GENERAL NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF: The Third Tour

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Having recently read the General's book titled "It Doesn't Take a Hero", this story was a great follow on.  An interesting thing about Stormin' Norman, his career and his story is that he was a rare general who largely understood geopolitical realities and gave a damn.  I'm not saying he didn't respect and carry out his orders, he most certainly did, but when he rose high enough that he could make the bureaucracy back in DC listen, he used his influence to guide things in ways that he thought were, uh, more realistic, shall we say.  The intermix of his career in the Army and the geopolitics along the way is how much of it was related to oil and energy.

In any case, the story at the link is from HistoryNet and it is written by a guy named Rick Fredericksen, who accompanied The General on this journey, a so-called "Third Tour".

Norman, The Third Tour

It was reported after the Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991) that Norman could have run for President and won easily; something he was loathe to do since he wanted nothing more to do with the DC bureaucracy after all his years in the military.

What do you guys think the world would look like today if Stormin Norman had run the country for 4-8 years after 1991?

[El Nikko + 2,145]

4 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

What do you guys think the world would look like today if Stormin Norman had run the country for 4-8 years after 1991?

Unfortunately I think it would probably look identical because I think the people pulling the strings are above Presidents.

I'll have to get that book though.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

I found the video that CBS made of the General and Dan Rather's trip.

 

[El Nikko + 2,145]

This might be a strange thing to say but I am not one of the people who are scathing about that particular war, it did prevent the spread of communism into more of SE Asia although the cost was terrible.

What we've done in the ME seems far worse and more pointless, the only beneficiary seems to be Israel.

Having said that we have all the worse things communism/marxism has to offer today...so probably a waste of time as well sadly. 

Edited January 22, 2021 by El Nikko

[El Nikko + 2,145]

Also the media and 'hollywood' are disgusting people in the way they portrayed the soldiers who served there. 

Next  war we should para-drop them in to the middle of the fighting (alone) and see how they do

Edited January 22, 2021 by El Nikko

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

You should read "It Doesn't Take a Hero". 

Norman spent a considerable amount of time in the ME, starting when he was 12 years old, and he gives background that I had never heard before. 

Also, his time in Vietnam and his relationships with the people there are extensive and, once again, he gives a perspective nobody else can.  Consider how he constantly mixes the politics back home with realities in the region and in the middle of the mindlessness into his story: you can tell the man was always aware, always thinking and trying to figure out human nature and true purpose.  And one thing many of the soldiers that served under him may not have known at the time was how much thought and effort he put forth to minimize casualties, to his own troops and to the troops of the South Vietnamese.  Mr. Trang for example, who is talked about in the linked article, was a man that Norman "had more respect for as a military planner and commander than anyone I knew on the American side".  They were close. 

[El Nikko + 2,145]

6 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

You should read "It Doesn't Take a Hero". 

Norman spent a considerable amount of time in the ME, starting when he was 12 years old, and he gives background that I had never heard before. 

Also, his time in Vietnam and his relationships with the people there are extensive and, once again, he gives a perspective nobody else can.  Consider how he constantly mixes the politics back home with realities in the region and in the middle of the mindlessness into his story: you can tell the man was always aware, always thinking and trying to figure out human nature and true purpose.  And one thing many of the soldiers that served under him may not have known at the time was how much thought and effort he put forth to minimize casualties, to his own troops and to the troops of the South Vietnamese.  Mr. Trang for example, who is talked about in the linked article, was a man that Norman "had more respect for as a military planner and commander than anyone I knew on the American side".  They were close. 

As usual politicians hamstrung the military to lengthen the war (all of them!) instead of bringing about the quickest result with the lowest loss of life....you really have to wonder why that always seems to happen.

It sounds like a good read, I'll get it ordered.

It is possible to be against war but support the military which is usually my position. The last just war the UK fought was probably the Falklands in my opinion but then most of them (including Falklands) are for geopolitical purposes to deprive adversaries from expanding their sphere's of influence. If we stepped back...someone else would fill the vacuum, go in and everyone criticizes. But I just don't trust government and their reasons. I do think much of the ME wars were for Israel (to a degree)...if that is true then they should shed their own blood and not ours...I have nothing against that country but I don't care about them either....it's pathetic to get someone else to do all of your fighting for you.

I think what happened during the cold war was far more justified.

[El Nikko + 2,145]

A little A1 Skyraider footage from Vietnam I found the other day.

Those things had a 2700 hp engine, the torque on take off must have been absolutely insane  

 

[fozzir + 68]

11 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

What do you guys think the world would look like today if Stormin Norman had run the country for 4-8 years after 1991?

That's a good question for her.  

[JoMack + 547]

18 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Having recently read the General's book titled "It Doesn't Take a Hero", this story was a great follow on.  An interesting thing about Stormin' Norman, his career and his story is that he was a rare general who largely understood geopolitical realities and gave a damn.  I'm not saying he didn't respect and carry out his orders, he most certainly did, but when he rose high enough that he could make the bureaucracy back in DC listen, he used his influence to guide things in ways that he thought were, uh, more realistic, shall we say.  The intermix of his career in the Army and the geopolitics along the way is how much of it was related to oil and energy.

In any case, the story at the link is from HistoryNet and it is written by a guy named Rick Fredericksen, who accompanied The General on this journey, a so-called "Third Tour".

Norman, The Third Tour

It was reported after the Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991) that Norman could have run for President and won easily; something he was loathe to do since he wanted nothing more to do with the DC bureaucracy after all his years in the military.

What do you guys think the world would look like today if Stormin Norman had run the country for 4-8 years after 1991?

I'd say, he definitely would not be sending troops back into Syria as Biden is doing right now.  

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

50 minutes ago, JoMack said:

I'd say, he definitely would not be sending troops back into Syria as Biden is doing right now.  

I would love to know how he would have handled military endeavors as President.  He was a firm believer that first there must have been a clear breach of basic law(s) and that the decision must be taken for the U.S. to go it alone or with a coalition.  Then, if the decision is made to send in the troops you send in more than enough troops to overwhelm the enemy, you train and equip them properly, you have a clear military objective that's achievable, and you have an endgame.  In his words "you don't fight a war with no endgame or no plan to bring the troops home".  "You cannot win a war with no end." 

I believe, as President, if Norman stepped up to the podium and warned a wanna-be adversary, they would have damn sure taken him seriously and in most cases come back to the negotiating table.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, JoMack said:

I'd say, he definitely would not be sending troops back into Syria as Biden is doing right now.  

Biden is a proxy president.  I don't even like to say "what Biden is doing" because that makes it sound as if he's calling the shots, which he clearly, emphatically, is not.  I don't take this position lightly.  If it had been the Biden of, say, 20 years ago, or maybe even 10 years ago, I might say ok, he's calling the shots.  But not now, and certainly not the vast agenda of actions he is going through.  It is the agenda of a group with several so-called leaders; Joe did not put together the stacks of disruptive actions by himself and I don't believe he could sort out the pros and cons of any one of his current Executive Orders.  Not one.

[Boat + 1,315]

Running a country isn’t rocket science. Only Musk seems to make it look easy. Every new president is given a few hundred billion then its pretty much politics as usual until the next election. What you get done is complained about and what you didn’t get done was obstruction. Did I miss anything?

Edited January 23, 2021 by Boat

[SUZNV + 1,197]

On 1/22/2021 at 1:53 PM, El Nikko said:

This might be a strange thing to say but I am not one of the people who are scathing about that particular war, it did prevent the spread of communism into more of SE Asia although the cost was terrible.

What we've done in the ME seems far worse and more pointless, the only beneficiary seems to be Israel.

Having said that we have all the worse things communism/marxism has to offer today...so probably a waste of time as well sadly. 

It is not strange thing to say. It was common sense during the cold war point of view. But none could expect people in a colonial country with many rebels for independence to understand Western present on their land just for anti Communism, especially after sliced  the country in half.  France and USA lost the propaganda war against Communist right there to the Vietnamese.

Given that:

-In 1945, China was not a communism country yet but the Kongmingtan, who were busy fighting against the rise of Communism in China.

-Stalin originally didn't trust Ho Chi Minh as a communism leader but a nationalist. Ho Chi Minh was desperate enough to use former King as a flag for legitimacy for independence. Later on both Mao and Stalin view Vietnam as a proxy battle field in the Cold War. It is possible that Vietnam  would still be the proxy war battlefield no matter what, but people would fight much harder for the survival of the country, not for capitalism against communism.

-I don't think Vietnam would have become communism country following Mao. Quoted from Ho Chi Minh:   "I for one would rather sniff French shit for five years than eat Chinese shit for the rest of my life.". We did have a border war with China in 1979 and skirmish war going on till 1989. When Soviet Union collapse.

-Because the French was back in 1945, and Mao got into power in China, Ho Chi Minh was forced to accept Communism as a way to unify the country. And US and Allies was forced to join the would be war Geneva  under Domino Theory since 1954. 

Both the war and communism in Vietnam could be avoid if US started to do what they did with South Vietnam and Korea later on as a wall against Communism would be much cheaper, but I understood Roosevelt's situation with allies. De Gaulle is arrogant and greedy. He just got his country back from invader and he wanted to invade the colonial he lost?

-------------------------------------

But look in the bright side, without the present of US & Allies in south Vietnam showcase, people won't know the importance of freedom. Boat people originally  risked their life for freedom. It was sad that not many Vietnamese ran to oversea during the war, but after the war. 

If north Vietnam didn't win the war. Then north Vietnam would not be too much different than North Korea. South Vietnam is the bridge between Communism and Capitalism world (like HongKong, Taiwan was with China). So it is complicated to say who liberated who.

---------------------

I failed to see why the French anti Americanism so much. Was that simply because they blame US were too soft on Germany after WW1 that leaded to WW2?

Edited January 23, 2021 by SUZNV

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, SUZNV said:

It is not strange thing to say. It was common sense during the cold war point of view. But none could expect people in a colonial country with many rebels for independence to understand Western present on their land just for anti Communism, especially after sliced  the country in half.  France and USA lost the propaganda war against Communist right there to the Vietnamese.

Given that:

-In 1945, China was not a communism country yet but the Kongmingtan, who were busy fighting against the rise of Communism in China.

-Stalin originally didn't trust Ho Chi Minh as a communism leader but a nationalist. Ho Chi Minh was desperate enough to use former King as a flag for legitimacy for independence. Later on both Mao and Stalin view Vietnam as a proxy battle field in the Cold War. It is possible that Vietnam  would still be the proxy war battlefield no matter what, but people would fight much harder for the survival of the country, not for capitalism against communism.

-I don't think Vietnam would have become communism country following Mao. Quoted from Ho Chi Minh:   "I for one would rather sniff French shit for five years than eat Chinese shit for the rest of my life.". We did have a border war with China in 1979 and skirmish war going on till 1989. When Soviet Union collapse.

-Because the French was back in 1945, and Mao got into power in China, Ho Chi Minh was forced to accept Communism as a way to unify the country. And US and Allies was forced to join the would be war Geneva  under Domino Theory since 1954. 

Both the war and communism in Vietnam could be avoid if US started to do what they did with South Vietnam and Korea later on as a wall against Communism would be much cheaper, but I understood Roosevelt's situation with allies. De Gaulle is arrogant and greedy. He just got his country back from invader and he wanted to invade the colonial he lost?

-------------------------------------

But look in the bright side, without the present of US & Allies in south Vietnam showcase, people won't now the importance of freedom. Boat people originally  risked their life for freedom. It was sad that not many Vietnamese ran to oversea during the war, but after the war. 

If north Vietnam didn't win the war. Then north Vietnam would not be too much different than North Korea. South Vietnam is the bridge between Communism and Capitalism world (like HongKong, Taiwan was with China). So it is complicated to say who liberated who.

---------------------

I failed to see why the French anti Americanism so much. Was that simply because they blame US were too soft on Germany after WW1 that leaded to WW2?

Hi @SUZNV

I was hoping you would bring your perspective into the discussion, considering you are from there and can tell us things that perhaps no-one else can.  Your comment does not disappoint.

[specinho + 439]

On 1/24/2021 at 12:23 AM, SUZNV said:

I failed to see why the French anti Americanism so much. Was that simply because they blame US were too soft on Germany after WW1 that leaded to WW2?

Why French anti Americanism so much??

Once upon a time.....

the story began like this.........

General of France met with General of USA prior to war........

General of France: Coma ta le bu

General of USA: (.......mumbling...........) What the hell cursing me coma for?? Will give you hell for what it is worth..........

Conversation did not heat up as the General of USA ignoring the General of France for the rest of his life.......

Language barrier............ hear say.......... was the culprit...........   😈

 

[SUZNV + 1,197]

12 minutes ago, specinho said:

Why French anti Americanism so much??

Once upon a time.....

 

the story began like this.........

General of France met with General of USA prior to war........

General of France: Coma ta le bu

General of USA: (.......mumbling...........) What the hell cursing me coma for?? Will give you hell for what it is worth..........

Conversation did not heat up as the General of USA ignoring the General of France for the rest of his life.......

Language barrier............ hear say.......... was the culprit...........   😈

 

Once upon a time, before the French Revolution, Elite and intellectual classes in Europe spoke French, lol.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/23/2021 at 6:35 AM, El Nikko said:

As usual politicians hamstrung the military to lengthen the war (all of them!) instead of bringing about the quickest result with the lowest loss of life....you really have to wonder why that always seems to happen.

It sounds like a good read, I'll get it ordered.

It is possible to be against war but support the military which is usually my position. The last just war the UK fought was probably the Falklands in my opinion but then most of them (including Falklands) are for geopolitical purposes to deprive adversaries from expanding their sphere's of influence. If we stepped back...someone else would fill the vacuum, go in and everyone criticizes. But I just don't trust government and their reasons. I do think much of the ME wars were for Israel (to a degree)...if that is true then they should shed their own blood and not ours...I have nothing against that country but I don't care about them either....it's pathetic to get someone else to do all of your fighting for you.

I think what happened during the cold war was far more justified.

Israel could have nuked the rest of the Middle East and taken the oil decades ago. Do you think USA would have allowed that? It was an Australian scientist called Sir Mark Oliphant that cracked the code for the development of nuclear weapons yet the USA never allowed Australia to develop them? Along with Britain, just used Australia and our Pacific neighbours as the testing grounds? Israel and Australia are the most powerful and influential allies that the USA and UK have got, yet the anti-semitism runs deep to this day in relation to Israel, and the lack of respect towards Australia is not much better sometimes. Thank Christ the Pentagon appreciates the value of our alliances, if not many of the politicians or their equally ignorant subjects. I thought you were better than that El Nikko?

[El Nikko + 2,145]

13 hours ago, Wombat said:

Israel could have nuked the rest of the Middle East and taken the oil decades ago. Do you think USA would have allowed that? It was an Australian scientist called Sir Mark Oliphant that cracked the code for the development of nuclear weapons yet the USA never allowed Australia to develop them? Along with Britain, just used Australia and our Pacific neighbours as the testing grounds? Israel and Australia are the most powerful and influential allies that the USA and UK have got, yet the anti-semitism runs deep to this day in relation to Israel, and the lack of respect towards Australia is not much better sometimes. Thank Christ the Pentagon appreciates the value of our alliances, if not many of the politicians or their equally ignorant subjects. I thought you were better than that El Nikko?

I  don't know what I've done wrong here but I'm not Israeli nor Jewish and I'm not Muslim....so really I just don't care at all about what other countries do and at the same time I am neither pro or against.

It's just not my problem, meanwhile my country is being demolished and I do care about that.

 

[SUZNV + 1,197]

On 1/26/2021 at 2:03 AM, Wombat said:

Israel could have nuked the rest of the Middle East and taken the oil decades ago. Do you think USA would have allowed that? It was an Australian scientist called Sir Mark Oliphant that cracked the code for the development of nuclear weapons yet the USA never allowed Australia to develop them? Along with Britain, just used Australia and our Pacific neighbours as the testing grounds? Israel and Australia are the most powerful and influential allies that the USA and UK have got, yet the anti-semitism runs deep to this day in relation to Israel, and the lack of respect towards Australia is not much better sometimes. Thank Christ the Pentagon appreciates the value of our alliances, if not many of the politicians or their equally ignorant subjects. I thought you were better than that El Nikko?

To be fair, OZ and NZ have been against nuclear for ages because of the nuclear tests around Pacific from US, UK and France so I believe that's why rather than US stopped OZ to have it. NZ even declared as nuclear free country. The first step for nuclear weapon energy is the nuclear power and political will in Australia for that is not high. 

https://theconversation.com/nuclear-weapons-australia-has-no-way-to-build-them-even-if-we-wanted-to-120075

Australia is one of the 4 countries were exempted from the steel and aluminum tariff.

For Jews Community it is much much more complicated. Trump did have a close relationship with Israel ( Consider the strain between US and Israel under Obama) but  majority of US Jews community vote for Biden 76% vs 22% for Trump in 2020 and 71% for Hillary vs 23% for Trump 2016, It seems that Israel and the Jews in the US have different objectives.  

 

 

[El Nikko + 2,145]

4 minutes ago, SUZNV said:

To be fair, OZ and NZ have been against nuclear for ages because of the nuclear tests around Pacific from US, UK and France so I believe that's why rather than US stopped OZ to have it. NZ even declared as nuclear free country. The first step for nuclear weapon energy is the nuclear power and political will in Australia for that is not high. 

https://theconversation.com/nuclear-weapons-australia-has-no-way-to-build-them-even-if-we-wanted-to-120075

Australia is one of the 4 countries were exempted from the steel and aluminum tariff.

For Jews Community it is much much more complicated. Trump did have a close relationship with Israel ( Consider the strain between US and Israel under Obama) but  majority of US Jews community vote for Biden 76% vs 22% for Trump in 2020 and 71% for Hillary vs 23% for Trump 2016, It seems that Israel and the Jews in the US have different objectives.  

 

 

Almost like nationalism and internationalism when you think about it