WAR: What it takes to win

General Sherman described war as "hell," yet he conducted a campaign of "total aggressive war" during the Civil War without concern for casualties while winning Victory for the South. After two tours as a combat pilot in the Pacific during World War II, the public enjoyed jubilant Victory which was the result of an aggressive war. However, after three more tours during the Korean Conflict, I can attest to the fact that war is "Hell" since my aircraft was fired on by ground forces in each war. Yet victory was not the end result of a less than aggressive war in Vietnam. Rather, the public was more concerned with "exit strategy" and "Collateral Damages" than winning a Vietnam victory.

Overly fearful concern for "Civilian Casualties" and "Collateral Damage" by the American public has created a dilemma that has resulted in excessive Military casualties and restrictive "Rules for Engagement" that have prevented aggressive combat. In addition, the enemy is keenly aware of this dilemma and often falsely claim collateral damage and civilian deaths with impunity. Since World War II we have failed to achieve victory in either the Korean or Vietnam conflict where a less than aggressive war was conducted for fear of collateral damage.

Collateral damage appears to be one-sided. While the U.S. military cautiously complies with rules of engagement, the enemy understands "Hell" and uses aggressive tactics in an effort to cause casualties, death and destruction. It is therefore time to recognize that collateral damage, friendly combat, victory and hell are incompatible. Winning is supreme; end game and exit strategy follow victory, not the reverse.

AL OLIVER

Coeur d'Alene