Looking at our recent wars with 20/20 hindsight and a willingness to reject the way it was always done
Posted by John Reed on
After graduating from West Point, I did a tour in Vietnam. We lost. It was the first time America ever lost a war.
Could we have won? Yeah. Our invasion of Cambodia, which happened while I was there and involved my battalion, was extremely effective. I never heard another shot fired for the rest of my tour after it. Before, I heard incoming and outgoing fire regularly. We also should have invaded North Vietnam. The Russians and Chinese admitted after the Cold War that they were bluffing about our invading Vietnam starting World War III.
World War I
What about World War I? We should not have gotten involved at all. The reasons were the sinking of the Lusitania and the German offer of Mexico getting back the SouthWest U.S. if they joined the Germans in war against America. The Lusitania was illegally carrying arms and ammo in violation of neutrality. It was a legitimate target, not a reason to go to war. The offer to Mexico was a joke. Futhermore, the Allies in Europe did not need us. They would have eventually won without us.
World War II
World War II? No choice. The Axis declared war on us.
Should we have fought the war in the Pacific differently? Hell. yes. No amphibious invasions, though. Just wipe the ocean clean of Japanese subs and ships, which we did.
To get the stepping-stone island airstrips we needed to get close enough to attack the home island, Just encircle them one at a time just out of range of their guns and starve them to death by preventing resupply. Would that take too long? No. It would have taken less time. Amphibious invasions took all sorts of planning and gathering of men, ships, supplies, etc. Starving just meant shooting down planes and sinking supply ships and subs.
Fresh water
Many of the airstrip islands had no fresh water. If the Japanese had desalination equipment, we could have destroyed it by bombs or naval bombardment. You die of thirst after about 3 days of no water—probably faster in South Pacific heat. Vietnam had South Pacific heat—worst I ever experienced. I doubt any World War II in the Pacific invasion was ever set up in three weeks let alone three days.
At the end of the war, Japanese were on the home islands were weeks away from mass starvation when they surrendered. You can only go about three weeks without food.
So all the casualties we suffered in the Pacific War were unnecessary? Most. We still needed to shoot down the enemy planes, sink their ships and subs, and dodge their kamikazies. Those battles would have incurred some losses. The invasion of the Philippines was especially egregious. Thousands died for nothing but MacArthur’s “I shall return” ego.
The Japanese military strategy in World War II was utterly moronic. Had we done it the way I’m saying, casualties on both sides would have been minimal other than starved or suicide-committing soldiers on the islands we selected as stepping stones. All we needed to do was naval and air blockade the home Islands and starve them into surrender.
World War II in Europe
What about World War II in Europe? Did we need to attack North Africa? Nah. Leave the Germans there until the end of the war, just as we should have left millions of Japanese on the islands we did not need in the Pacific.
How about Italy? No way. Very tough terrain. No strategic value. Italy, like North Africa, was the European equivalent of the islands we did not need in the Pacific.
The Battle of the Atlantic (getting rid of German submarines) and the Battle of Britain (ending German blitz air attacks) were necessary, but the British with our help generally got it done themselves. We were more necessary in the anti-sub warfare than in the blitz.
What about D-Day? Postpone it six months or a year. Cut back on materiel aid to the Soviet Union a little so the Russians and the Germans slug it out for a longer period of time with little movement but lots of expenditure of lives and resources like oil. We tied up just as many Germans by being in England as we did invading Normandy. No need to kill them sooner.
During the postponement, we should have perfected the preparatory naval bombing and air corps pre-invasion bombardment. Both were disasters on D-Day. We could also have utterly eliminated the German Navy and Air Force in the West during that time. We also could have done additional intelligence gathering to pick the weakest spots to land. We could have eventually reduced the German bunkers to rubble from the air had we kept it up and experimented with better bombs. The location of the invasion—between Calais and Cherbourg, was probably the best place still, but maybe on a broader front with the second wave going into the beach where the first had been most successful—Gold, not Omaha.
Skip the paratroopers and rangers altogether. Neither was viable or successful in that invasion. Rangers succeeded at Cabantuan in the Philippines, but that was a rare success. (I was an airborne ranger when I was in the Army.) Also, refraining from invading the Philippines to begin with would have obviated the need to raid Cabanatuan which was an American POW camp.
Korea? Vietnam?
Korean War? MacArthur was right. No land wars in Asia. Nuke ’em.
VIetnam? Already discussed.
Iraq? Afghanistan?
Iraq? Just kill all their military from the air. Afghanistan? Totally non-strategic worthless piece of crap. Ignore it.
Iran? Read my forthcoming novel The Unelected President.
Harvard Business School and football coaching, not West Point
Did I learn to analyze like this at West Point? Nah. Harvard Business School, and by being a football coach for 16 seasons. West Point is a “World War II in Europe” reenactor school. Artillery barrage, then charge at the enemy shooting a rifle. 18th century bullshit.
It’s like the finesse-versus-brute-force debate in football coaching. I wrote eight books on football coaching. When finesse works, you use finesse. It has fewer injuries. Same applies in warfare. Using finesse—water deprivation—in the Pacific in World War II would not only have saved American lives, it would have saved Japanese lives.
Too much of warfare is proving-your-manhood charges and not enough getting the job done as quickly and at the lowest cost possible. The Department of Defense should grow up.
Share this post
12 comments
In regards to WWII in Europe, would you not regard genocide as a good reason to get the war over with faster even at greater cost in treasure and soldiers’ lives?
OK, granted, the actual generals and politicians involved didn’t, given that they were fully aware of what was going on in the camps and had the ability to cut the tracks, but still…
Beyond that, it seems to me that, especially for the first three years, there was no real plan to win the war because what plans there were had been scuttled by Axis victories. That led to – ahem – disorganized and opportunistic attacks that only gradually coalesced into a winning strategy. Not to mention that your suggestion of hitting the Japanese from the air and sea didn’t really have a chance of working until 1944, since aircraft didn’t have the range (until after some island-hopping) and US submarines had crappy torpedoes and thus couldn’t sink anything. The whole wither-on-the-vine strategy started because it was cheaper and there weren’t enough supplies, not because anyone thought it was a bad idea to attack — that came later. I do agree that by 1945 they should have known better and just starved the Japanese out.
Jack, I 100% agree with you. We did “beat” the Indians – by using standoff distance and superior firepower/infrastructure. Which was, incidentally, how the “surviving unit” at Custer’s Last Stand escaped to tell the tale. We all know what happened with the egotistical moron Custer who did NOT follow that tack, evidently believing that the “badassery” granted him by his West Point ring and buckskin uniform would be ensure his victory.
Unfortunately, too many “Custers” remain in the US Army, and they are the reason the Army cannot complete its most basic mission—winning our wars. If you want to be a “bad-ass” infighter, you have to be a bigger “bad-ass” than your opponent, whether they be Chinese, NVA, Republican Guard, etc. If you, intelligently, want to use your technology to win, then follow the “Medlock” methodology, stand outside the enemy’s engagement distance, and bomb/shoot/snipe/etc. them into submission or extinction. The inability of the US Army to follow the first tack and its refusal to follow the second tack means that the Custer-like morons leading the Service will continue to waste our tax money and our young people’s lives, as you have illustrated in the body of your article..
The saddest part of this whole situation is that 200+ years of historical failures are not enough to convince our leaders that there need to be some (drastic) changes made. Any like civilian organization would have gone out of business during the War of 1812 – which, at least from the research I have done, was rife with morons and ignoramuses in leadership positions who routinely made bad decisions which eerily mimic those made in Vietnam, Iraq Pt. II, and Afghanistan.
Your post, particularly regarding Asiatic-Pacific Theater Operations in World War II, implies that the involvement of the U.S. Marine Corps (the ‘experts’ in amphibious assaults) was unnecessary. I wonder how long it will take before a Marine apologist will attack you for the implication despite your sound analysis.
ER
Regarding Owen’s Post: It must be pointed out that while the Indians may have had superior skills in hand-to-hand fighting, endurance walking, and foraging from nature, they lost to the white man.
Jeff and I are both West Point grads. In our hand-to-hand training at West Point, we were told in no uncertain terms that we should avoid hand-to-hand and it was only being taught as a last resort.
.
My unelected president in my upcoming novel is very big on demanding that our military not get within effective range of our enemies’ weapons. Our weapons have unlimited range. Many of your current opponents max out at about 1,500 yards (RPG) So President “Medlock” tells our guys to kill them from 1,600 yards. Nice work if you can get it. I note the indians were big on getting rifles when they saw them in action. At Custer’s Last Stand, the Indians were literally better armed than the U.S. cavalry. With regard to food, the wars of the 19th century turned on firepower. Carrying food is more efficient than searching for it. I would grant that when the Indians and the U.S. cavalry were in a game of hide and seek, the guy with the wagons loses. But the Indians eventually had to come out of the woods with regard to food, warmth, family, and when they did, the guys with the wagons got them.
.
The old Indian chief was essentially arguing for Ranger and SEAL type actions. As I said in my range article http://www.johntreed.com/ranger.html), the Rangers and SEALS are very limited to night-time, uninhabited-area, dogless and farm-animal-less, hit-and-run actions. But those skills and abilities can rarely be used because the conditions required are rare.
I read an old, Native American saying many, many years ago. It was a Chief describing the American Army. He said, “for all his pomp and uniforms, the white man is the worst warrior I’ve ever seen. Without his guns, he cannot fight. Without his horses, he cannot march. Without his wagons, he cannot eat. How did any such people ever conquer the lands far away across the great waters?” This chief’s words, unfortunately, echo true today. The US Army is and always has been populated by drunken bureaucrats and stupid morons who, not held to proper standards of moral/ethical conduct, physical fitness, discipline, and use of fire, maneuver, and shock effect, continue to waste lives and money whilst NOT doing what they are charged to do – WIN OUR WARS. Any like civilian organization would have gone out of business around 1812. What is even more flabbergasting is that politicians, civilians, and ex-soldiers alike have been making the same (truthful) observations for over 200 years – and there is still no change in sight. Thanks to Jack for having the stones to post what he does – and spread the truth as it exists.