7
7
0
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.
What are your thoughts?
NOTE: Lets try not to make this about any particular political figure. The question covers enough time to be nonpartisan.
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 23
4
4
0
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?
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?
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
No definition of victory, no victory.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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 (Join to see)
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 (Join to see)
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see), I'm afraid that even our 'conventional' enemies (Russia) aren't going to field a 'conventional' military when it comes time to fight. While I think that everyone knows there are Russian Soldiers doing the fighting in the Ukraine, they have dropped the use of uniforms and now the Ukrainians are fighting an 'insurgency'. It's easier for our enemies to ignore the Law of War when you can't decisively pin it on them.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google