[at-l] Racism on or around the AT

[brian@patriot.net (Brian C Merrell)]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:

> Brian C Merrell wrote:
> >As I remember (and the Civil War is not my area of study, so...) the South
> >better generals, overall; it had R.E. Lee of course (probably the greatest
> >general of the war), and as a result won many battles. The North had a few
> >brilliant gems like Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan (to whom I'm related
> >somewhere on my mother's side), a larger population (20M v 9M), and
> >*vastly* greater industrial capacity.  There was simply no way the South
> >would have won once it became a war of attrition.
>
> Brian -
> I'd take exception to that last sentence - think Vietnam.  We didn't "win".
> In general, you're right but attitude - the "will to win" - is far more
> important than the physical factors.  Just as the "will to finish" is
> generally the key to a successful thruhike.
>
> Walk softly,
> Jim
>

Actually, a few things about Vietnam that lost us the war, among others:

1) NVA was fighting a mostly defensive war.  This is always easier.

2) the NVA had 300,000 draft age males available each year.  We did not
kill 300,000 enemy per year.  This shifts the argument about it being a
war of attrition a bit, since it shows that the Vietnamese had the greater
resources in this area.

3) the U.S. pursued a limited war, disallowing major actions in the north.
The NVA knew this, and was able to use certain areas as safe zones.  Our
military policies were/are deeply involved in politics, something which
often makes the military less effective.  Vietnam was a big blistering
example of this.  In fact, technically it wasn't even a war.  We were
simply there to provide support for the South Vietnamese.  (Ha.)

4) The Vietnamese had, for the most part, national unity.  This is always
an advantage.

(A better example of a war of attrition not being won by the side with the
greater material and human resources is Frederick the Great's taking of
Silesia from the Austrians; Prussia had ~20% the population of it's
enemies and far less cash, but had the advantage of superior tactics, a
better commander, and the best infantry Europe had ever seen.)

So, while a fool with infinite money and infinite help will likely have an
easy time on a thru-hike, it is truly a feat when the smarter hiker does
it with nothing but a rucksack, a pocketknife, some food and his(/her)
boots. :)

-brian

--
Brian C. Merrell               | "All that glitters is not gold,
brian@patriot.net              |  All who wander are not lost."
ICBM address: 38.845 N, 77.3 W |                -J.R.R. Tolkien