View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's May 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-War's May 2000 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-War home page.
Patrick Jennings wrote: > We know from 1991 that we would be > unwilling to shed American blood in an amphibous attack. I found this puzzling for several reasons. For one, the decision not to make an amphibious landing (I'm assuming the reference is to the Gulf War) was because 1) the Iraqis had two infantry divisions sitting on the beaches and 2) too much time would be needed to clear mines. This comes from Freedman and Karsh, _The Gulf Conflict, pp. 386-392. Certainly the American public was never polled as to the merits of an amphibious assault. It _was_ polled on the issue of war itself, and given general expectations of killed and wounded well into the thousands, the American public approved of the war. I know of no evidence that pressure was exerted by political leaders _not_ to engage in an amphibious assault. If there's evidence the other way, I'd like to hear it. In more general terms, I'm puzzled by the evidence for the contention that the American public will not accept American casualties. The evidence for this rests, essentially, on Somalia. This seems to me like a problematic case for several reasons: most notably, that it is impossible to make a case for any national interests at stake in Somalia. For another, President Clinton had and has remarkably little credibility on issues involving putting American lives on the line, and moreover made no effort after the Battle of Mogadishu to justify a continued American presence there. I'd suggest the Gulf War _does_ show American willingness to suffer losses when national interests are at stake. Dave Stone Kansas State University
|