The greatest generals in creation cannot win a war whose victory conditions remain nebulous.
Richard D Bennett

If my understanding of history serves me right, our country determined that the possibility of global nuclear war, used as a last resort, would be triggered by a decisive U.S. military victory against a protege of the USSR or Communist China, even if neither country’s armed forces were directly involved. This was very much the case when Truman held back General Ridgeway in Korea; and was repeated again when Johnson held back Westmoreland in Vietnam.

Prussian General von Clausewitz wrote, in his analysis of warfare in the post-Napoleonic era, that “war is diplomacy by other means”. That -in my opinion- is how warfare has been regarded in the post-World War era.

Colin Powell, looking back on the Vietnam war for the most part, came up with a military doctrine which bears his name. Neocons and globalists have rejected it mostly for 2 reasons: 1. It calls for the use of overwhelming force to destroy military capabilities of the opposing force within a limited period of time and then leave. 2. Leave it to others to sort out the mess left as the residue of war. No nation-building. No cultural/political transformations into “western-style” democracies. No occupations of conquered countries. No subjugation of dissident indigenous peoples.

President Trump has ordered the military to come up with a plan to destroy ISIS. We will find out just how bold and “great” our generals are, once the plan becomes known.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Arthur G Brina’s story.