Can History Help Us Develop Better Plans?

To be truly effective, a strategic plan has to embodyunderestimated the passion and the commitment of
certain key elements. First, and foremost, the planthe enemy ground forces. The number of enemy
has to be based on a vision -- that is, a vision whatcombatants also was underestimated with the influx
success looks like. This element is the cornerstone ofof Chinese combatants.
an effective plan, and it applies to the military as wellSo here we are more than fifty years later, Korea is
as to business.still divided geographically and philosophically at the
In Barry Ritholtz' book "The Bailout Nation," he quotes38th parallel, and North Korea still remains a threat to
Bob Algern, the former counsel for BP Amocoworld peace.
regarding a "key lesson from history: We should payNow let us take a brief look at what transpired in
head to the sheer number of empires that becameVietnam. While not all of the same factors that
overstretched militarily and then sunk under their ownaffected Korea were present in Vietnam, there
weight. We need a military and intelligence systemcertainly are some similarities. The military and the
structured for the next century, not the last one.Washington politicians were in constant conflict. In
And just as important, we need to be able to sizefact, reports back to Washington misrepresented the
these endeavors at a level we can afford. We can'tfacts by design in an attempt to get what the
continue to subsidize the entire free world by actingmilitary perceived as necessary to winning the
as the globe's policeman."conflict. As with Korea, the US believed that their
By the same token, if we decide to get involvedtechnical superiority would overwhelm the enemy.
anywhere in the world, it would appear that theThe approach was to "search and destroy" enemy
military strategy would need to be predicated onforces, primarily by bombing. Another implication of
"winning" in the sense of turning around a dangerousthis approach was that insufficient troops committed
or untenable situation. It also would appear thatto the battlefield. The net result was a significant
history could provide many "lessons learned" thatnumber of casualties and a civilian population that
would enable the military strategists to avoid somebecame more sympathetic to the enemy.
of the mistakes made in prior conflicts.In contrast, the dedication and commitment of the
Looking at what has transpired, and what isenemy ground forces, along with their ability to gain
continuing to take place in Iraq and in Afghanistan,the support of the civilian population, was
raises some serious questions as to whether any ofunderestimated. The US tactic of heavy bombing
the history lessons have been taken intoonly served to unite the Vietnamese people. Finally,
consideration. Looking at what transpired in Koreamany of the people in the US were openly against
and in Vietnam, and the eventual outcomes in boththe war which not only was demoralizing to the US
of those "wars," one could conclude that we continuetroops and may have served to further embolden
to follow the same path and could end up with similarthe enemy.
outcomes.In this case, the US left with no victory and no
Let us first look at what transpired in Korea andresolution of the issue that caused them to enter the
some of the factors that led to a situation with nowar in the first place. It was a forfeit, and indicated
satisfactory conclusion and with no resolution afterthe possibility that the US could not be counted on
over fifty years of stalemate. First of all, primarily asto defend its allies.
a result of budget cuts, a mere five years after theNow here we are in the Middle East. Have we learned
conclusion of World War II, the US military was notfrom our prior mistakes or are we repeating them?
well armed or well trained. Secondly, there wereHave politics and public opinion gotten enmeshed in
serious command issues. President Truman andmilitary planning? Have we underestimated the
General MacArthur shared a severe dislike for onepassion and commitment of the enemy? Do we have
another making politics an even bigger component ofany indication of the number of enemy combatants
the military equation than normal. Third, the USwe face? Have we relied too much on "technical
believed that their technical superiority (i.e. air and seasuperiority?" Do we have sufficient forces with their
power) would overwhelm the enemy and result in afeet on the ground to fight the war we are in?
quick victory. As a result insufficient numbers ofWhen will our real allies recognize that "we can't
troops were committed to the ground where thecontinue to subsidize the entire free world by acting
real battles were to be fought. Fourth, the USas the globe's policeman?