This is a bit outside of my field of expertise, but for a very readable, personal account of the Battle of Kontum, go here. The link was sent to me by Air Force Major John Heslin, and the website was written by his father, Lt Col John G. "Jack" Heslin, US Army, retired.
Major Heslin writes:
However, in the short excellent recap "Vietnam Revisited," comparing the French and American experiences in Vietnam, the author discusses three critical mistakes made by the French in the 50's and repeated by the US in the 60's: first, a flawed definition of victory; second, an underestimation of the Vietminh's mobility; third, the unforeseen ability of the Vietminh to create effective fire.
These are points worth raising, comparisons worth making, with today's asymmetric battle against terrorists.
Of the three concerns raised, the first two are evident in the new war. What is victory, and how do we achieve it? It's easy to say "the eradication of evil," but that is just a bit nebulous to be used as a basis for strategy. Do we need to capture or kill Osama, or just render him ineffective? Is al Qaeda the only group we are targetting, or should we go after all identified terrorist organizations?
Second is the question of mobility. We are operating at a tremendous disadvantage. Because they don't have a homeland to defend, the terrorists can vanish in the face of any attack. We've seen this, both in Tora Bora, and during Operation Anaconda. We had a foretaste of this tactic during Desert Storm. The Iraqi army surrendered faster than we could take them into custody. This was not a sign of cowardice, but a successful strategy to minimize Iraqi losses when confronted with an overwhelming force. Rather than fighting, they withdraw, retaining the capability to inflict more damage at a later date. Our adversaries are like a swarm of bees without a hive. We can't take them out by destroying the hive, and it is difficult to fight a swarm.
As for the third concern, I don't think we have seen any capability on the part of Al Qaeda/Taliban soldiers to create an effective field of fire. I even question whether they should be called soldiers. Our forces are well prepared to deal with any military actions that they may come up against, but I don't know how well prepared they are to counter terrorist/geurilla type actions. Should our adversaries adopt those tactics, then we could be in for some very long nights.
Posted by Rich at March 27, 2002 4:14 AM