real losers

ron steinman, in a televised talk on book tv about women in vietnam: the oral history, mentioned an idea you've likely heard before: that the troops often got blamed for our failure in vietnam.

it's such an odd notion that i feel a need to say something in favor of laying it to rest.

grunts do the hardest and most dangerous work in war, and—when they fight in a good cause—they deserve credit for that. wars couldn't get won without them.

but, win or lose, they're not responsible for the outcome: credit or blame belongs to policymakers and strategists.

they're the ones who train the troops, indoctrinate them, outfit them, and order them into battle. they analyze the intelligence, make the estimates, choose the objectives, and plan the fight.

the grunts are recipients of what they're given: training, equipment, &c. they depend on what they get from above.

and they follow orders.

for over a century, american troops have been as well-trained and motivated as soldiers can be. they've had the best food, the best vehicles, the most advanced technology and weapons (with the exception of the AK-47 and possibly some versions of MiGs).

but they don't choose when, where, or who to fight, and they have no say in the why or the how.

when they don't win, it's not the grunts' fault:

it's the politicians' and the planners'.