Originally posted by rogue1
Not to mention any US buildup would take time, giving the NK more time to prepare for a defensive war.
You can only prepare so much when you're in Korea's shoes. At a certain point, they've done all they can do and all that's left is to await the
The longer the US supply lines the more vulnerable they will be to attack, add that with an advance on a narrow front ( they aren't capable of
any more ), then there flanks can easily be attacked.
We own the air and the sea. We neither have to get into the North by land alone nor do we need to supply by land alone. Furthermore the constricted
nature of the battle space allows us to secure vital routes of transportation with relatively good economy of force.
Any settlements along the road do not need to be occupied as in Iraq. They can simply be destroyed.
Also as I have already said NK countryside is far different than the billiard table flat terrain of the desert where america has fought her
The constraints of terrain do limit possible approaches but given tactical and technical superiority they are not an absolute barrier. If the North
Koreans are by any means isolated from their fire support in any traversible area whatsoever we have a golden opportunity to concentrate force there
and achieve a breakthrough which can be used to access their rear area and take yet more of their vital support from them. That's only on the
Add in the fact that we have the ability to open up any section of their coastline that we wish and place US Marines within striking distance of any
facility in North Korea virtually at will, with the support of our airborne, and the North Koreans are indeed in a precarious position.
All that is necessary to win such a war resoundingly is not to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and Iraq. Go in heavy, be aggressive, pinpoint those
aspects of enemy force structure which are most vital to their capabilities, then get the hell out without trying to occupy or achieve a total
History has shown from time to time, especially in modern wars between tough-talking regional powers with Soviet style militaries and modern western
forces, that things are not always what they seem. When the Commandant of the Marine Corps looked at the original battle plan for Desert Storm he
said, "My God, it'll be another Tarawa." The plan was modified a bit and we ran right over the Iraqis.
A tough nut to crack is not necessarily slow to crack, it merely requires an optimum approach. I completely agree with you that if follow "Rumsfeld
Doctine" also known as taking as little as 1/3 as many troops as are needed, going hey-diddle-diddle, right up the middle, trying to fight a kinder
gentler war, occupying non-strategic locations, and making minimal effort towards force protection, then we are indeed looking at another Tarawa. If
we fight smart, we will crush them. Casualties will probably still be high but progress could be quite swift. Modern armies don't measure their
campaigns in the field in seasons or years anymore. They mesure them in weeks. The first side to make a mistake usually loses. The first side to do
something truly brilliant usually wins. Let's not forget that the entire Yom Kippur War was was not fought on a billiard table. The Israelis
outpositioned the Syrians and forced them out of the Golan Heights without much of a fight.