Why cant we WIN?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:30:09 -0500

Can we just win our battles and wars? Can we simply define victory without PC, BS, and political micromanagement?

What are your thoughts?

NOTE: Lets try not to make this about any particular political figure. The question covers enough time to be nonpartisan.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 8:32 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:32:27 -0500

My thought is if we simply won the war, then there would be no "crisis". If there is no crisis, the people in power don't have as much grip on the people of the nation. It's just another form of government dependency.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 9:08 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:08:14 -0500

There is nothing to win. How would you even quantify that?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 9:18 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:18:40 -0500

One issue is the increase in technology and how it interplays with the law of war. Under the law of war we must use the minimal amount of force possible to accomplish a mission while minimizing collateral damage -loss of life and property. However, part of how WWII and most wars previous, part of beating the enemy was breaking the morale, which collateral damage caused by necessarily broad ranging attacks (Berlin in WWII). Since we strive to do so minimal damage, we lose the psychological impact that helps break the enemy's will.

The other issue is what're we fighting for? In the war on terror, they fight for religion. We fight for... I really don't know. What principles do we stand for? We need to find ourselves. The first issue I'm not sure how to fix it other than breaking the law.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 9:22 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:22:50 -0500

I think that we need to define the parameters of our involvement. I think that one of our largest issues is that we are serially incapable of stating our end state with regard to world affairs.

It's paradoxical. Victory is as easy as stating what the end state is, and as difficult as stating what the end state is (and achieving that end state).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 9:31 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:31:49 -0500

That depends on what you mean by winning. Can we win (not even winning, just fighting) any wars without benefiting the military-industrial complex?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 11 at 2015 9:37 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:37:31 -0500

Since war is extension of politics by other means, we'll never get politics out of war. We have been uniquely bad at defining strategic goals in the past few conflicts. That makes them hard to achieve.

No definition of victory, no victory.

Response by SP5 Michael Rathbun made Feb 11 at 2015 9:50 AM

SP5 Michael Rathbun — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:50:47 -0500

In WWII, one could practically decide "have we won?" by asking "Are there American PXs in Berlin and Tokyo?" The conditions for success were very easily discerned.

In Viet-Nam, there was no "Is there an American PX in Hanoi?" outcome because, as COL Summers points out in On Strategy, we took counsel of our fears. Our mission was to "resist aggression" (how do you know that you have succeeded at that, decisively?)

We were locked in a situation where the worst thing that could happen to the North on any day was that they didn't win. The BEST thing that could happen to us on any day was that we didn't lose.

The other side did have a clear marker for winning, e.g. "Is there a North Vietnamese flag flying over the former US embassy in what is now called Ho Chi Minh City?". We only had a loose definition for losing.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 9:52 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:52:11 -0500

Maybe if Gen. Patton was in charge.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 10:51 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:51:05 -0500

As a spc I obviously don't know a lot about the upper inner workings of my command. What I can say is we have the leaders who if allowed can maneuver the appropriate resources to success if politicians would not watch the military so closely. There decisions that at times seem terrible but it pays the highest dividend. E.g. ground troops against IS. Airstrikes are effective to a point. Eventually you will have to get eyes on and hands on to and finish off any that managed to avoid the airstrikes. That's just an example.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 11:09 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:09:54 -0500

Give us a conventional enemy to fight and there's no force on this planet that we couldn't annihilate. Our "loss" in Vietnam could have (relatively) easily been a win had we the will to pursue it. Contrary to public perception the Tet Offensive was a fairly resounding United States victory. We had the enemy on the ropes but Cronkite turned defeatist and we lost the will of the people, what little left we had. The rest is history. When we invaded Iraq in OIF it took us less than a month to break their military and take the country. We won the war but lost the insurgency. A similar story is found in Afghanistan.

Give us an army to fight and our military will trounce it as nobody has the resources and capabilities we have to win a conventional war, but give us a counter insurgency mission and we've obviously yet to find a way to be as adept in our operations.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 11:30 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:30:46 -0500

Sir, to me 'winning' is when the enemy lays down their arms and says, 'ok you win'. Given the nature of the beast we are fighting today, that's not an option. Also, given the tribal mentality of the the nations we are trying to 'liberate', that's not an option. In any event, winning isn't in our vocabulary in the eschelons of power in DC. 'Containment' and 'de-escaltion' are the sentiments that are espoused.

Another problem we have is no 'skin' in the game by the American public at large. Sure, those of us that serve and our families and friends are affected- but there's no food rationing. No M-ATVs coming off the assembly line at Ford or GM. Families aren't collecting plastics and copper for the war effort... In fact, starting at the head shed, an ever growing, loud minority thinks that we deserve everything we get.

Not gonna win that way I'm afraid LTC Private RallyPoint Member

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Feb 11 at 2015 11:41 AM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:41:56 -0500

Well Sir...I'm sorry....it is about a political issue..... Liberals hate military (with just the exception of a few of them) they do not want us to win under any circumstances because it would prove our point.
there only couple libs I like cuz they make such outrages statements it actually funny.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Feb 11 at 2015 11:49 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:49:17 -0500

We need to go back to the World War II model of winning, where we crush their country, ideology, and will to win as well as their Army.

Germany and Japan have been helpful countries ever since then.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 11 at 2015 12:24 PM

SGT Jim Z. — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:24:56 -0500

We could win conflicts and wars if the political machine stayed in their lane i.e. approving funding, approving equipment, etc... They need to stay out of execution they can be briefed but they need to keep their mouths shut. The media needs to be kept at bay and don't give me the freedom of the press crap they did not scream that it in WWI, WWII, Korea. The media is our own worse enemy and whoever thought embedding reports with ground forces was an I-d10-T

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 11 at 2015 12:43 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:43:26 -0500

I imagine the British had this same thread on "His Majesty's Point of Rally" during the Rebellion; America's first PR war.

The best movie example of fighting a dedicated, non-traditional enemy comes from the movie "Gardens of Stone" (1987): (I'm still looking for the video clip).......
...........................
And I don't really give a rat's ass
about Vietnam.
:37:23
Really, I don't give a wombat's shit
about who's running Vietnam.
:37:28
To be very honest, I don't care
who's running the U.S.A.
:37:32
Don't you care about anything?
:37:34
Oh, yeah. I care about the
United States Army. That's my family.
:37:39
The only one I got. And I don't
like it when it's in trouble.
:37:43
Trouble? Sarge!
:37:46
We beat England when we were
the guerrillas, and we beat Hitler.
:37:51
We beat everybody in between.
:37:53
We're not gonna lose
to a bunch of little Asian farmers.
:37:57
Yeah? You take a look at that farmer.
:38:00
He can march 100 miles on no food,
through a jungle...
:38:04
...slaughter his own people,
even babies. That's a soldier.
:38:08
Firepower.
He can't soak up our firepower.
:38:12
I saw a photo, one of our choppers
coming back with arrows in it!
:38:16
How do you beat a helicopter
with bows and arrows?
:38:20
How you gonna beat an enemy
that fights with arrows?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 11 at 2015 12:43 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:43:54 -0500

Oooh....

If we were fighting an "enemy" or a Nation, or a structure. Yes. We could dismantle, destroy and be done with it. We'd have this done in 5 years. The US is able to fight two wars, and a contingency at the same time, and succeed in "conventional warfare."

If we are fighting "philosophy" or "ideology," not no, but hell no. That takes 2 generations or straight up education. We not only have to go in, completely destroy some place, but rebuild it, and invest in the countries future. We just don't have the will to do that anymore.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 12:48 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:48:20 -0500

No. We can't win a battle against an asymmetric enemy. We've lost many of the lessons learned in Vietnam.

We cannot win the war without significantly more political will than we have. We would need to either invest decades rebuilding the region, and being seen doing good, and absolutely minimizing any civilian casualties...OR, we would have to occupy the place with FAR more troops than we currently have there, and annex the place. Make Afghanistan another American territory, like Guam and Puerto Rico. Neither is really palatable to the American public or the world at large...so instead, we play whack-a-mole with the terrorists, and we get sucked into the forever war.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 12:52 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:52:51 -0500

We as soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines want to "win". But warfare, for as long as there has been warfare, has not been about winning and losing -- the great Prussian Cv Clausewitz was right when he tied warfare to politics. Hannibal never really lost; he as "out-politicked" by the Romans.

What we can do is define our part of the mission and execute that whole-heartedly. Too often, soldiers lament about restrictions and the enemy and civilians and "if onlys". But our combat is whatever it is. We can have opinions, but we should also know that we as service members committed to serving in a broad sense.

We are better served by asking "How can we win" even if the politics are not going well. I do think that we spent too much time putting expectations on what we would like to see -- exceptionally unrealistic -- as opposed to asking if we accomplished our commanders' intent for the missions we were assigned. If we asked that question, then at least in my lifetime, I would say without a doubt, the military services have won handily time and again.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 3:35 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:35:43 -0500

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, this reminds me of a quoute from the movie Boondock Saints.

"How far are we gonna take this, sir?"
"The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far is as needed?"

BLUF: You are never defeated until you admit it.

To me, sir, this highlights the need to make the enemy believe that he is truly and completely defeated. I believe that in order to win, you must not only destroy the enemy's means to fight, but you must also crush his spirit. In order to truly win, it is of the utmost importance to destroy the enemy's will to keep fighting. I believe the reason why we lost in Vietnam was because we could never destroy the enemy's will to fight, despite the fact that we had militarily crushed the NVA in almost every major battle. The Tet Offensive was a tactical and operational defeat for the NVA and VC, but it was a strategic victory because it caused the American public to lose their will to fight the war. In a similar manner, we defeat the Taliban in nearly every major engagement, but I think it is safe to argue that we haven't defeated their will to keep fighting us. No matter how unsuccessful their VBIEDs and IEDs are tactically, each one seems to slowly erode the will of the American people to support the fight against the Taliban. In my eyes, the ability to win is mostly a test of willpower. Therefore, you are never defeated until you admit it. Just my thoughts, sir.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 3:36 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:36:33 -0500

Unfortunately, war is function of politics. The government has not actually developed a reasonable point of war termination or set of objectives to be met. War on terror? When do we terminate hostilites? Never, because there will always be terrorists.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 3:44 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:44:48 -0500

posted on FB a unit from 82nd was either leaving theater or entering(opsec) while being checked on Air Force base some joe made crude remark to a female SP the unit got locked down, they missed flight and CID started interrogating the unit..

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 3:53 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:53:31 -0500

Can we win our battles and wars? Two different questions, but both related to your second question.

We do win our battles -- regularly. We win our wars, as well -- specifically because the "PC, BS, political micromanagement" defines them as won.

Folks seem to have forgotten that the military exists to extend political policy aims -- to compel our enemies to do our will. What our national will/desire *is* evolves over time, so it's not just a pure "go bomb them and be done" and there's no such thing as "how we did it in WWII".

In WWII, the US waffled for years before getting into the war. We played both sides initially, and eventually conducted economic and diplomatic hostilities against Japan. However, had we not been attacked in Pearl Harbor, we would not have entered the war at all -- Japan's allies, Germany & Italy, had to declare war against the US to bring it into the European theater.

This is the nature of war: as policy evolves and strategic end states are identified, the military exists to offer an array of options. Maybe we want our enemy to stand down entirely -- or maybe we just want them to focus their energies elsewhere. We're going to use different tools for the task at hand ... diplomatic, informational, military, and economic -- and some combination therein. These all operate like levers that our elected leaders can adjust to achieve its objectives.

What's unfortunate is that the objectives are often ill-defined, and often evolve. We'd love simple, but war is complex.

This is what we get paid to do.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 3:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:30 -0500

All we need to do is study the Operation Desert Shield, which by all accounts was a total and complete victory and compare it to the Second Iraqi War.

We understood our capabilities and our limitations during the first war, and we acted accordingly... during the second war on the other hand, things was completely different. The objectives we not Simple, they were not Measurable (how do you measure clearing a nation of WMD when the only WMD they have is stuff they forgot about during the Iran-Iraq war. The were not Achievable, because we were/are incapable of working with the existing power structure to produce a liberal democracy, they were not Realistic... the Americans people would eventually tire of wasting massive sums of lives and money... and they could not be Time bound, since we were incapable of properly scoping the challenges before us. Had our objectives been Specific, Measurable, Achieveable, Reaistic and Time bound (SMART), few would argue that we had not won.

The first had a SMART objective and the second included goals and objectives that were not SMART.