Spring Break
Without national will, wars are doomed
Wes Heinkel
Issue date: 3/5/08 Section: Opinion
Prior to any future commitment of military force, our military and the American people must insist the civilian leadership provide tangible political goals to provide cohesiveness in national strategy. If we don't have firm objectives, if we don't know where we are going, it is impossible to determine when we get there.
As Clausewitz said, we should not "take the first step without considering the last." It was a major problem in the Vietnam War and it is tantamount to the current Iraq War. We Americans have aversions to a lot of things - one is violence, the other is war and I'm pretty sure the study of history is coming in at a close third.
There is this pedantic theory going around held by those who have aversions to the aforementioned, which says you can support the troops but not necessarily the objectives, the aims or the strategy.
I will tell you right now this is a fallacy of epic proportions and an obvious cop-out the American people and Congress must come to terms with. As Gen. Westmoreland observed during the Vietnam War as it became a partisan political issue, "It was difficult to differentiate between pursuit of a military task and such related matters as public and congressional support and the morale of the fighting man, who must be convinced that he is risking death for a worthy cause."
By not supporting the political and military objectives, we put our soldiers at a strategic disadvantage all because we can't use that grey matter between our two ears and make the neurons connect.
This is our problem. Americans are either too selfish or too dimwitted to understand the strategic value of mobilizing his or her own national will to obtain the strategic goals of the greatest country the world has ever known.
Clausewitz defines the relationship between the government, the people and the military as complex and ever changing, but he maintains that a balance among the three, what he calls the "trinity of war," is fundamentally important. This is interesting for one reason: It appears the men and women in our armed forces are the only ones in the "trinity" doing their job. You be the judge.
As Clausewitz said, we should not "take the first step without considering the last." It was a major problem in the Vietnam War and it is tantamount to the current Iraq War. We Americans have aversions to a lot of things - one is violence, the other is war and I'm pretty sure the study of history is coming in at a close third.
There is this pedantic theory going around held by those who have aversions to the aforementioned, which says you can support the troops but not necessarily the objectives, the aims or the strategy.
I will tell you right now this is a fallacy of epic proportions and an obvious cop-out the American people and Congress must come to terms with. As Gen. Westmoreland observed during the Vietnam War as it became a partisan political issue, "It was difficult to differentiate between pursuit of a military task and such related matters as public and congressional support and the morale of the fighting man, who must be convinced that he is risking death for a worthy cause."
By not supporting the political and military objectives, we put our soldiers at a strategic disadvantage all because we can't use that grey matter between our two ears and make the neurons connect.
This is our problem. Americans are either too selfish or too dimwitted to understand the strategic value of mobilizing his or her own national will to obtain the strategic goals of the greatest country the world has ever known.
Clausewitz defines the relationship between the government, the people and the military as complex and ever changing, but he maintains that a balance among the three, what he calls the "trinity of war," is fundamentally important. This is interesting for one reason: It appears the men and women in our armed forces are the only ones in the "trinity" doing their job. You be the judge.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
J
posted 3/06/08 @ 3:22 PM CST
I think it would be better said that some Americans are too selfish, while others are too dimwitted to care. But then again, I also think that you are wrongly assuming that we still vote for leaders; it's quite apparent that leadership is lacking in our government institutions, from local municipalities all the way up to our federal government. (Continued…)
Post a Comment