rod wrote:
Korea was a police action that turned ugly<<<
Korea was never a "police action" (although Pres Truman so named it - political reasons probably). Korea was the result of an armed invasion of South Korea and later against the Chinese Forces. I have never understood why Viet Nam was a War and Korea a "police action". Casualties in Nam were around 200 000 and in Korea 100 000 but Korea had 100 000 in three years and Viet Nam lasted over ten years.Don`t call Korea a Police action. We drove the invading forces back to the Yalu and we did everything we were asked to do and stopped only when ordered by the President.
I think, Free, you make arguments without considering the consequences to what you advocate.
Eisenhower did indeed, warn against the Military-Industrial Complex, but his warning, in the main, was against the profiteering and cost overruns and procurement of items not needed - not against the the use of military forces , per se.
Afghanistan is a tough area with terrain similiar (but a bit more rugged) to Korea. We had NK and CCF guerillas (call them what you will) behind our lines all over South Korea and it took manpower to combat them. I think the major problem in Afghanistan is we can`t find anyone to fight. That is , loosely organized bands aren`t easily "fixed and fired on". It is much easier to fight organized forces. That lesson goes back to the Revolutionary war, when at the outset, Minute Men routed the Britiish who had their Betsys and elaborate formations.Yugoslavia and the Chetniks (?) also come to mind. Out forces have a tough job in Afganistan and I don`t understand all the "military leadership" of the forces` decisions either but I don`t denigrate their efforts.In fact I don`t undertsand a lot about how todays Forces are commanded but that`s because I`m an old person I guess.
I enjoy my age group, never thought I'd say that, but thanks for the input. I would disagree though that the real motivation behind this conflict is in fact procurement and profiteering.