View Full Version : The Tet Myth
Truckie117
12-16-2010, 18:05
Hi
Just wanted to bring attention to a great Article in National Review about the Tet Offensive how we won and the press totally screwed up as usual.
Hi
Just wanted to bring attention to a great Article in National Review about the Tet Offensive how we won and the press totally screwed up as usual.
Want me to post a link?
HOT topic ca 1975...ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
Richard :munchin
dr. mabuse
12-16-2010, 20:43
*
Update for the young un's Richard.
x10 ... because ...
... if there was a major assault by Afghan insurgents today, on the order of the Tet offensive, that is,
dozens of well coordinated attacks over the span of the country by insurgents who came out of the woodwork, including in and around the capital, and causing hundreds of American deaths and thousands of Afghan deaths ...
and the reality was: U.S. and Afghan forces killed or captured almost every hostile directly involved in the fight ...
... would the U.S. press (and Congress, and President) realize what a victory it was?
Or would there be a huge outcry (like the Mog, like Beirut, ... hell, like Tet '68)
that "we are in the wrong war, on the wrong place, and we cannot win, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel, and "bring the boys home," and ..."
I think that is why we should study Tet '68.
He who does not study history is condemned to repeat it (not original).
I wonder what would happen if someone were to type Tet 1968 in the SEARCH function and click on 'Show Posts'? :confused:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
It's all the rage: There are two course being offer this semester concerning the VN Conflict. One is Titled: The VN conflict in Lit & Film, the other is a BF seminar, Policy and decision making.
Truckie117
12-16-2010, 23:39
:o I came up with 92.:munchin now I have my popcorn I got a lot a reading to do.
I think that is why we should study Tet '68. He who does not study history is condemned to repeat it (not original).
Very true, however isn't the one big difference 9/11? Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia never harbored assassins who unprovoked murdered 3000 American civilians on US soil. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what AQ would do once again given time and safe harbor in Afghanistan. I think the American people know this.
IMHO the Taliban isn't stupid, a TET type offensive could break their backs just like it shattered the VC in 68, and even if we left, leave them at the mercy of the Northern Alliance/United Front or whatever Karzai's people call themselves now. Also there is no NVA proxy to continue the fight after TET if the Taliban is decimated.
Instead they can just wait us out since they know we are leaving, and then take the country back. The Afghan populace are hardened survivors they will side with whomever has the upper hand at that point.
Buffalobob
12-17-2010, 06:29
however isn't the one big difference 9/11? Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia never harbored assassins who unprovoked murdered 3000 American civilians on US soil. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what AQ would do once again given time and safe harbor in Afghanistan. I think the American people know this.
Short answer is NO. That is not a big difference. Few people can remember things more than a few hours ago. You will remember that the Afgan war was put on the back burner in favor of searching of WMDs in Iraq. Neither the politicians of either party nor the general public has any urgency on why we are there and what we need to accomplish. Right now its just a war in a far away place if you have no one involved and that is the issue with the all volunteer army. So if there is a large scale battle fought what does it mean to the general public except we can leave sooner.
Here are two articles in the WAPO from yesterday and today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121601259.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121605341.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
If you want to froth and foam at the mouth about the press then you miss the point that this guy Robinson is like most of the public.
So that's a lot for me to type about something not related to hunting but that's my view of the situation.
http://sroblog.com/2010/12/16/george-f-will-could-there-be-a-tet-offensive-in-afghanistan/
Neither the politicians of either party nor the general public has any urgency on why we are there and what we need to accomplish. Right now its just a war in a far away place if you have no one involved and that is the issue with the all volunteer army. So if there is a large scale battle fought what does it mean to the general public except we can leave sooner.
Sir,
I hear you on the lack of urgency etc, but unlike Vietnam, the American public back home are reminded of the threat of Islamic extremism in their day to day lives even with a volunteer military and if they don't know anyone serving. TSA is now a fact of life and seems entrenched. We recently had that plot in Oregon, not to mention, The Xmas bomber over Detroit, the NY Times Square bomb plot, Jihad Jane in the Midwest, and of course Ft. Hood. in Texas. We have been very lucky most of these folks were incompetent, but the breadth of incidents has hit every region.
By my read the Robinson piece was like a lot of what passes for journalism these days, defeatist and poorly researched. For example he focuses on the corruption of the Afghan regime, from what I've read folks over there care only about their tribe, it's Afghanistan not Canada, the regimes in that part of the world are always corrupt and unstable. Other than an overall defeatist tone, was there anything he mentioned that wasn't known? The terrain is tough, Pakistan is a shaky ally, the Karzai regime is corrupt, Obama is wuss, and reducing troop levels can't help. If such liberal journalists represented the pulse of the American people, the recent midterm elections would have had different results. The American people, like most folks anywhere, just want to be led.
Despite all of his whining, if he had concluded it is a tough mission, we have good people in harms way over there, but we have no choice for our safety, IMHO the article may have had some merit.
1stindoor
12-17-2010, 11:31
By my read the Robinson piece was like a lot of what passes for journalism these days, defeatist and poorly researched. For example he focuses on the corruption of the Afghan regime, from what I've read folks over there care only about their tribe, it's Afghanistan not Canada, the regimes in that part of the world are always corrupt and unstable. Other than an overall defeatist tone, was there anything he mentioned that wasn't known? The terrain is tough, Pakistan is a shaky ally, the Karzai regime is corrupt, Obama is wuss, and reducing troop levels can't help. .
I think that summed up the article pretty well. Most "journalists" don't have a clue about that region of the world because they haven't been there. To them it's inconceivable that the majority of the inhabitants don't follow, or even know, the politics of the country.
mark46th
12-18-2010, 14:30
I never forgave Walter Cronkite. I rejoiced when he died.