Military 'should stick to fighting', says David Cameron

[xchrom]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/military-should-stick-to-fighting-says-david-cameron-2300602.html

David Cameron has laid bare his frustration with forces chiefs questioning the sustainability of Britain's military commitments, telling them: "You do the fighting and I'll do the talking."

The Prime Minister was forced to insist that the mission in Libya can be maintained for as long as necessary after the concerns of the RAF's second-in-command were leaked.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Simon Bryant said operations in Afghanistan and Libya were together placing a "huge" demand on resources.

In a briefing paper for politicians, he said the RAF's ability to respond to future emergencies will be curtailed if the mission in Libya continues beyond the summer.

[damntexdem]

1. You're just cannon fodder, so stay dumb cannon fodder.

No room for professionalism, for even thinking about how politicians' demands affect your ability to function.

[happyslug]

2. Military experts telling unwanted facts to politicians who do NOT want to hear them

This is the recipe for a military debacle. People tend to forget that President Eisenhower asked General Ridgeway to do a report as US intervention into Vietnam. The report told facts that no one wanted to hear, i.e. for all practical purposes to win Vietnam the US would have to transfer its WHOLE army based in Europe and Korea to Vietnam, and then call up National Guards Troops just to have the minimal number of troops needed. Do to that report Eisenhower refused to send in troops, but do to fear of "losing" Vietnam, he set up South Vietnam, refused to hold the election agreed to in the 1954 Treaty (Knowing the Communists would win, even in South Vietnam) and gave the South Vietnam Government all types of military support. Kennedy continued this policy. Under LBJ it became clear what Eisenhower had done was delay the Communist take over NOT stopped it, thus LBJ, fearing the lost of Vietnam and the GOP re-running the "Who lost China" Campaign of the late 1940s and 1950s (but this time "Who Lost Vietnam") sent in troops to delay the fall. It is quite clear even LBJ knew we would lose Vietnam but the cost politically for the Democrats was to high to permit its fall. Now when the Majority of Americans turned against the War, LBJ started to withdraw troops (This continued under Nixon and his "Vietnamization" program), but even then long term military planners were saying the US would lose the War. No one wanted to hear them.

Now, the Viet Cong was defeated in the Tet Offensive and never regained what they held prior to Tet. Thus by 1972 most Guerrilla activities were done, but the cadre of the Viet Cong remained and this cadre remained. By 1973 the US had cut back assistance so much that the North Vietnamese Troops in South Vietnam had for the first time since the mid 1960s had fire superiority over the South Vietnamese Army. In 1974 North Vietnam launched a full scale armor thrust against South Vietnam, the Viet Cong Cadre came out to assist them. This one two punch lead to the rapid fall of the South Vietnamese Army. The South Vietnamese Government asked President Ford for assistance, but he declined citing Congressional laws forbidding US use of Force in Southeast Asia.

Thus General Ridgeway predication came true, the US could NOT afford to prevent the fall of Vietnam to the Communists. The US could delay it, but to stop it would require more forces then the US was willing and able to commit. Sooner or later Vietnam would have to be sacrificed for something of greater US Concern (In the case of the early 1970s, Europe, Israel and the oil of the Middle East). By 1974 something had to give, Europe, Israel, the Persian Gulf, Korea or Vietnam. The US only had resources for four of those five places, thus Vietnam was cut off of supplies, again something people predicted as early as the 1950s.

The British Prime Minster does NOT want to hear military relatives get in the way of what he thinks in politically popular. This is the same reason Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon and Ford all supported the war in Vietnam. The Presidents prior to Nixon at least had the problem that supporting Vietnam had over 50 % of the support of the Voters (When the support for the war dropped below 50% in the middle of 1968, LBJ started to pull troops home). The Prime Minster does NOT have that level of Support, but he believes the voters who will vote for him in the next election do support the war in Libya, and for that reason wants to support the war. The Prime Minster does NOT want to hear anything that shows the war to be potentially dangerous, he wants to use the War to gain support for his Government, just like Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon and Ford all wanted to do with Vietnam.