AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Gen. Giap & Walter Cronkite Beat the Military, And Won The War
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
The reason the new paradigm of guerilla warfare was perfected was because the United States is so softhearted. In the days of yore, when a tyrant ruled without regard to his subjects' feelings, playing to the sentiments of the public was a no-go. Now, you  can predict where a terrorist attack will come by the news cameras.
(07-18-2017, 01:27 PM)WmLambert Wrote: [ -> ]The reason the new paradigm of guerilla warfare was perfected was because the United States is so softhearted. In the days of yore, when a tyrant ruled without regard to his subjects' feelings, playing to the sentiments of the public was a no-go. Now, you  can predict where a terrorist attack will come by the news cameras.

Come on Bill, do you really believe that?  That's just an "effect", and not a "cause".  The real "Cause" is that conventional warfare is just too expensive for most groups.  They don't have the resources to compete against a larger enemy. So they do the best thing they can afford.  They wage war on the cheap, i.e. gorilla warfare.  Dollar for dollar it is far less expensive, and allows the enemy to blend back into the landscape, where they can do it again when they are ready.   Spiteful
(07-18-2017, 01:34 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]...The real "Cause" is that conventional warfare is just too expensive for most groups.  They don't have the resources to compete against a larger enemy. So the do the best thing they can afford.  They wage way on the cheap, i.e. gorilla warfare.  Dollar for dollar it is far less expensive, and allows the enemy to blend back into the landscape where they can do it again when they are ready.

Strongly disagree. You are confusing the philosophic with the reality. Yes, it is cheap and easy, but the reason it came about was because it was discovered as a new tactic which changed the dynamics of warfare. I've repeated the story of General Giap until I'm blue in the face. He failed in his attempt to win a traditional military war against South Vietnam. He lost everything in the last-gap Tet Offensive. His troops were wiped out. His ammo and logistics were gone. He had nothing left and had told his staff that he was going to surrender the next day. It was Walter Cronkite who changed his decision, Cronkite reported to the world that the US was soundly defeated during Tet, when in actuality we won on all counts. He lied about embassies being overrun. The only evidence of attack was the dead bodies of Giap's soldiers. Giap discovered that military victories are no longer required to win. All you needed was the Press.

The new paradigm was not about cost-effectiveness - it was about succeeding without victories: and being victims. The new paradigm also worked with street gangs in cities. Go out and skulk in the shadows, but when the heat comes down - blend in with the innocent and hide behind your mother's apron. The lesson wasn't lost on protestors. Go out and wreak havoc - but wait for the TV cameras to show up first. If you don't make the news, your protests are useless.

Sure, it may be affordable, but the money end was never the driving factor. George Soros showering money on the same group of agitators who show up in different protests is just a cherry on the top. The main thing is making it on the 6:00 o'clock and 11:00 o'clock news or above the fold in the papers.
CIVILIANS! Gah
Yes, it was the civillian, Qalter Cronkite, who stood the military world on its ear, by allowing a defeated army to gain victory where there was none.
(07-18-2017, 08:10 PM)WmLambert Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it was the civillian, Walter Cronkite, who stood the military world on its ear, by allowing a defeated army to gain victory where there was none.

You still don't get it Bill.  As a civilian, you think you know Everything about the military, because they're simple minded and you civilians are all geniuses.  But you really don't know Squat about it.  Hey, I don't question your computer knowledge base, so try to refrain from acting like you know everything about something you have never spent any time living within.  

The reason why insurgency groups do that is because they cannot afford to meet a superior force in the field on a conventional basis.  FACT!!!!  That's why North Vietnam didn't invade the South while the US was there.  They waited until the South was left on its own and they had shown that they were inept conventionally.  FACT!!!!

Thats why terrorism is used: because its the only way they can accomplish their goals from a financial point.

And Qalter Cronkite did NOT stand the military world on its ear.  He stood the "Civilian" world on its ear.  And they caused the military to eventually lose out on it.  You Civilians are All Alike, you know that?!
John L, I must strongly disagree. it is arrogant and presumptuous to think that just because you had some military experience only you are qualified to know anything about military matters, and civilians are not qualified to have any say in discussing issues involving the military. The military has always been run by civilians in the USA. We are a constitutional republic, not a military governorship. Both tactics and strategy are the province of civilians, not just the military. All that is required is intelligence and a talent for critical thinking--as is true in absolutely all fields of human endeavor. The military is not the most complicated field there is. The military does not even invent the weapons that it uses.

Here is how things really work in the Pentagon, according to every sensible and verified report: Military theorists devise hundreds of theoretical "war games" every week, and dream up schemes for using new weapons. But it is always and exclusively civilians who decide what is really the course to be followed, and what weapons are to be developed, and how and when they are to be used. Presidents and Congress decided what to do in Vietnam, and they made serious misjudgments and wasted all the sacrifices of the military. The solution is not to restrict discussion of military matters to those with military experience. The solution is to face up to the real nature of the mistakes that were made by civilian government, and correct the wrong philosophies and dishonest leftist Democrat propagandizing that caused those mistakes--especially including the losing of a war that had been won, and allowing an entire population to come under communist dictatorship when they clearly did not want to suffer that fate.

One of the worst afflictions of the intellectual world is for people in various fields of endeavor to arrogantly assert that their field is their exclusive "turf," and no one else can comment or criticize. The attempt to set up intellectual fiefdoms and ridicule and disparage anyone who world presume to have any meaningful say in those fiefdoms but the self-proclaimed "experts" is the primary impediment to the advancement of Western Civilization.
John is correct, the sole purpose of an insurgency is to create havoc amongst the enemy at little cost. When popular support is on their side, an insurgency can hold out indefinitely, consolidating its control and replenishing its ranks, until their opponents simply leave. This is exactly what happened in Vietnam.

Walter Conkrite, the father of Fake News, played a major role in turning Americans against the Vietnam War. Conkrite was unethical—he secretly bugged a committee room at the 1952 GOP convention—he would have been bashed by the blogs, pilloried by the pundits, and quite possibly ousted by his employer had he done that today.
Bugging a committee room pales in comparison to allowing a war we had won to go on - at the time there were less than 8K KIA and 52K after Giap's new paradigm was put in play.

To put an end to John's idea that insurgencies are planned by military geniuses, please remember that General Giap stumbled across the new way of fighting because of what Cronkite did and how the American media reported it all. If it was just Cronkite and the media vetted him, then nothing would have changed. Giap would have surrendered and all those kids would have made it home alive. But the media lined up at street corners from then on with one goal - to be first with the most salacious reportage.

In WWII, guerilla warfare in the Philippines and elsewhere was aimed at intercepting logistics and infrastructure destruction in order to hurt the military goals of the enemy. Back then, whether from the shadows or in the sunlight, the goal was to affect the enemy's ability to wage war. The new paradigm (post Cronkite) was to annoy without any damage in return - with the new goal of winning the media war. Fighting with a cost figure dialed in was always part of warfare, traditional as well as guerilla.

John, i know a little about this, due to my days at CJI studying and creating educational programs to professionally come to grips with gang warfare. My take on military types really knowing their chosen field is similar to police, that most are insular, and know basic details from boot camp - but mostly know what they did and what they were a part of. The idea of not knowing the forest for the trees comes to mind. You know more than most soldiers due to Academy days. Look at John Kerry as a bad example. Here's a guy who used a little knowledge to game the system. He lied through his teeth about almost everything he did.
Quote:...My take on military types really knowing their chosen field is similar to police, that most are insular, and know basic details from boot camp...


Before I was in the Navy I was in the infantry in the Army Reserves. Basic Training (Boot Camp) (12 Weeks) only teaches a soldier the basic core skills and physical fitness. After basic training soldiers go on to Operational Qualification Traning (17 Weeks) followed by Specialty Training and Advanced Training. An infantry soldier will never be deployed to an operational theater without the benefit of the proper training.

BASIC OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION TRAINING
Infantry Soldiers attend one of three Military Training Centres: The Royal Canadian Regiment in Meaford, Ontario; Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry in Wainwright, Alberta; and The Royal 22e Régiment in Valcartier, Quebec. The training takes 17 weeks and includes the following topics:

Use and care of personal and section-level weapons, including rifles, machine guns, and anti-tank weapons
Field-craft, including personal hygiene and meal preparation, camouflage, sentry duties, signaling, selecting firing positions, tactical movements and lines of advance
Construction of field defenses, such as trenches and roadblocks, and laying and marking of minefields
Navigation by day and by night
Patrolling operations
Infantry section and platoon tactics, including offensive, defensive and transitional operations

SPECIALTY TRAINING
Infantry Soldiers may be offered the opportunity to develop specialized skills through formal courses and on-the-job training, including:

Basic Parachutist
Parachute Jumpmaster
Para Instructor
Mountain Warfare
Instructional Techniques
First Aid Instructor
Rappelmaster
Unarmed Combat Instructor
Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Defence Instructor
Urban Operations

ADVANCED TRAINING
As they progress in their career, Infantry Soldiers who demonstrate the required ability and potential will be offered advanced training. Available courses include:

Instructional Techniques
Primary Army Leadership
Infantry Soldier Section Commander
Infantry Soldier Platoon Second-in-Command
Infantry Soldier Company Sergeant-Major
Communicator
Reconnaissance Patrolling
Anti-Armour Gunner
Sniper
Section Commander
Eryx Gunner
Machinegunner (Heavy and General Purpose)
Small Arms Coach
25mm Gunner and light armored vehicle Crew Commander
Winter (Arctic) and Jungle Operations
Patrol Pathfinder
Tactical Intelligence Operator
(07-19-2017, 08:46 PM)WmLambert Wrote: [ -> ]To put an end to John's idea that insurgencies are planned by military geniuses, please remember that General Giap stumbled across the new way of fighting because of what Cronkite did and how the American media reported it all. If it was just Cronkite and the media vetted him, then nothing would have changed. Giap would have surrendered and all those kids would have made it home alive. But the media lined up at street corners from then on with one goal - to be first with the most salacious reportage.

I never once stated that, Ever!  You're putting words in my mouth, and it won't work.  All I ever stated is that unconventional warfare is pursued because the side using it cannot compete conventionally, because they lack the funds/resources.

And Cronkite has nothing to do with the Vietnamese conducting unconventional warfare.  They started that in 1941 as the Viet Minh, and culminated with the battle of Dien Bien Phu, in 1954 with the French colonial defeat.  Giap worked under Ho Chi Minh who was the then leader of the Viet Minh.

Quote:In WWII, guerilla warfare in the Philippines and elsewhere was aimed at intercepting logistics and infrastructure destruction in order to hurt the military goals of the enemy. Back then, whether from the shadows or in the sunlight, the goal was to affect the enemy's ability to wage war. The new paradigm (post Cronkite) was to annoy without any damage in return - with the new goal of winning the media war. Fighting with a cost figure dialed in was always part of warfare, traditional as well as guerilla.

Again, forget Cronkite, for heaven's sake.  The Philippines resorted to unconventional warfare because that was all they could afford to do until they got outside help from the returning US.

Quote:John, i know a little about this, due to my days at CJI studying and creating educational programs to professionally come to grips with gang warfare. My take on military types really knowing their chosen field is similar to police, that most are insular, and know basic details from boot camp - but mostly know what they did and what they were a part of. The idea of not knowing the forest for the trees comes to mind. You know more than most soldiers due to Academy days. Look at John Kerry as a bad example. Here's a guy who used a little knowledge to game the system. He lied through his teeth about almost everything he did.

You think gang warfare and criminal justice is a good primer for all things military?  Good Lord Bill, just admit you don't know Squat, ok?  Look, I continue to say that I know little about computers, graphics, or programing.  I don't pretend to either, and I will leave that to you.  I know what I am good at, and don't try to pretend that I know everything about all things.  In other words, stick to what you know best.  S13
Agree with John. William is a victim of his own propaganda.

General Giap's TET offensive was planned and executed and was a military failure that caused tremendous consternation inside the NVA government. At the time of execution though, Cronkite was still a supporter of victory.

Cronkite became the anti war pessimist after TET, not before TET. So, Giap could not have decided on a strategy based on Cronkite's anti war pessimism. Of course part of any nation's strategy is to wear down the morale of a foreign power. That's how we won our independence.

Here's a blurb from an interview with Giap. Pay close attention because the reason he gives for our defeat is the same reason we tend lose wars since WWII( plus we cannot obliterate entire large cities), we don't know our enemy and we tend to project us onto them:

Giap indicated in a 1996 interview with CNN that the North Vietnamese Army’s victory came in large part due to American leaders’ lack of understanding of Vietnam, their underestimation of the North Vietnamese will to win, and miscalculations about the effectiveness of guerilla warfare:
In general, I must say they were the most intelligent people, with certain talents such as military, political and diplomacy skills. They were intelligent people. That was the first point that I want to say. The second point I want to say is that they knew little about Vietnam and her people. They didn’t understand our will to maintain independence and equality between nations even though these are stated in President Jefferson’s manifestation. And so they made mistakes. They did not know the limits of power. … No matter how powerful you are there are certain limits, and they did not understand it well. …(my addition, William Lambert also doesn't get this)

The people in the White House believed that Americans would definitely win and there is not chance of defeat. There is a saying which goes, “If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you would win every single battle.” However, the Americans fought the Vietnamese, but they did not know much about Vietnam or anything at all about the Vietnamese people. Vietnam is an old nation founded in a long history before the birth of Christ. … The Americans knew nothing about our nation and her people. American generals knew little about our war theories, tactics and patterns of operation. …

During the war everyone in the country would fight and they [would] do so following the Vietnamese war theory. We have a theory that is different from that of the Russians and that of the Americans. The Americans did not understand that. They did not know or understand our nation; they did not know our war strategies. They could not win. How could they win? As our president said, there was nothing more precious than independence and freedom. We had the spirit that we would govern our own nation; we would rather sacrifice than be slaves.

We're doing the exact same deal in the Arabian peninsula. It's criminally naïve for national leaders to be this stupid.
Patrick, you forgot the link to the blurb from Giap.
(07-19-2017, 10:46 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]...I never once stated that, Ever!  You're putting words in my mouth, and it won't work.  All I ever stated is that unconventional warfare is pursued because the side using it cannot compete conventionally, because they lack the funds/resources.

Actually, what you said was, "As a civilian, you think you know Everything about the military, because they're simple minded and you civilians are all geniuses." This of course infers that only geniuses are allowed in the game, and its the other side that sports that gene. Sorry - most soldiers are not geniuses either. What I said about Cronkite was irrefutable, and had nothing to do with civilians being geniuses. I did work with real geniuses who studied the way gangs use the media and hide behind their mothers' apron strings. What is so difficult about that, that you need to mock any one who wasn't in the tank corps?

What General Giap stumbled across was the realization that his forces needn't win any battles to win the war. All he needed to do was give Cronkite what he wanted.
(07-20-2017, 06:39 PM)WmLambert Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2017, 10:46 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]...I never once stated that, Ever!  You're putting words in my mouth, and it won't work.  All I ever stated is that unconventional warfare is pursued because the side using it cannot compete conventionally, because they lack the funds/resources.

Actually, what you said was, "As a civilian, you think you know Everything about the military, because they're simple minded and you civilians are all geniuses." This of course infers that only geniuses are allowed in the game, and its the other side that sports that gene. Sorry - most soldiers are not geniuses either.

Oh Bullshit.  What it means is that civilians tend to look down their noses at military people, because they think they are unqualified to make it in civilian life.  If you haven't seen this, you're either blind, or oblivious.  That's what I was referring to.  And don't even bother to argue this fact.

Quote:What I said about Cronkite was irrefutable, and had nothing to do with civilians being geniuses. I did work with real geniuses who studied the way gangs use the media and hide behind their mothers' apron strings. What is so difficult about that, that you need to mock any one who wasn't in the tank corps?

What General Giap stumbled across was the realization that his forces needn't win any battles to win the war. All he needed to do was give Cronkite what he wanted.

Cronkite was only part of the problem, not THE Problem.  Furthermore, I originally was talking about All counterinsurgencies, not just Vietnam. And again, street gangs have absolutely nothing to do with the military, or warfare, other than the fact that they are also humans.
Oh, I almost forgot.

(07-20-2017, 06:39 PM)WmLambert Wrote: [ -> ]What is so difficult about that, that you need to mock any one who wasn't in the tank corps?

Again, that's incorrect.  I've been a paratrooper, and a ground pounder, as well as an armored officer.  I just happen to love the concept of armored warfare, and have been this way since a child, when I first read Heinz Guderian's "Panzer Leader".  I love tanks, and commanded a tank company of M60A1s in Korea.  I don't mock other branches of service either, because we're all brothers in arms.  

Furthermore, just to show you how little you understand about the current military, there is no such thing as "the tank corps".  That is Soo pre-WWII, and over seventy years out of date. Its "Armor Branch", as with "Infantry" and "Artillery".  Only the Engineers use the term "Engineering Corps" instead of branch.   And today, armored units are integrated into combined arms teams, with tanks, mechanized infantry, and also engineers.
(07-19-2017, 08:46 PM)WmLambert Wrote: [ -> ]Bugging a committee room pales in comparison to allowing a war we had won to go on - at the time there were less than 8K KIA and 52K after Giap's new paradigm was put in play.

To put an end to John's idea that insurgencies are planned by military geniuses, please remember that General Giap stumbled across the new way of fighting because of what Cronkite did and how the American media reported it all. If it was just Cronkite and the media vetted him, then nothing would have changed. Giap would have surrendered and all those kids would have made it home alive. But the media lined up at street corners from then on with one goal - to be first with the most salacious reportage.

In WWII, guerilla warfare in the Philippines and elsewhere was aimed at intercepting logistics and infrastructure destruction in order to hurt the military goals of the enemy. Back then, whether from the shadows or in the sunlight, the goal was to affect the enemy's ability to wage war. The new paradigm (post Cronkite) was to annoy without any damage in return - with the new goal of winning the media war. Fighting with a cost figure dialed in was always part of warfare, traditional as well as guerilla.

John, i know a little about this, due to my days at CJI studying and creating educational programs to professionally come to grips with gang warfare. My take on military types really knowing their chosen field is similar to police, that most are insular, and know basic details from boot camp - but mostly know what they did and what they were a part of. The idea of not knowing the forest for the trees comes to mind. You know more than most soldiers due to Academy days. Look at John Kerry as a bad example. Here's a guy who used a little knowledge to game the system. He lied through his teeth about almost everything he did.

(07-20-2017, 06:39 PM)WmLambert Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-19-2017, 10:46 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]...I never once stated that, Ever!  You're putting words in my mouth, and it won't work.  All I ever stated is that unconventional warfare is pursued because the side using it cannot compete conventionally, because they lack the funds/resources.

Actually, what you said was, "As a civilian, you think you know Everything about the military, because they're simple minded and you civilians are all geniuses." This of course infers that only geniuses are allowed in the game, and its the other side that sports that gene. Sorry - most soldiers are not geniuses either. What I said about Cronkite was irrefutable, and had nothing to do with civilians being geniuses. I did work with real geniuses who studied the way gangs use the media and hide behind their mothers' apron strings. What is so difficult about that, that you need to mock any one who wasn't in the tank corps?

What General Giap stumbled across was the realization that his forces needn't win any battles to win the war. All he needed to do was give Cronkite what he wanted.

I recruited high school students for Canada's military colleges, I can't recall anyone being accepted with a stanine under 7.
This was never about military personnel being substandard. All my friends who enlisted would clock in as nines. I was appointed to Annapolis after beating hundreds of high school applicants from my Congressional District. I was unlike McCain, not able to get in as a legacy. I know the quality which is in the military, which only got better after the Draft ended.

What I said was that Giap reported in his autobiography that he was going to surrender the very next day - but then changed his mind because of Cronkites's words. I agree there were guerilla insurgents since time immemorial, but in general, their goal was disruption of regular military - not to win over the opinion of the enemy's public. The gangland references are to the tactics used to stay away from any front lines and blend in to the crowd. ...Also to gain the most publicity while acting tough, yet hiding like cowards
General Giap never stated that. It was attributed to him by people like you that like to make up stories to buttress their world views.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/general-v...tribution/

The anti war movement began when the war dragged on and on and it was increasingly clear the US government was lying about the success of the war.
Come to find out the entire logic for the war was another US government big lie, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was made up.

Some people don't believe in killing and getting killed when they perceive the entire thing is a big lie. Try reading Neil Sheehan's book, "A Bright Shining Lie".

Awesome historical work. Vietnam was never winnable because we couldn't invade the enemy state. It would be like whipping Germany and staying out of Germany. Kind of a silly idea.
(07-21-2017, 12:03 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]General Giap never stated that. It was attributed to him by people like you that like to make up stories to buttress their world views....

Actually, that link confirms what happened. The sanitizing of the internet during Kerry's run for the Presidency took down most of the quotes from Giap's book, and rewrote much history. However, they didn't get everything. Your link did say: "So, General Giap did not say that the U.S. lost the Vietnam war at home because of anti-war protests and media coverage of the war. Those sentiments did come from a former high-ranking official in the North Vietnamese Army, though." Nit-picking words because they were not precisely what Giap wrote.. The fact that was not commented upon was that Giap said in his autobiography that the war was ended and he was ready to surrender the next day. If you want to research further - use Fonda in your search efforts, maybe you'll uncover more.

In 1996, most derision was aimed at Jane Fonda - not Cronkite - but he was the guy who saved the Tet for Giap. No historian I ever read said that the US Embassies in Vietnam were overrun. Yet, that is what Cronkite said. Giap did say that was the catalyst that stopped the surrender plan.

But, never mind. Why not argue whether the media was the ultimate new goal? The same link did say the "higher-ups did listen to American news reports about anti-war protestors and media coverage. I never said Cronkite reported the Tet lie in a vacuum, but his Tet statement was what Giap eluded to in his book.

BTW, try and find that book in the library. How We Won the War First Edition by Vo Nguyen Giap sells for almost $500, used for $99.
Pages: 1 2