear
<<people talk about the heroes of the Vietnam war like they were from some lower
<<level of society.  I'm a baby boomer and I was drafted and my friends died and
<<were crippled in Vietnam.  For those of you who think you know what war is all
<<about, I think you're in the wrong line of business.  Nobody likes what
<<happened in and during Vietnam.  Anybody who thinks that they are a better 
<<fighter because they were born in this era should take their note down to
<<Washington and read it to all those dead names on the black wall they might
<<have something to say about it.

This is about the first coherent thing I've read in here.  I too am a VN
vet.

patrick

    	This is my first time here.
    
    	573.1 talks about fighting with both hands. Good point.
    
    	Charles, in 573.2 talks about guerilla warfare, etc.,
    	which is also a good point.
    
    	The bad thing about all this is it took the death of
    	58,000+, and untold damage to thousands more, before
    	they ended the foolish thing.
    
    	Scott