Truth Revisited
In light of flagging support of the war on terror, I thought it an appropriate time to remember that horrible week. A USAF Colonel penned this letter, which needs to be read by all.
"14 September, 2001
Dear friends and fellow Americans
Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it.
This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain. In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II.
These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated the moral is to the physical as three is to one. Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing — better said anxious — to give their lives for their cause. How committed are we America? And for how long?
In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them.
In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only superpower (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent counter-terrorist organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional body snatch, (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens.
Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and is presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear centers of gravity to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft — this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders.
Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned.
Although we hope that Usama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but also less audacious sand in the gears tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities. These attacks are designed to hit us in our comfort zone forcing the average American to pay more and play less and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a remarkable trinity of war that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.
Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail.
Everyone I've talked to in the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another, "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain. If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain. God Bless America
Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy .."
"14 September, 2001
Dear friends and fellow Americans
Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it.
This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain. In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II.
These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated the moral is to the physical as three is to one. Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing — better said anxious — to give their lives for their cause. How committed are we America? And for how long?
In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them.
In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only superpower (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent counter-terrorist organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional body snatch, (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens.
Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and is presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear centers of gravity to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft — this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders.
Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned.
Although we hope that Usama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but also less audacious sand in the gears tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities. These attacks are designed to hit us in our comfort zone forcing the average American to pay more and play less and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I - is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a remarkable trinity of war that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order.
Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail.
Everyone I've talked to in the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another, "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain. If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain. God Bless America
Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy .."
12 Comments:
Actually I don't think there is any flaggging support for the war on "terror" - there was good news from both Ireland and London this week. What there is flagging support for is the war in Iraq, which was not about terrorism (but we've made it so). People can't support a president who "adjusts" intelligence to make barely legal a war for profit and power. Some of us don't believe that lives on both sides, and a national debt for generations are worth it - especially when we're being robbed blind in the process while soldiers don't get what they need. If you want to catch terrorists... shut down their money and places for them to train, as we had begun doing with other countries when we had worldwide support and sympathy (now squandered)-until Bush "refocused" the effort to benefit... Texas? Or just millionaires? Or just his friends? Not the American people in any case.
By VirusHead, at 12:41 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Marc, at 11:08 AM
So many baseless assertions...funny, they almost sound convincing when repeated often enough.
"war for profit and power"
What profit? you say yourself later in your comment that we are incurring a national debt. Halliburton, KBR, you say? Surprise, Cheney hasn't had a financial interest in Halliburton since DEMOCRATS DEMANDED HIS DIVESTMENT IN 2000.
What power?
Oh, you must of course be referring to French and German influence (power) in Iraq. The French got 10 years of fixed oil prices in return for Osiris and Pasteur-Merrieux facilities, 'resisitant camel-pox'. Seimens from Germany, more bio-tech and weapons programs on their way to Baghdad even now.
Yet those in the ivory towers of academia, unfurling their phd's at every opportunity---know better---. You and they 'know' that somehow soldiers 'don't get what they need'. Any proof on this, or just more parrot-talk? And Ms.Ph.d, what would you in your military experience deem that soldiers need? counseling? tolerance therapy?
up-armored humvees? (that one again---yawn)
Your last flail at rationality is the coup de' grace'. 'If you want to catch terrorists... shut down their money and places for them to train'
As if we're NOT doing this as well. In case you are not paying attention, I'll help you out:
There are NO places for terrorists to train, other than basements and caves. in 2002, an attempt was made by Al-Qaeda to set up a small base in Yemen. They were being watched by a UCAV (look it up) ,and shortly thereafter the terrorists spontaneously exploded courtesy of Hellfire missiles.
Their fundin gsource here in America are being slammed shut, and why?
The Patriot Act.
It's a continual demonstration of both cognitive dissonace and intellectual dishonesty that the anti-war left displays: "fight terror, but don't fight terror in ways we don't like. No guns, no killing"
Standing on the shoulders of giants who made your cushy life possible, your vision is becoming blurred as you glare downward at the people who get it.
By Marc, at 11:30 AM
ah - you deleted my comment? Then don't bother posting to my blog again.
By VirusHead, at 6:27 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By VirusHead, at 5:22 AM
"ah - you deleted my comment?"
Ummm..NO. I deleted my own first post for typos. There is no edit function on comments.
----Like most liberals you prematurely claim a grieved status.
By Marc, at 7:31 AM
I DID delete your latest post. I do not tolerate profanity on my blog, as my children read it. As you see, your previous post remains.
You are welcome to clean it up 'Doctor',and try again.
As you see, your previous post remains.
It frightens me how ignorant of history you are, if you really are responsible for steering the education of young people. Peopel like you are part of the reason we home school. However, I quite enjoyed your quick dash from evading the facts to 'nyah nyah-I've read the Patriot Act-have you?".............as if I would be commenting on it had I not.
And no, I'm not angry. I'm merely disgusted by the lack of intellectual curiosity academia so often displays. Tenure is not the freind of an active mind.
By Marc, at 7:41 AM
You assume I have tenure? Or that people who have achieved tenure status lack curiosity? You obviously don't know much about the process. Ahh..I see, I did use the "s" word. Shocking.In fact, I did post it twice and it disappeared twice. I saw your previous deletion, but not the one from my first posting, so perhaps Blogger ate it. I won't bother posting again, but since I'm lumped in the "people like you" (Phd, academic, liberal, female, however else you're projecting) category, I request that you stop trolling my personal blog. Any future comments will be deleted. I worked hard and sacrificed much to achieve my Phd and although I like to argue and debate, I do not tolerate such ad hominum attacks. You do not know me.
By VirusHead, at 9:45 AM
oh, look. She's offended now.
She quotes Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd as wellsprings of truth (on different threads0, spouts MoveOn.org talking points, and wonders why she's stereotyped.
As far as ad homin(E)m attacks, you're right. I don't have much respect for self-announced 'intellectuals'. You loudly proclaim yourself to be an 'intellectual' on your description of yourself, yet you label Guantanamo a 'gulag' (on your site). If you knew what a Gulag was, you would never refer to it as such. So yes, I'm suspect of your intellectual prowess,due only to your own statements.
By Marc, at 9:56 AM
...final question:
Whom do you hate more?
George W. Bush, or Osama bin Laden?
By Marc, at 10:03 AM
To answer your question I don't hate anyone, but obviously Bin Laden is the greater evil. We haven't done much to stop him though.
Yes, I am an intellectual although not loudly as you say - it's about in the middle of my self description as "Humanities PhD, married mom, liberal, intellectual, poet, ex-Jehovah's Witness." I suspect you would consider yourself one as well since you think things through on your own. We both engage in activities and pursuits that require the exercise of the intellect - that's what an intellectual is. Outside of the US, the phrase is more highly valued.
I'm not offended, just a little weary of the substitution of insults for helpful comments. I'm not angry either - but, like you, I feel that life is short and I don't feel the need to continue publishing them. You had some valid criticisms here and there, but your intent was so clearly hostile that I don't really feel that it's worthwhile for me to continue to engage. Thanks and good luck to you and yours.
By VirusHead, at 11:21 AM
The response was 100% predictable. A person with less than a high school diploma would know that hating--yes hating---Osama Bib Laden is a more appropriate, more justified position than hating George Bush. A bricklayer could easily make this moral distinction. Hate IS sometimes neccessary as a clarifier. I hate evil-unambiguously. It doesn't mean I'm consumed by it. You, by your statement, revile the concept of hate more than you do the consequences of it (9/11) or the derivative of it: (making violence on terror)
From your own blog description:
"About Me
Female intellectual, academic, and poet. A feminist married mom. An ex-Jehovah's Witness, and puppet-CEO of the Virtual Church of Benevolent Deities, Inc. "
You tell me how that should interpreted.
Again, call yourself what you will, but be prepared for challenge when careless accusations and obvious jingoism is tossed around.
By Marc, at 2:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home