50
50
0
Two recent, interesting articles. One from The Atlantic, one from Salon (and I'll acknowledge the bias of Salon from the get go, so no one needs to spend time attacking the source; The Atlantic, though, is, as they say, "of no party or clique."
Do you agree the US win-lose record since 1945 is 1-4? Do you agree that the US loses wars precisely because it is so powerful? Why haven't Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex led to any sort of meaningful controls on the DoD budget?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/america-win-loss-iraq-afghanistan/394559/
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/16/the_dwight_eisenhower_lesson_america_forgot_partner/
Do you agree the US win-lose record since 1945 is 1-4? Do you agree that the US loses wars precisely because it is so powerful? Why haven't Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex led to any sort of meaningful controls on the DoD budget?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/america-win-loss-iraq-afghanistan/394559/
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/16/the_dwight_eisenhower_lesson_america_forgot_partner/
USA
Iraq
Afghanistan
Politics
Vietnam War
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 196
84
84
0
"Lose" is a relative term. We've surrendered or succumbed to nobody. The last time we may have been "beaten back" was in Vietnam [politically]. We clearly won Desert Storm, but didn't finish the job the first time.
Overall, my best answer to your actual question is: because we aren't fighting enemies anymore. We are fighting ideals, imaginary problems and our own POLITICS and special interests. You can't beat ideals. And when decisions are being made from a desk in Washington and being based on special interests and profits...everyone loses.
Overall, my best answer to your actual question is: because we aren't fighting enemies anymore. We are fighting ideals, imaginary problems and our own POLITICS and special interests. You can't beat ideals. And when decisions are being made from a desk in Washington and being based on special interests and profits...everyone loses.
(84)
(0)
LTJG Sandra Smith
I agree, political interests,coupled with no clear military objectives upon entering arned conflicts, are the problem. I think I'd use ideology,rather than ideals, however, to describe that enemy, and it was ideologies we fought in WW II, as well. However we had a clear military objective to halt their spread, hence were able to defeat their military objectives.
(1)
(0)
CPT John Noble
of course you can fight ideal each side always has ideals in war. Please don't tell me you can not kill ideals, Japanese Militarism was an ideal so was Germany's National Socialism so was Italian fascism. It has become very fashionable in some intelectual circles to so you can kill idea's that is BS you just have to kill the enemy's will to fight just like always it has never changed. By that I mean kill their will so the other side's survivors decides the ideas they were operating under were wrong.
(0)
(0)
58
58
0
Speak for yourself.
No war was ever lost on my watch. We just lacked the will to secure that victory, to win the peace. We didn't lose. We left.
No war was ever lost on my watch. We just lacked the will to secure that victory, to win the peace. We didn't lose. We left.
(58)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Saddam Hussein complied? Sir, you must be joking.
Much of what you and I are asserting is a matter of public record, including the recent revelation that the Bush Administration ordered the suppression of publication of WMDs that were found. News flash, sir. There were Chemical weapons in Iraq. I saw some of them myself.
I respect that you have an opinion that is shared by many. But the material item here is did we win? Depends on your definition of winning. We got in trouble when some individuals with their own agendas got involved in putting us to work on tangential missions. But both the TB and the Iraqi Army were demolished during those wars, and we were very successful (eventually) defeating those insurgenies in areas we chose to contest* (*words chosen carefully; read my question to GEN McCrystal if you want to know what I think about that one).
But if we want to define victory in the terms that were used to authorize both operations (in Congress, where they are supposed to be, not the ineffectual and feckless UN), we achieved our aims.
Mission Accomplishment = win
Much of what you and I are asserting is a matter of public record, including the recent revelation that the Bush Administration ordered the suppression of publication of WMDs that were found. News flash, sir. There were Chemical weapons in Iraq. I saw some of them myself.
I respect that you have an opinion that is shared by many. But the material item here is did we win? Depends on your definition of winning. We got in trouble when some individuals with their own agendas got involved in putting us to work on tangential missions. But both the TB and the Iraqi Army were demolished during those wars, and we were very successful (eventually) defeating those insurgenies in areas we chose to contest* (*words chosen carefully; read my question to GEN McCrystal if you want to know what I think about that one).
But if we want to define victory in the terms that were used to authorize both operations (in Congress, where they are supposed to be, not the ineffectual and feckless UN), we achieved our aims.
Mission Accomplishment = win
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
We haven't lost, we have allowed political leaders to make our wars a campaign theme rather than focus on the fight at hand. We don't necessarily loose wars, we FAIL to completely secure a peace. Also, we fight a PC war these days: trying to fight and rebuild at the same time. We must first win the fight, forget rebuilding anything until that objective is completed. The last war we fought and truly won was WWII. We did this by bringing BOTH enemies to their knees, destroying their will to fight any longer. THEN AND ONLY THEN did we focus on the rebuilding. Also, our wars are no longer a national struggle. In WWI & WWII for example the entire country was involved-rationing, refocusing our supply lines and many other aspects were dedicated to that cause. These days the wars we fight are nothing more than a news story that effects only the 1/2 of 1% that have fought the war. People listen to pundants that cover the war more then the leaders that execute and those that do the fighting.
(7)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT David Santana, the reasons for going into Iraq were more than the WMD, as the left has continually charged.
Saddam was violating the terms of the truce that ended the Desert Storm combat; that alone was justification for the invasion.
"Ultimately, the chief reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq was not, as critics later claimed, to find and dismantle Saddam's stockpiles of WMD.
The ‘Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq’ that President Bush obtained in October 2002 was a resolution passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with Democratic as well as Republican majorities.
It contained a total of 23 clauses that spelled out the rationale for the war. Of those 23 clauses, only 2 mentioned WMD. What the Authorization did stress -- in 12 separate clauses -- were 16 UN Security Council Resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied since 1991. These Resolutions were more than mere expressions of UN opinion.
The first two -- Resolutions 687 and 689 -- constituted the terms of the truce negotiated in the first Gulf War, a truce whose violation was a legal justification for renewed combat.
The other 14 Resolutions were failed attempts to enforce those first two.
In sum, the major reason why the U.S. was preparing for war, was to enforce the UN Resolutions and international law."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=23
Saddam was violating the terms of the truce that ended the Desert Storm combat; that alone was justification for the invasion.
"Ultimately, the chief reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq was not, as critics later claimed, to find and dismantle Saddam's stockpiles of WMD.
The ‘Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq’ that President Bush obtained in October 2002 was a resolution passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with Democratic as well as Republican majorities.
It contained a total of 23 clauses that spelled out the rationale for the war. Of those 23 clauses, only 2 mentioned WMD. What the Authorization did stress -- in 12 separate clauses -- were 16 UN Security Council Resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied since 1991. These Resolutions were more than mere expressions of UN opinion.
The first two -- Resolutions 687 and 689 -- constituted the terms of the truce negotiated in the first Gulf War, a truce whose violation was a legal justification for renewed combat.
The other 14 Resolutions were failed attempts to enforce those first two.
In sum, the major reason why the U.S. was preparing for war, was to enforce the UN Resolutions and international law."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=23
Justifications for the War - Discover the Networks
Welcome to Discover the Networks. This website describes the networks and agendas of the political Left. The database is divided into 9 major sections
(5)
(0)
35
35
0
Personally, I don't believe that we lose because we are too big. I believe that we lose because our politicians and the general public aren't as invested in our winning. So WW1 and WW2, the country was focused on the war effort. Those that were not fighting the war were supporting the war effort in some form or fashion. That is just not the case anymore. If someone isn't personally involved, they really don't care.
(35)
(0)
SPC Angel Guma
Sure they show patriotism. That's why they thank you for your service, and then kick you in the face when you least expect it. Or don't give a damn about how dysfunctional the VA is.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Scary when you think that something akin to WWI and WWII is probably quite unlikely, unless the international world order we constructed post-WWII absolutely fails. Think about what this means for future US involvement in conflict---are the chances of a US "victory" zero?
(2)
(0)
PO3 David Fries
MAJ (Join to see) The short, and very scary, answer is yes. Unless we have a major shift in our politicians and general public, then any conflict we find ourselves involved in is going to have the same result.
(2)
(0)
SA (Join to see)
I agree, it's complete lack of involvement, and really even knowledge of current affaira. I have numerous aquiantances who don't know that we are currently in war. They don't think of the War on Terror as an actual conflict.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google