There actually were "tours of duty" in such fields as aircrew. The "sharp end" of the Army, not so much.
The "tour of duty" for infantry began with Korea after 1951 when the war became WW1-style "stalemate." As to Vietnam, fighting a "war of attrition" with an enemy who lived there was beyond moron stupidity. When one side is fighting for…
There actually were "tours of duty" in such fields as aircrew. The "sharp end" of the Army, not so much.
The "tour of duty" for infantry began with Korea after 1951 when the war became WW1-style "stalemate." As to Vietnam, fighting a "war of attrition" with an enemy who lived there was beyond moron stupidity. When one side is fighting for their country and the other is fighting to survive their time there, the result is inevitable - as it was with the first anti-colonial war of national liberation, which one would think the descendants of the victors in might have considered that in their studies of war.
Given we have made the same mistake going back to the intervention in a local war by the Jamestown settlers who had no idea what they were doing, similar to the intervention in a local way by the Mayflower Morons, and it is how we have dealt with every non-white opponent, yeah, you're likely right.
the first anti-colonial war of national liberation: perfect phrase. The first thing I thought of is what you say here--look at our record in central and South America, Africa etc etc. never for liberation.
The Northeasgter/Mid-Atlantic American ruling class - the multi-generations-on-top bunch - always saw themselves as the logical successors to the British Empire.
There actually were "tours of duty" in such fields as aircrew. The "sharp end" of the Army, not so much.
The "tour of duty" for infantry began with Korea after 1951 when the war became WW1-style "stalemate." As to Vietnam, fighting a "war of attrition" with an enemy who lived there was beyond moron stupidity. When one side is fighting for their country and the other is fighting to survive their time there, the result is inevitable - as it was with the first anti-colonial war of national liberation, which one would think the descendants of the victors in might have considered that in their studies of war.
I'm pretty sure the lesson remains unlearned.
Given we have made the same mistake going back to the intervention in a local war by the Jamestown settlers who had no idea what they were doing, similar to the intervention in a local way by the Mayflower Morons, and it is how we have dealt with every non-white opponent, yeah, you're likely right.
the first anti-colonial war of national liberation: perfect phrase. The first thing I thought of is what you say here--look at our record in central and South America, Africa etc etc. never for liberation.
The Northeasgter/Mid-Atlantic American ruling class - the multi-generations-on-top bunch - always saw themselves as the logical successors to the British Empire.