Conclusion – Can History Help Us Develop Better Plans?

Now here we are in the Middle East.  Have we learned from our prior mistakes (i.e. Korea and Vietnam) or are we repeating them?  Have politics and public opinion gotten enmeshed in military planning?  Have we underestimated the passion and the commitment of the enemy?  Do we have any indication of the number of enemy combatants that we face?  Have we relied too much on “technical superiority to overwhelm the enemy?”  Do we have sufficient forces with their “feet on the ground” to effectively fight the war we are in?  When will our real allies recognize that “we can’t continueto subsidize the entire free world by acting as the globe’s policemen?”

General George Patton said it best when he said “If you cannot beat the enemy, find a way to make him lose.”

Finally, what is our vision of success, and what is the plan to deliver that vision?  My suggestion would be to to look at our history lessons, specifically what we learned from our mistakes in Korea and Vietnam, apply the “learnings” to the present conflicts and bring General Patton’s philosophy to reality!

Part III – Can History Help Us Develop Better Plans?

As stated in an earlier blog, “It would appear that history could provide many ‘lessons learned’ that would enable the military strategists to avoid some of the mistakes made in prior conflicts.”

Looking at what has transpired, and what is continuing to take place in Iraq and in Afghanistan, raises some serious questions as to whether any of the history lessons have been taken into consideration.  Looking at what transpired in Korea and Vietnam, and the eventual outcomes in both of those “wars,” one could conclude that we continue to follow the same path and could end up with similar outcomes.

In Korea we ended up with a situation with no satisfactory conclusion and with no resolution after over 50 years of stalemate.  The factors leading up to this situation included: a military that was poorly armed and trained as a result of budget cuts, serious command issues with politics an even bigger component of military strategy than usual, the US believing that its technical superiority would overwhelm the enemy and result in a quick victory and underestimation of the number of enemy combatants.

Similarly, with regard to Vietnam, the military and the Washington politicians were in constant conflict, the US believed their technical superiority would overwhelm the enemy, the commitment of enemy ground forces was underestimated and many people in the US were openly against the war which not only was demoralizing to the US troops, it actually may have served to embolden the enemy.  Ultimately, the US left with no victory and no resolution of the issue that caused te US to enter the war in the first place.  It was a forfeit, and indicated the possibility that the US could not be counted on to defend its allies.

So, do we have a better plan now?  Look for my perspective on next week’s blog

Can History Help Us Develop Better Plans?

To be truly effective, a strategic plan has to embody certain key elements.  First, and foremost, the plan has to be based on a vision — that is, a vision of what success looks like.  This element is the cornerstone of an effective plan, and it applies to the military as well as to business.

More on this in next week’s blog.