Are American warriors prohibited from winning wars?

LTC Ed Ross — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:01:17 -0400

There's a great line from a Rambo movie that reflected how Vietnam Veterans felt after the Vietnam war. "Are they going to let us win this time?" The Gulf War not withstanding, America has done poorly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely, just as there were in Vietnam, there are many complex reasons for this. I've written and spoken about what Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have in common--poor leadership from the White House, the wrong strategies, and bad rules of engagement. I firmly believe that no war, save all out nuclear war, is unwindable. America's problem in the post Vietnam War era is that we are unwilling to go the distance and commit the resources necessary to win wars. We won the Gulf War because we employed the doctrine of "overwhelming force." In Iraq and Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, we tried to apply "just enough force" to provide for an exit strategy. Compounding this problem, the rules of engagement stifle the troops. No one wants to stick their neck out for an exit strategy. The situation in the ME and in South Asia may be too far gone to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but when will we learn what it takes to win wars? History is replete with examples. Our generals and admirals know them well. Our political leaders who have never served in the military and the American People, apparently, do not.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Sep 28 at 2015 4:10 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:10:49 -0400

Good post, and I believe the answer to be "yes"...

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Sep 28 at 2015 4:17 PM

CW4 Guy Butler — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:38 -0400

The problem never seems to be winning the war - it's the constant moving of the goal posts.

Phase 1: Liberation of Iraq – 19 March – 1 May 2003 - won.

Phase 2: Transition of Iraq – 2 May 2003 to 28 June 2004 - won.

Phase 3: Iraqi Governance – 29 June 2004 to 15 December 2005 - won

Phase 4: National Resolution – 16 December 2005 to 9 January 2007 - won

Phase 5: Iraqi Surge – 10 January 2007 to 31 December 2008 - won

Phase 6: Iraqi Sovereignty – 1 January 2009 to 31 August 2010 - won

Phase 7: New Dawn – 1 September 2010 to 31 December 2011 - won

Phase 6 is a big one - that's where Iraq gets the keys to their country. Why is it our fault they wrapped it around a tree as soon as we left?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 28 at 2015 4:18 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:18:03 -0400

The problem is the definition of war. Generally speaking "War is Diplomacy Through Military Force." Unfortunately, what happens when you don't have a diplomatic relationship with the organization which you are at war with? It changes the goals. It changes everything.

When you are dealing with a Nation, the concept is super simple. That's why we were successful in the 1st Gulf War, and even in the first phases of OIF. But counter-insurgency... We're getting into "occupation strategy" not "exit strategy" level games.

Edit: spelling

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 28 at 2015 4:41 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:41:31 -0400

WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS: One of our problems is victory is predicated on winning the hearts of minds of locals. We are hoping that loyalty from the people will bolster support for the military and government, but that can not be achieved with a weak military, corrupt government, or stronger tribal loyalties.

SAFE HAVENS: If we do not challenge the insurgents where they live, then they will always have a place to find safety and a staging area, as they refuse to fight a decisive battle.

FIGHTING INSURGENCY: Our strategy never changes. We bring in a large conventional force with three goals: rebuilding a country, rebuilding the military, and installing a democratic government. Throw in the kinetic fight and we have a lot going on with lots of human capital and money. I call this the maximum approach.

There are more ways to fight insurgencies. The British used Infantry Regiments to fight insurgencies. They would often live, eat, and sleep with the locals. Their goal to look for and kill insurgents in their territory was a notable tactic. Peru used the Anvil and Hammer method. The local militia fixed the insurgents and the regular army finished the job. What is painfully obvious is that we are incapable of adjusting to win.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2015 5:02 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:02:16 -0400

Sir-While I agree with the general view that mismanagement and "political" policies limited our efforts...I would respectfully add that there were far greater questions that should've been asked, and never were. Who exactly was the "enemy"; Al Queda, the HIG, corrupt elements of the Afghan/Iraqi government, farmers who had been told we were there to help the ANA seize their land, or all of the above? We ignored centuries of cultural complexity and attached a very ambiguous aim of "nation building" to a mission that at the ground level...looked a lot more like, "We'll be done when these troglodytes can write a five paragraph Op-Order and stop rolling the general populace for cash...Oh, and stop making the women wear burquas." By contrast, the wars we did win in the past were against clearly installed regimes...the goal was to crush their ability to fight a sustained war and force surrender of their national command authority. How do you define victory in a nation where the presiding government and local national forces are already your "allies"? Is it when no when shoots at you anymore, when those officials stop negotiating behind your back with the elusive "insurgency"?

Winning a War on Terrorism implies that at some point, you end terrorism...that in and of itself sounds improbable.

Many of the Afghans I worked with thought we would (and wanted us to) stay forever...their soldiers liked the "prestige" of being trained by Americans...their tribal elders were making piles of cash of "contracting" (loosely translated as building a concrete bath house for $5k, but demanding the Americans supply all the material/tools). We had a running joke about the local elders calling in rocket attacks that "just missed" the base, so we'd have them build more HESCO barriers. Culturally, they couldn't understand why so many of us were there, instead of being at home supporting our three wives, in-laws, parents and cousins. One elder even offered to adopt me...true story.

In Afghanistan, We could've hit the ground with full-effect, hunted down and killed anyone with a weapon-The Soviets tried that and failed. We could've abandoned any attempt at fostering "good will", and supported a total take-over by our chosen regime du jour-and dealt with it when they decided to invade Pakistan. The casualties and atrocities accompanying either would've be unpalatable to an American public naive enough to believe there was an end-state where these people were no longer a threat.

Don't misunderstand me Sir...I feel the "PC" crowd has been to blame for many a good Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman's blood. Strong and clear leadership may have deemed it more appropriate to hit Al Queda "off the books", or bomb the Khowst valley to dust immediately post 9-11 and move on. Ultimately, in my opinion, one doesn't need to look further than the money made from contracts supplying, supporting and maintaining the "long war" (I'm thinking of the Eastern Europeans making $70k/year testing soil connectivity for six months before furlough in Thailand) to understand why things were done as they were done.

Now, there's a no-joke, no holds barred evil at work , and we'll (or our sons will ) have to face them sooner than we think. Hopefully, when we get around to that (officially), those in command won't be making decisions involving deals made on Martha's Vineyard, or worrying too terribly about the "hearts and minds"...other than as targets.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 28 at 2015 5:03 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:03:39 -0400

I believe what happened was the National Government discriminated against the Sunnis who probably had legitimate grievances. ISIS which is Sunni left Syria to unite with a friendly population in Sunni held areas.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2015 6:51 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:51:09 -0400

As long as politicians are able to exert complete and absolute control over the military and micro-manage every move it makes, I'd say, yes, we were and we are being prevented from winning wars. The difference between the military's decision-making abilities during WWII and every one since, including Korea, clearly demonstrates how the influence of politicians can negatively impact the military's ability to WIN THE GODDAMN THING!!! And I adamantly disagree that we won anything in Iraq or Ass-ghanistan!!!

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 29 at 2015 2:50 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 02:50:47 -0400

Agreed. If our political leaders are unwilling to do whatever it takes to win a war they should not send our soldiers into harm's way in the first place. Viet Nam was lost in Washington DC rather than in the jungles of SE Asia, and Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering the same fates.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 3:50 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 03:50:31 -0400

Definitely yes!!! Like Vietnam and the 'hearts and minds BS' that he incidentally apologized for before this death. Too little, too late and the likes of our Vietnam and Vietnam-era Veterans of which I come from the latter.

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Sep 29 at 2015 5:44 AM

Sgt Tom Cunnally — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 05:44:23 -0400

Absolutely ..Just ask any Vietnam Veteran...the public turned against the war when Life Magazine's Front Page had the photos of causalities from one week in Nam.. Korean Veterans were frustrated because of the way their war was managed & soon forgotten.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 11:49 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 11:49:57 -0400

I'm rusty on war theories but I believe it was Clausewitz who stated that the government is supposed to ensure the war is just, the people seeing a just war will give their citizens to the army and the military will fight the war. We do not allow to fight wars without political interference. We will not win another unless the military can fight to win.

Response by SSG Alex Toulomelis made Sep 29 at 2015 5:45 PM

SSG Alex Toulomelis — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:45:09 -0400

As long as war and the military are used a political weapon we will never be able to achieve out military goals in a conflict. You can see it very clearly in the wars that have been fought post WWII. Korea - Draw; Cuba - disaster; Vietnam - withdraw; Dominican Republic - win but flimsy reason for invasion; Lebanon - withdraw; Grenada - success; Panama - success; Gulf War - Success, but only to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait with assistance of multinational force; Somalia - withdraw; Haiti - military success political failure; Bosnia - Air war, prolonged "peace keeping" mission, NATO action; Kosovo Again ground troops used as peace keepers NATO action; Afghanistan - withdraw no clear victory; Iraq - Withdraw no clear victory. If you look at the threat of ISIS there is no real strategy when this threat could be eliminated through the use of our military but not being used.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Sep 29 at 2015 6:31 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:31:42 -0400

This is why our next President should be a veteran not another political or bussiness world puppet. Back during WWi and WWII, most of our elected officials were vets. Today, most don't understand the concept of fighting to win in combat!