Why does the US continue to lose wars?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:36:45 -0400

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/

Why Has America Stopped Winning Wars?

Since 1945, the United States has experienced little except military stalemate and loss—precisely because it’s a superpower in a more peaceful world.

Response by SrA Johnathan Kropke made Jun 2 at 2015 1:39 PM

SrA Johnathan Kropke — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:39:29 -0400

We continue to lose wars for two reasons......
First, we don't commit the necessary troops to an area that is needed for whatever cause or war. Second, we don't have enough war time efforts here in America that allow our economy to prosper like WW2 and use that money toward wartime efforts and the home fromnt economy.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 1:40 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:40:03 -0400

The current War is bigger than we can wrap our hands around.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 1:40 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:40:24 -0400

"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.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jun 2 at 2015 1:44 PM

PO3 David Fries — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:44:07 -0400

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.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Jun 2 at 2015 1:46 PM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:46:00 -0400

I don't see Iraq or Afghanistan as lost. We left because there was government that we installed, with an army that we trained on the ground. Iraq lost some ground but the war isn't over yet (it would be over if we had left troops there and we wouldn't have this problem). Afghanistan is still in control with sporadic fighting but their government is still in place and functioning as well as can be expected. We need a military leader in the White House.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Jun 2 at 2015 1:46 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:46:09 -0400

Liberalism.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 1:52 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:52:57 -0400

Please explain what we've lost.....still live in a land of freedom, no ones invaded us......what have we lost and what wars are we losing? 'Nam? Help me understand what your asking.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jun 2 at 2015 1:53 PM

SCPO David Lockwood — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:53:46 -0400

We refuse to let the military do what they need to do because we are too worried about what other countries may think of us and worry about offending those we are fighting.

Response by SFC(P) Jonathan P. made Jun 2 at 2015 1:55 PM

SFC(P) Jonathan P. — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 13:55:48 -0400

Because the people in office are to worried about what if sir !

I say from my point of view we should end it fast and quick and get things done. We are starting to look like amateurs comparing to how the army was during Vietnam and previous wars before desert storm !!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:02 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:02:53 -0400

We don't "lose wars" but our past 4 major (Vietnam, desert storm, Iraq, Afghanistan) has seen our military unable to conduct itself properly at war due to the home front. Politicians more interested on themselves than in the needs of the on the ground war.

I'm not saying we need to be rolling out with no ROE or EOF but to te standards that it's at. We're basically fighting a war with hands tied behind our backs trying to fight.

It's said to win war we must completely remove our enemies will to fight. We have been unable to do so due to the restrictions placed on us by people sitting on a hill with no understanding of the military or war.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:04 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:04:55 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:05 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:05:37 -0400

We do not loose battles but we do lose wars, we go in to conflicts where civilian and military leadership do not thing over complete mission and what is the end goal, also says of convention war is coming slowly to the end and the beginning of low intensity war fare is starting mixed with economical war where big players use their proxies to do the battle

Response by SFC Mcglen Odom made Jun 2 at 2015 2:12 PM

SFC Mcglen Odom — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:12:50 -0400

We didn't go to conquer these countries. We went to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.(mission complete)!! Note sure what the mission was in Iraqi. That's something we'd have to ask former president bush. Maybe we wasn't suppose to be over there. But we did take Saddam Hussein out of power. He was the only weapon weapon of mass destruction that we found in the country.(LOL) mission complete. Now it comes a time when the people have to stand up for theirselves. Like battered spouse you can't help them until they want your help. When we was there they couldn't wait for us to leave. We can't bailout everyone. We been to take care of home now

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jun 2 at 2015 2:14 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:14:51 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member I would phrase it we haven't won any "wars" since WWII but that does not mean we lost either. Political ends where no one truly "wins" has been the order of the day since Korea.

We, as a country, have not had the same "all in" mentality of WWI and WWII. Could we have "won" every war? Yes. But did we, as a nation, have the will to do so? I would argue not.

Awesome topic!

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made Jun 2 at 2015 2:24 PM

CPO Joseph Grant — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:24:12 -0400

Spineless politicians who refuse to wage total war

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:24 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:24:51 -0400

Gut opinion we fight some wars that's not our fight I understand we suppose to keep the peace with our allies but every war isn't our war when was the last time you heard Australia in a war or in a newsfeed in the last 5-10 years maybe 3 times

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:26 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:26:57 -0400

We havent lost a war. We may have left cause of freaking politicians or the opinion have changed but we have never lost a war.

Response by SGT Kevin McCourt made Jun 2 at 2015 2:28 PM

SGT Kevin McCourt — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:28:35 -0400

Terrorism is a weird enemy to fight. No longer are you fighting a uniformed enemy of another country. Cowards dressed as civilians, hiding amongst the civilians is a bit difficult. Even with the best Intel.

Your question is very broad, and I don't feel like writing a thesis.

The military should lock down the theater. Media and personal correspondence blackout. Get things done. Political correctness controlled Iraq and A-stan. Media with real time reporting should have never been allowed to happen. Too many sniveling civilians in the US controlled the actions of what happened, overseas.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:30 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:30:14 -0400

Lack of strategy tied to focused specific political goals. We can win at the tactical level and maybe even operational. But without something tangible to tie these victories to, it will appear as a loss or losses.

Response by SN Daniel Reinhardt made Jun 2 at 2015 2:30 PM

SN Daniel Reinhardt — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:30:30 -0400

Lack of funding and leadership.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:30 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:30:31 -0400

I don't believe we lose wars, nor do we lose battles, what we lose is politics, on the home front, as true today as it was in Vietnam. If society would be willing to remove the leash from its military and let us fight, and end the wars as the are needed, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

Response by TSgt Gwen Walcott made Jun 2 at 2015 2:30 PM

TSgt Gwen Walcott — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:30:43 -0400

Narcissistic civilians have their hands in too deeply and are trying to balance appearing to do something militarily while preventing offending their liberal supporters who demand non-involvement. And usually being done by civilians with minimal or no military experience

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Jun 2 at 2015 2:35 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:35:21 -0400

Gutless leadership at the federal level.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jun 2 at 2015 2:36 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:36:11 -0400

We get into fights where we don't belong, and realize we can't win them, because the national will to invest in these fights isn't there.

The war in Afghanistan was a prime example. We had specific objectives at first - get the Taliban and AQ. Because of massive mistakes, we missed the opportunity to get OBL when he was in Tora Bora.

Then we made things worse by getting bogged down into Nation Building - the same trap we fell into in Viet Nam. We should have left Af after the first year, but we (our esteemed leadership) were too steeped in righteous indignation about 9/11 and we couldn't see the forest for the trees...

Desert Storm was a great victory. Why? Because Bush senior set an objective - liberate Kuwait. We achieved that objective and then we got out (sort of). Many people felt he failed because he didn't take out Saddam Hussein, but that wasn't the point of Storm - it was liberating Kuwait, which we did. (and for which we got two different other nation medals - unheard of in past history...)

Then came Bush junior's Iraq war. He was going to do what daddy didn't, and what Clinton couldn't - he was going to get Saddam Hussein, and show Clinton what real expenditures of weapons looks like.

Except that there were really no objectives defined, because Iraq was an ill-conceived operation. Without objectives, it's not possible to "win" a war.

The end result is that we destroyed Iraq, created ISIS, and caused the lives of Iraqi citizens to be far worse than they were in the first place.

We let ego and nationalism get in the way of reality, and we get into these things, because we see ourselves as the "police force of the world".

It's time to let the Europeans stand up their own defenses, and stop being their army, and it's time to let Japan change her Constitution and stand up a military again.

Keep open the sea lanes, protect Israel, and ensure that only real US interests are pursued. Let the rest be - we can't change it or fix it.

We should only step in when there is world interest in pursuit - such as WW II, or when we are attacked.

That being said, we created the mess in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, etc, with ISIS, so we have a moral obligation to go in and fix it...

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jun 2 at 2015 2:38 PM

LTC John Shaw — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:38:52 -0400

I disagree with the articles.
Why is the US military being judged on a political/nation building outcome?
The military does not control the politicians and nation building is not completed in the term of one President. If the US remained in Iraq and Afghanistan for 70 years like we have in Germany, Japan, Korea, Philippines (longer) would the American left view these as losses?
Bottom line: The people judging want to us to lose and when the left is in control they make the decisions to ensure the loss is permanent.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Jun 2 at 2015 2:41 PM

MAJ James Woods — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:41:19 -0400

Conventional war like WWI, WWII, Vietnam and Korea it's easy to declare victory or defeat cause one side surrenders and signs a document stating that fact. So Desert Storm was a victory cause we achieved our goal, liberation of Kuwait. The Iraq invasion was a victory with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Afghanistan is tougher cause the Taliban is still a force to reckon with. GWOT is a political campaign since we'll never totally eradicate terrorism in the world. Our policies in the Middle East have failed but militarily we achieved our primary goals.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 2 at 2015 2:42 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:42:08 -0400

I have often thought about the issue of losing and winning wars, and have come to the conclusions that there are times that we are actually wining. Example both Korea and Vietnam were to stop the spread of Communism and both were a loss from military view, but in the end where is communism the USSR is gone and China behaves more capitalist then the US. I think the reason for these current Low Intensity Conflicts (1980's Terms) is to vent the pressure that natural exists in an global economic world. Yes the military industrial complex has become more complex and they are making a Killing. But that is an issue that is human nature driven.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 2 at 2015 2:50 PM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:50:54 -0400

Freedom can not be given. It must be taken with the edge of a sword by those wanting it. If the people can not rise up and spill their own blood for it then they have nothing invested. They are going to roll over to the next person to rise up in power.

Americas world police policy will not work. All it does is take the guy out who is in power, creates a vacuum, and allows others to take their place.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:51 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:51:28 -0400

I think it could be for a few reasons. One is that we don't conquer and hold territory anymore, we wage what could be called "restricted warfare". Instead of being utterly relentless and committing ourselves to dominating enemy-held territory with overwhelming force; we p***y-foot around with limited strikes utilizing $500K munitions with the power of a hand-grenade or two. It minimizes collateral damage, but war isn't supposed to be pretty or have any humanity, it should be about winning in my opinion.

I think another is that we have transitioned to fighting ideas more so than regimes/nations. Back in the day, we fought communism. You can kill all the communists you want, but you can't use force to stop people from thinking it's a good idea and propagating it down through time. You can kill all the violent jihadis you want, but you can't use force to stop people from thinking violent jihad is the way to go. You can't hold a gun to a person's head and tell them to stop believing in their religion/philosophy/worldview/etc and adopt a different one, and have them actually change their mind. Yes, war is an extension of politics, but I don't think it's a feasible primary method of politics. Professional militaries make war too convenient for politicians vs conscript militaries...but I oppose conscription (more or less) anyway. We could at least tie tax raises or something to military adventures, that way the populace still is affected and thus gives a damn.

Sort of back to the first possibility, don't you have to commit to and hold territory in order to have any chance of exerting legitimate control/influence over it? Yes, this suggests colonialism is the only way to truly win a war (if the object is control/influence over the target region), but if you don't hold the territory, how can you expect to control it and get what you want out of it? None of this is politically correct or viable at all, but I don't think war can be a PC thing.

This is just me spit-balling here.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 2:55 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:55:06 -0400

When we start wars we start with 1 hang tied behind our back already. Our enemies don't have a ROE, but hearts and minds we have to pretty much see the shell casing hit the ground from the enemy to fight back. If we kept the same intensity as during OIF 1 it would have been over much earlier. Been attacked by plenty of IED's and low and behold a vehicle would turn its lights on afterwards but we couldn't pursue because no one saw the trigger man.

Response by SPC Lee Burner made Jun 2 at 2015 2:56 PM

SPC Lee Burner — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:56:29 -0400

The body count proves we don't lose! But the issue is politics binding the hands of military leadership from wiping out the enemy entirely.

Response by Capt John Cable made Jun 2 at 2015 2:59 PM

Capt John Cable — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 14:59:39 -0400

Respectfully Major, the United States has never lost a war. We have chosen in a few cases not to win, but we have never lost and there is a very big difference. I purposely didn't delve into the political abyss of why, as that is a much longer topic. I do believe that it is imporant to remember that it ultimately was our own choice to "lose" and not forced on any battlefied.

Response by SGT Rusty Satterwhite made Jun 2 at 2015 3:01 PM

SGT Rusty Satterwhite — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:01:47 -0400

I'll tell you why we keep losing . We keep losing because we are a kinder, gentler army that gets in trouble for use of force!!!!!!! Our veterans now and before that gave the ultimate sacrifice to make this country as great as it is would be turning over in their graves knowing what the politicians are doing to the finest military in the world!!!!! ROE for Afghanistan 03 was you could not fire your weapon until fired at!!!!!!! So basically one of my men had to possibly get wounded or even killed before we could do anything so we wouldn't get court martialed and spend the rest of our lives behind bars!!!!! Back in the day it was kill or be killed!!! Now it's get killed and if they miss capture them return them to base and have the secret squirrels pat them on the back and tell them not to worry they'll get better at shooting!!!!! When our military don't train 11B's to read a map or to navigate a map in basic training it's time to get out and that's what I did!!!!!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 2 at 2015 3:04 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:04:00 -0400

From a resource perspective we spend so much building up a country that we can't sustain the war. It appears building up a fledgling country becomes the Main Effort and fighting the insurgents becomes a Secondary Effort.

We don't do a good job of going into the mountains to find and kill them, thus giving them freedom to maneuver.

The armies we are supporting are paper tigers. 1/3 of George Washington's Continental Army had no shoes in winter campaigns, but they were tough and fought through adversity.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 3:07 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:07:50 -0400

The US started to "lose" the second it started making military decisions based on political correctness instead of them being based on what makes the military a stronger fighting force.
That's the simple answer in the opinion of Spc. Mccumber.

Response by SFC Timothy Reynolds made Jun 2 at 2015 3:16 PM

SFC Timothy Reynolds — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:16:13 -0400

The US is the ultimate military power. No one can stand against us, man for man, weapon for weapon. The problem is that our leadership lacks resolve. Other than that we really could kick everyone ass. I know it sounds simplistic but it happens to be true.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 2 at 2015 3:16 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:16:37 -0400

War of Attrition = $$

The Defense Department reported that the overall cost of the Vietnam war was $173 billion (equivalent to $770 billion in 2003 dollars).
Veteran's benefits and interest would add another $250 billion ($1 Trillion in 2003 dollars).

Updating that to 2013 $$, its $990 billion and $1.29 trillion.

Response by Sgt Frank Rinchich made Jun 2 at 2015 3:17 PM

Sgt Frank Rinchich — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:17:31 -0400

Fast answer, too much worry about collateral damage. We will never win another war with our hands tied behind our backs. I am not for killing civilians but I am not for overlooking them so they can kill us, WW11 did not worry about collateral damage. Bombs dropped to kill the enemy. We would never had won WW11 if our hands were tied like they are today.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Jun 2 at 2015 3:32 PM

Sgt Mark Ramos — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:32:03 -0400

I disagree with the viewpoint and analysis of The Atlantic piece. I didn't read the entire article, mainly because I found the points so flawed. But, I read enough to know I disagree.
We don't lose wars, we just end them before the point that historical superpowers would have declared victory. We don't totally crush or annihilate our adversaries. We take care not to harm "innocent" civilians. So the wars stretche on. We have the firepower and economic might to destroy any country on the planet without resorting to nukes if we didn't care about civilian deaths or infrastructure loss. But we take time. And in time the situation changes, we learn new things, the mission morphs, new players enter the field. We re-evaluate, and sometimes change course.
We won, attained our objectives, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, before the mission morphed. We assured ourselves that Saddam could not attack the US with WMDs, and al-Qaeda's safe haven from the Taliban was destroyed. A strong argument could be made that we won Vietnam and Korea. Our fear, was communism and Soviet influence spreading throughout the Far East. It didn't. Whether that would or would not have happened even if we didn't fight is unknowable.

Response by LTJG Robert M. made Jun 2 at 2015 3:54 PM

LTJG Robert M. — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:54:20 -0400

That's an easy one - The U.S. Is a country which has embraced to "Rule of Law". This means we adhere to and conform to the laws our leadership have enacted.

The problem comes in when we engage In warfare and our societal "Rule of law" gets implemented in the war fighting environment.

The first rule of warfare is to eliminate your enemy.
The second rule is there are no other rules.

We have encountered this in every conflict we have engaged in, during the Viet Nam Conflict, the Viet cong employed unrestricted guerrilla warfare and we fought by a constrained rule set.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jun 2 at 2015 3:57 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:57:44 -0400

I would say the premise of the question and the two articles is completely false. It implies that Americas political leaders (post WW2) actually intended to fight our conflicts to total victory, which they did not. When you loose a war, you know it and we have yet to loose a war. God help us if the politicians ever get us into a war that we actually loose.

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made Jun 2 at 2015 4:01 PM

SSG Laureano Pabon — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:01:12 -0400

Well from my point of view, What happened to Germany and Japan when the US went in? We won, but it's what took place afterwards that hurt the most. The US had to rebuilt these country's again.
If we had say won Vietnam we would had to restore the entire country there as well.

I'm not 100% certain but this is somewhere in the Geneva convention as well. Were if there is a war between 2 countries the winning country has to restore the losing country.
Image the US restoring Nam or by that fact any other country. As many said, we pulled out so we don't have to pay anyone a dime.

Response by MAJ Chris Ballard made Jun 2 at 2015 4:05 PM

MAJ Chris Ballard — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:05:56 -0400

WWII was an existential conflict, with the Axis powers seeking to conquer by force more than half the globe. There was no real possibility of an "honorable peace" with them. Even then, so long as it was Europe's problem or China's problem, most Americans were happy to go on with their lives.

That, to me, is why we continue to lose wars. Aside from the fact that our current wars are not against nations, but against ideologies, and those are nearly impossible to defeat by force of arms, we have no national stake in winning or losing. It's all mostly an academic exercise to most Americans. Unless they are somehow directly related to the military, they have no stake in the outcome. Even if they are, their stake is limited to getting their loved ones home, not necessarily to winning or losing.

For everyone else, their lives have not changed one whit since Afghanistan started or since we left Iraq. No one is paying higher taxes (than usual), no one is buying war bonds, no one is facing rationing, and no one is facing a draft. Without the occasional news reports or the feel-good "homecoming" videos, no one could even tell we are at war. How can we be surprised that we as a nation aren't winning when less than 1% of the nation is invested?

Response by SGT James Elphick made Jun 2 at 2015 4:06 PM

SGT James Elphick — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:06:53 -0400

I think the article is aptly titled "Why has America Stopped winning wars?" but I have to agree with most everyone else, we haven't lost either. There are myriad reasons why we aren't winning and I won't take the cop out and blame it on the politicians, I'll look introspectively.

First, the nature of the wars we fight has changed but we haven't truly adapted to that. The shadow of WWII still looms large in the minds of military strategists and those within the military-industrial complex. We want to mobilize the nation to win the big war, but it hasn't been that way, and likely won't be again anytime soon. Russia may be invading Ukraine but unless they go after Germany (doubtful) then we aren't, and can't really, do anything militarily to stop them. China may be a big threat in a land war but unless they go through North Korea they don't have the lift capabilities to project power yet. So instead of focusing on stability operations, peace-keeping operations, and general global security from threats (i.e. terrorism) we have been yearning to fight some non-existent superpower.

Which brings me to my second point. Because we haven't adapted to the nature of warfare our units and training reflect a very confused outlook and foreign policy. The Army has "Modular" Brigade Combat Teams but they are way off the mark. Modular means to be able to assemble different components or rapidly change components for a missions set, the Army has taken it as a one-size fits all. Hence the reason why every single BCT has the same structure and same mission instead of using each type of force as it should. Airborne units are meant to be shock troops, and even in prolonged conflicts can be used as such. Armored units are meant to punch holes in enemy defenses and exploit breakouts, not patrol downtown areas. The Strykers have proved very versatile but I still think we could do more. So, as far as units are concerned they should be structured and oriented to what they are suited for and have the ability to be modular, that is, change their MTOE as needed to complete the mission.

That brings up training. Because each unit is supposedly the same, and because we aren't sure which war we want to fight, we fail to properly train for the missions at hand. The more I have read and studied our fights I often wonder if anyone has picked up an infantry field manual in the past 15 years. We can't even do the basics of take and hold territory anymore. I know the USMC does a good job of getting Marines to training, for the most part, but in the Army at least "schools" are filled with people trying to get promoted, not mission essential personnel. Also, this lack of training, all the way up, causes us to become overly reliant on overwhelming force as a means for victory. It is mentioned countless times throughout this post that the reason we lose, or don't win, is because we don't conduct total war. With the exception of Vietnam, and possibly Korea, most of our conflicts haven't been of that nature. But because that is all we can think of we send way more troops than are needed and keep them around for too long to be targets. Anyway, that portion of the conversation could be a book in it's own right.

Finally, we didn't heed Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex as you said. We are overly focused on the number of tanks, ships, weapons, etc. instead of their capabilities. So what if we have fewer ships than before WWII, one modern DESRON could probably annihilate an entire fleet of WWII ships. In the same vein, we are worried about troop strength dropping below pre-WWII numbers, but each soldier today is better armed, trained, and protected than his predecessors. One soldier with a javelin and a well-supplied fighting position could hold off an armored thrust single-handedly, not likely in WWII. The reason they speak of these things is because the MIC wants to keep it's share of the pie as large as possible. If troop numbers drop we need less weapons and vehicles to remain effective. The military is hardly allowing itself a necessary evil, creative destruction, to take place. Creative destruction is the advances in technology and thinking that create positive change and the military is very adverse to change.

I think that about sums it up, this is a topic I often think about. Hope at least one person takes the time to read this whole thing.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 4:25 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:25:31 -0400

To say we keep losing wars is a loaded statement, for instance the war in Iraq and Iran, who or what exactly were we fighting? That question needs to be answered before this one, most people say we were fighting terrorism. However terrorism isn't one specific demographic or location. Therefore fighting it isn't technically possible. We can help those countries who are ravaged by it but we cannot eradicate it all together. We live in different times, for instance war itself in WWI and WWII was simpler, whomever had the biggest forces, the most bombs, and the strongest allies would win a war(for the most part). And then came Vietnam, where guerrilla warfare and similar fighting styles could be used to help the smaller forces wage war on a larger one. Things are much different in modern warfare, we have unmanned drones and weapon systems that can hit a target with a great degree of accuracy from such a substantial distance that the fighting can be done without puting a mans life on the line(again, for the most part). All of that being said, the enemies that we wage our wars on have also changed, fundamentally. We are no longer targeting specific groups of people like countries or political organizations such as Hitler's Nazi party. No today we target a mindset, a way of thinking, peoples actions, and a systematic approach to life. Terrorism for instance cannot be wiped out with the elimination of ISIS, that would be a start, however it's how some people choose to live their life and interpret their religion. Takeing out something like that takes 100% of the people on planet Earth working together, that's not going to happen. That would be like trying to eliminate vegitarians or buddhists, it's just not going to happen. So in my opinion america has not lost a war technically speaking, but when the smoke settles and the radiation clears, there will still be someone out there who wants to hurt other people, there will still be individuals who don't agree with the way America operates and there are still going to be countries who try to take on the land of the free and the home of the brave. You can shoot a terrorist but you can't kill terrorism.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jun 2 at 2015 4:27 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:27:12 -0400

As long as we allow our selves to be ruled by the UN, fear what liberals will say, or worry about political polls, or our elected politicians fear happens at Dover, then we are doomed. As long as the CIA continues to monkey frack the hell out of every third world dictator's harem of a goat screw, we will continue to get involved in no win situations. I am still trying to figure out how we liberated the Kuwaiti's, we gave them back the same guy they had before the Iraqi's took it? Is that liberation? Is that freedom, or just a return to the status quo? We cannot be a shinning example of Democracy, when we refuse to help those who seek a different form of Democracy that we don't like. I am no fan of what was going on Egypt, but they had a publically elected Prime Minister, but do you think a coup would of taken place without our support?

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jun 2 at 2015 4:28 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:28:02 -0400

A few thoughts / reasons why the US is 0-5 (not 1-4) since the end of WWII:
- Deviation from Constitutional standards. The US has not declared war since 8 DEC 1941 for a variety of reasons. The second order impact if this deviation is that our political leaders have failed to convince and muster the full support of the American people since that time.
- Tacticians vs Strategists. The US military produces tacticians who win battles but very few strategists who win wars.
- War on the Cheap. See first bullet. Another 2nd order effect of deviate from the Constitutional standard is that American politicians try to conduct war on the cheap. As any car or home buyer knows, you get what you pay for.
- Short term vs long term. Different ways to state this but our political system emphasizes the short term over the long term. Generational and multi year wars are difficult for democracies to sustain.
- Definition of "win". What is the definition of "win". I define it as achieving the political goals of the war and setting conditions for an enduring peace. That is why I do not define DS/DS as a win. The US achieved the political goal of getting Saddam out of Kuwait but after that we contained him for 12 years (at great expense) and then invaded again in 2003.
- I disagree that the US loses wares because it is so powerful. The US has lost wars since 1945 for the reasons noted above which have nothing to do with power.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 2 at 2015 4:35 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:35:19 -0400

The lack of a clear cut traditional victory ,as we perceive it, in recent war is due to several factors. The first being lack of a cogent strategy which delineates clear cut goals and objectives and a plan for the endgame. We go in swinging with no clear objectives and when things begin to go south we fumble around for a fix.

We tend to fight ideologies..terrorism is an idea and a tactic for achieving political goals, communism an economic system. You can't fight an idea. Frankly, we were more secure in a bi-polar world...USA vs USSR.

Another factor is the plethora of failed states and non state actors where we are involved. The nation state is morphing there are fewer and fewer stable states. With this
change comes a change in the nature of war. As we all discuss 4GW, Boko Harum and ISIS run wild. The argument could be made that ISIS is a conventional force.

This asymmetrical form of warfare is with us for the duration and while we pivot to the west we are faced with the Chinese behemoth. A clear and cogent strategy must address existential threats.

The first thing we need to determine in any operation i

Great reads MAJ Jager thank you.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 2 at 2015 4:46 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:46:32 -0400

Sir,

It is precisely because our combat operations are conducted out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

In this current war, the POTUS, his administration and the Senior Leadership have failed to see that it TOTALLY IS a war based upon Religion. Before anyone gets on here and slams me for this, I am not saying it is a war against all Islam...BUT FOR THE ENEMY, FOR THOSE WE ARE FIGHTING IT IS. They see it as a war against their god.
We are led by political leaders that refuse to FIGHT a WAR, a TOTAL War. We have not fought a Total War since World War Two. Our leaders today are too afraid of offending someone or getting approval from the UN or who knows...Maybe what the Psychic Friends Network and Uncle Fester dancing around with a dead chicken foretell the public opinion MIGHT be.

In War, there is no substitute for VICTORY. Go in KICK THE SHIT out of them, make them say "You Win" and if they don't...Kill them. Remember, to them, if they die in battle they go to Heaven automatically. Therefore, we should free our theater commanders to arrange the meeting and their transportation there....

Every time a Terrorist dies, a Paratrooper gets his wings.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 4:53 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:53:52 -0400

Shitty leadership in control of our nation! It all flows down stream.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 4:59 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 16:59:02 -0400

We "lose" wars because we set unobtainable goals for considering victory and rush into fights that can't be won on any battlefield.

Response by SPC David S. made Jun 2 at 2015 5:00 PM

SPC David S. — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:00:21 -0400

Legitimation crisis brought on by short run gains that are in conflict with long run global political and economic realities. Our leadership could be compared to a fat broke kid at the ice cream store asking the owner to front him a cone with sprinkles, lots of sprinkles..

We funded World War II largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans' personal savings as apposed to borrowing. This has changed as we are entirely financing our wars. The issue here is that Americans no longer have any skin in the game and are counting on our kids' kids' to pay for our wars. You make war suck on the home front and the attitudes will change. Politicos will demand result, contracts will be managed, and people will care as they will be baring some of the weight. Sure it might flare protests but when people are angry something gets done about it.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jun 2 at 2015 5:02 PM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:02:30 -0400

Sorry, but we won the war in 2003, what was lost, ultimately was the peace and stability within Iraq following our departure.....

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Jun 2 at 2015 5:17 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:17:37 -0400

We haven't "won" a war really since the Unconditional Surrender of Germany and Japan in WW II. Every other engagement has had a different outcome. WW II was the last "good war" in that sense. We stopped "winning wars" because warfare morphed from being about getting something you wanted and the other guy wouldn't give you, into a fight for political subdivision -- we wanted to "export Democracy" and fight the export/import of "Communism." After the Cold War fizzled out The Gulf heated up in Aug 1991, Desert Shield/Storm/Peace and we had a clear vision of how to knock back the Republican Guard in Kuwait and beyond but the military was prohibited by the UN from taking Baghdad and ending it once and for all - winning. Instead we took a political solution to "import democracy" and it turns out democracy doesn't grow without the nutrient of cash for the new bosses and enough troops to back them up. Let's be clear -- The US Military never lost anything. The Political Masters who are America -- they've failed to properly lead us in these engagements. They need to take the heat. Nothing wrong with our Forces.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 5:35 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:35:05 -0400

Some of it factors into those we fight, small regimes and guerrilla fighters are a difficult enemy for an army that has been trained to fight a standing army on equal ground arms and troops wise.

The rest of it factors into our nations politicians misusing the military to effect political change in climates where we need to be rethinking our approach instead of strategically bombing them. Anytime a regime comes along our government dislikes the military has been applied as a political wrecking ball instead of a military.

We went to war with the nazi's because our very way of life was at stake. That's not been the case in a very long time. Until we learn these lessons we'll continue to have bitter victories.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 2 at 2015 5:59 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 17:59:52 -0400

Good Question, My question would be are we willing to Fund another Marshall Plan, Not Cheap but if you look at Modern Day Germany and Japan, I would call it a Good Investment. Until such time we will be relegated to Winning all the Battles and Losing all the Wars.

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Jun 2 at 2015 6:53 PM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:53:07 -0400

One simple word...Politicians.

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jun 2 at 2015 7:12 PM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 19:12:15 -0400

Could it be that it is more to the Federal Reserve's and arms makers' advantages not to win the wars, but to keep us at war perpetually, as a way to fuel their businesses?

Response by SPC Angel Guma made Jun 2 at 2015 7:40 PM

SPC Angel Guma — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 19:40:39 -0400

Often times, we get into wars with people that just don't want to toe the line. North Koreans/Red Chinese, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans. The list goes on. These are all cultural groups with long standing pride in who they are. The way they say it, its not us who will submit them, it is them who will submit us. Who's civilization has been longer on the planet, the US, or the Arabs? They will sooner all fight to the last man than accept change. I will say this is both a strength and weakness with them.

Also, again very typically, there's a sort of condescending attitude that takes place. After said cultures are whooped by the US, we excel at winning battles, and we are probably the best at this since the Roman Legionnaires- we come in with this out of touch method of securing peace. 'We are here to help you fight the bad guys', this was absolute nonsense every where we tried it. Perhaps, like in Vietnam and Afghanistan, where we are basically drawn into one side of a civil war, this would work, but only if there was true cultural competence at all levels, even outside the military. At its height, in Iraq, there were over 1,000 State Department personnel, and only three of them spoke Arabic well-enough to conduct interviews without terps? I will include the link on this below, but at any level this is just disastrous, should be plain unacceptable. One of the world's largest embassies, staffed to the brim with real tweed out of touch liberal types (i wouldn't bet many of these people had hard soldiering experience among them, not even boot camp). So, even outside the military, you already have a clear leadership logic that seems to posit that they will just learn English and see 'our help' as total generosity. Then, the real people in charge, people with utterly no real experience in what they are doing are packed into the US Embassy, and we wonder why communication with the Iraqis was so difficult? We can do better. This was just common sense. So, we are already coming in from a holier than thou attitude, by implicitly putting them down so they can be helped. It gets even crazier in Afghanistan. The Taliban, unlike the Viet-Cong or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, really DID harbor terrorist groups with the will and capacity to strike into the US, and there, I would say there was a real legitimate stake to win. Afghanistan ended up getting the short end of the stick on every level for years, and only for what, two or three years, under a trumped up Iraq style surge, did Politicos in the US even begin any sort of serious commitment there? Too little, too late.

The politicians in every case example did their own numbers that also didn't help. Sometimes, reality is just needed. It was bad enough all these campaigns were staffed by narrow-minded types, but it gets worse when the politicos don't even listen to their own generals. So Iraq was a 'light and fast' war, if I remember correctly, about every General Officer in the whole Army right before March 2003 had implored at least doubling the troop count to successfully occupy Iraq and seal off the borders. But what happens? Rumsfeld, with plenty of vision but no real knowledge of boot-level soldiering, and Cheney, with no military service record at all, decides to deliberately cut troop levels in half? For what? To satisfy putting down high-ranking brass publicly? The egos here are just astronomic.

All that being said, none of these were really lost militarily. They just went on too long and the American public got tired of it. None of these were decisively lost campaigns.

We don't learn from history. That is the real lesson here. Our enemies however, and they are out there, love learning our historical mistakes. Let's wait to see if the next boon-doggle will change this attitude.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 2 at 2015 8:01 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:01:24 -0400

I am not sure if its about loosing as it is about someone in charge who says, "Okay we're done, time to go home".

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 8:02 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:02:24 -0400

We won all wars. Just because we didnt completely decimate a country, which was not the intentions of the war, doesn't mean we lost the war. Our goals have always been met, with minor technicality in the Vietnam war, our country no longer supported the war and had to pull out (politics).

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2015 8:02 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:02:36 -0400

I think part of the problem is that we choose wars with no real goals, and now way to truly measure "winning". That said, we aren't "losing" per se, we just aren't winning in the classical sense. In the old days, we'd storm the enemy nation's capitol and force their leaders to publicly sign a document. Now, many of our enemies have no capitol to storm and leaders are diffused and decentralized.

Some wars are chosen for domestic reasons, really-- one guy or another wants to "look tough" on an issue, so they pick a bad guy that we can never completely defeat, yet is no threat to us, and let slip the dogs of war.

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Jun 2 at 2015 8:28 PM

SSG Leonard Johnson — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:28:09 -0400

You want to know why Sir? And I pray I don't offend you or anyone else but I probably will :-) we have retarded leadership now. Look at all the generals who have been fired in last couple years. I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but I don't know the whole truth.
Ever since 2008 whenever this administration or its representatives open their pie hole another lie comes out. I thought the Bush administration lied but, wow! Every day it's a new lie

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 2 at 2015 8:30 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 20:30:28 -0400

We haven't lost, we just didn't finish the job.. its like others said, politicians and the public have no taste for war as they use to. Even in the civil war people in the north only protested because the union wasn't living up to their standards of victory. I don't know the exact numbers but in Afghanistan and Iraq combined we had about what ...10k deaths in 14 yrs. Combine Antietam and Gettysburg just in deaths comes to about 10k, and that was a total of 4 days. We don't lose we just don't finish the job.

Response by 1SG Scott MacGregor made Jun 2 at 2015 9:38 PM

1SG Scott MacGregor — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 21:38:49 -0400

I don't think we lose wars, we lose heart. America is a "need it right now" society, we want it now and we have no paitence when we have to wait. This is why we lose wars. We are the greatest fighting nation on earth, technology wise, we just grow impatient. We won Vietnam on the battle field, we lost at home with endurance. We won in Iraq, but were in to big a hurry to leave. The same thing in Afghanistan. Our "steller" (note sarcasim) leadership wanted to be known in history for ending conflict. In the end we will be back in theater fighting the same battles, in some ways we already are. We need to learn to stay the course and be smarter in the endurance front.

Response by SSG John Erny made Jun 2 at 2015 9:53 PM

SSG John Erny — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 21:53:38 -0400

Why do we lose wars? This is a fallacy at best! The days of destroying an entire nations infrastructure are gone for the most part. Generals sitting around in a box car or on the deck of a battle ship to sign a treaty are long gone. The absolute destruction of an entire people would be decried by the rest of the world.
Before we used the bomb, the A bomb, the United States fire bombed Dresden and Tokyo with Napalm and Magnesium flares. The human loss was staggering; but it did break the will of the enemy to resist. The face of warfare changed after that, the term proxy war comes to mind where “minor conflicts erupt” and interested parties respond. Whereas the use of the A bomb was the Grand Final, of WWII, the world realized that war would never be the same. After that event the cost of open warfare between major nations could kill every man women and child on the earth! We now put out hot spots like a forest fires and wait for the next one to start: Proxy Wars.
The wars in Korea, Vietnam and the war on terror were and are proxy wars where a third party is used to advance an ideology, by a major nation or group. The first two of which were communism and the last a radical version of a religion; it so happens that radical Islam serves the interests of our former greatest enemy now called Russia, and China not far behind. So they stand by and do nothing even though they too have suffered from it as well.
Nations are no longer willing to stand up vast armies at great expense, both in terms of human lives and in money. Now wars are fought in third world locations to try and erode away and influence like a cancer or as a sucker punch like the attacks of 9/11.
The trick is to figure out who is your ally and who is not. The sooner the oil fields in Arab lands run dry the better! Enemy of my enemy is my friend; are they our friend, think about it.

MAJ Jeff Jager, Sgt Matthew Disher, 1SG Jerry Healy, CPT Ahmed Faried, MSgt Joshua Copeland, COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, MAJ Carl Ballinger, Capt John Cable, CPT Pedro Meza, LTC John G Shaw MBA, JD, SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP', MAJ Chris Ballard, LTJG Robert Myles,

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jun 2 at 2015 10:39 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 22:39:04 -0400

... because stupid people vote for stupid politicians who subsidize stupidity.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 12:20 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:20:50 -0400

Do you agree the US win-lose record since 1945 is 1-4?

No. We won the first three. I don't agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are separate wars, or that that war is over.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 3 at 2015 12:30 AM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:30:17 -0400

We were winning when I left!

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Jun 3 at 2015 12:47 AM

CPO Greg Frazho — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:47:13 -0400

To answer the question with a phrase: it's because we don't report the truth. If you counterbalance the glowing after action reports and operational summaries of a few years ago with the reality of today, you know that something big is amiss. I was just thinking about this earlier today driving to work. The shit that fills the correspondence we file is sometimes large enough to fertilize a hectare of land.

It seems to be inculcated in our society and our military culture, these days, to dress things up, for lack of a better choice of words, instead of relaying the unvarnished truth. If you're saying whatever you think your audience wants to hear, whether that audience be your boss, the media, your CG, whomever, you are doing everyone, including yourself, an injustice and perpetuating an already-lingering and prevalent problem: dealing in bullshit and masking reality.

Both of the referenced stories bring up plenty to chew on and ruminate about. I don't think ISIS or Iran are world threats, at least not yet. But I have thought and do think of China and Russia as ascendant and resurgent world threats, respectively. That attitude, less the much-ballyhooed 'pivot to Southeast Asia', is all but obfuscated by the borderline-hysteria surrounding terrorists, riots and whatever crisis that sells the most column inches is at the moment.

When and if we go to war against China, and I think we will, there will need to be a categoric round turn made in our thinking and our business practices if we have any hope of prevailing. I frankly hope I'm dead before armed hostilities begin with the Chinese, because that's where I think we're headed if we don't make some tough choices soon and it will probably require a major cataclysm to really drive the point home.

Where can we start? By reporting the TRUTH, no matter how badly it hurts.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jun 3 at 2015 2:31 AM

SSG John Jensen — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 02:31:27 -0400

'that we but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return to plague the inventor'
Shakespeare MacBeth Act 1 sc 7

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Jun 3 at 2015 2:47 AM

PO1 Kerry French — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 02:47:05 -0400

It is a complex question and everyone who answered has really good answers... to which I would add we violate the first rule of war: KNOW THE ENEMY! Sun Tzu...

We have training and manuals that will NOT address the ideology we are facing on the battlefield for fear of CAIR calling us names or suing us. People get fired for calling out the ideology that fuels the "extremism".

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Jun 3 at 2015 7:05 AM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 07:05:19 -0400

Quite simple actually, we have had a string of leadership both in the WH and Congress who lack the will and fortitude to allow America to "win". While winning today can be defined differently than in 1945 or even the 50's today we pay perhaps too much attention to what other nations think and once the live or taped delayed news coverage gets a bit too messy or leaders (to include those in uniform) worry more about their careers than the end game.

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Jun 3 at 2015 7:14 AM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 07:14:55 -0400

We have not been defeated in battle. We (through our civilian "leadership") have "surrendered" politically, given up, and gone home with the job half done.

The team on the field doesn't own that - the suits in the box office own it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 7:26 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 07:26:40 -0400

Politicians.

Response by LCDR Steve Didio made Jun 3 at 2015 7:44 AM

LCDR Steve Didio — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 07:44:52 -0400

Overriding political considerations are why there is a view that we have experienced relatively poor success in many conflicts in the past 40-50 years. Our "leaders" are so consumed with fear over collateral damage that they tie the hands of our military in every engagement. Don't drop that bomb despite the intelligence because there may be civilians in the vicinity. We have made rules of engagement so restrictive, and we're fighting enemies who obey no rules whatsoever. Until we have the political will to allow our military to fight with all of its capabilities, we will continue to achieve sub-optimized outcomes.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 8:08 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:08:37 -0400

We have forgotten what true war really is and why it should be avoided. It is death and destruction of the loser until they are destroyed or no longer have the will/ability to fight.

Today, because of the rules of war (which only people we do not plan on being at war with recognize), we do not carpet bomb or nuke cities anymore. It is interesting that the only people that actually fear the use of the bomb are those who actually wield it these days.

Whether or not we have actually won any war at all since '45 is still up for debate and if you question that, see the other remarks regarding Vietnam or think about the 1st Gulf War and how we came back.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 9:07 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:07:53 -0400

I'll go straight ILE on you = "War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means
We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means" - Carl von Clausewitz
>>>So, if a country goes to war with unclear or ever changing political objectives, it is not possible to "win" the war.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jun 3 at 2015 9:08 AM

SGT Rick Ash — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:08:08 -0400

You can't go swimming with one foot in the water and one on dry land....

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 3 at 2015 9:15 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:15:22 -0400

War is not to be "won" anymore as there is nothing to "win".

The entire function is to transfer the public's money into the pockets of military contractors.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 9:34 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:34:41 -0400

I think not having GEN George S. Patton, Jr. with us is the main reason we lose wars. All joking aside though, this is what I think:

1) Overconfidence, our biggest enemy. For instance, we routinely dismiss the Taliban as being 'stupid' yet they have managed to decrypt our UAV feeds.
2) Our leaders failing to do a thorough mission analysis. This ties into overconfidence as well.
3) Thinking that democracy and the American way of life works everywhere. In Iraq we made a problem worse; we took down Hussein to install a democracy. $6T and over 200,000 casualties later, we got ISIS instead. Also, how many more terrorists did we create with that invasion? Lesson: in the Middle East, only the strong leaders survive.
4) Thinking that money or technology guarantees victory. For example, we have the most expensive voice/data intercepting technology in the world, but there's one problem: our enemies know this and operate on standing orders, minimizing electronic communication.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 3 at 2015 10:55 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 10:55:57 -0400

We aren't losing wars, we're just not winning them because we CAN'T win them. politicians send us in to clean up their messes - we're like the "experts" - the last ones called in to share the blame. We can't win a war our politicians won't let us win. We can't wipe out extremist groups and rogue nations because politicians won't allow it - they need them to have a cause to rally behind. If politicians actually intended the drivel they spout to be meaningful and enforceable, our world would be a nuclear wasteland.

Response by SSG James Courtney made Jun 3 at 2015 11:21 AM

SSG James Courtney — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:21:56 -0400

No war is lost! We go into other countries, give them a taste of democracy, but they are unwilling to fight for it, so they lose security, and safety; however, we Americans will fight to the end when it comes to our country getting invaded, As far as Iraq, and Afghanistan a battle ground was created, and they are paying the price in human life for waking us up the sleeping giant on 9/11, Better to fight them on their soil instead of ours!

NEVER FORGET OUR FALLEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO FOUGHT TILL THE END TO PRESERVE OUR WAY OF LIFE, AND SPREAD DEMOCRACY TO OTHER COUNTRIES!

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jun 3 at 2015 12:07 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:07:08 -0400

We didn't loose Korea, it was stopped and a mutual cease fire was established - still in effect.

We didn't loose Vietnam - every major engagement we were in was won. We'd already handed over the major combat responsibility to South Vietnam when it fell. If we'd stayed engaged would it been different? If anything at Tet in '68 when Walter Cronkite went on the national new and stated the war was lost, this helped turn the public, even when the complete Tet offensive was beaten back and it took a long time for the North to come back from that.

Gulf war was over and we fulfilled the UN mandate given at the time. No mandate was given to go to Baghdad.

We fulfilled the mission in Iraq - this was a political failure by Bremer and his group. They had no idea of what to do, how to do it. They screwed up big time from the first - this was not a military failure.

Response by SGT Rob Langford made Jun 3 at 2015 12:38 PM

SGT Rob Langford — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:38:55 -0400

The answer to that question sadly is very simple. It's not the American soldiers' fault, the ones who are actually fighting the wars. We are in the fight to win. It goes back to ones giving the orders. The politicians that make the decisions.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Jun 3 at 2015 1:21 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:21:24 -0400

At first look this is harsh and easy to take personal. But I think its a smart approach to take an instrospective look at our organizsations ev ery now and then.

Response by MAJ Nathan Potter made Jun 3 at 2015 1:50 PM

MAJ Nathan Potter — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:50:00 -0400

I do not thinking 'winning' or 'loosing' are relevant terms for our military adventures as of late. We no longer fight decisive wars. During WWII, the allies broke the industrial back of Germany and then spent the following 20 years constructing it back. We no longer invoke the same kind of national will and we do not stay at the party long enough to make sure we have not created our next adversary. History has been showing us that we prop up 'friendly' regimes that are not aligned with our values and at some point they bite back. And frankly, with the 24 hour media cycle and our adversary being more of an ideology these day, no one has the stomach to eradicate an ideology. Carl von Clausewitz described "war [as] the continuation of politics by other means." We serve politicians who pander to the mob and war is not pretty. I think the conversation has evolved and we have just not caught up.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jun 3 at 2015 3:05 PM

SA Harold Hansmann — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:05:34 -0400

I refuse to comment on the grounds I would incriminate our leaders of this Fine country.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jun 3 at 2015 3:37 PM

SGT Richard H. — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:37:10 -0400

We are ultimately lose wars after having won all of the battles because the decisions are being made by politicians trying to win a popularity contest instead of by results oriented tacticians. perhaps more succinctly stated; we are winning the wars and our leadership is giving away those victories in the name of political expedience.

Response by Sgt Cody Dumont made Jun 3 at 2015 3:39 PM

Sgt Cody Dumont — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:39:37 -0400

Very simple, politians loose the stomache for war. War is about out lasting the enemy and you can't do that in 30 days. How long did we occupy Germany and Japan, 50 years.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 3:54 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:54:18 -0400

I strongly suspect that the main culprit is the traditions and structure of the military. At the start of these wars, we had huge resources available (esp following Sept 11), and we did not secure victory from the start. It took us a long time to see problems that had been building for months or even years. And I think that the structure we use negates the skill of those at all levels, which is to say that the rules we choose to follow lead to bad decisions when everyone does their job correctly. We need to identify new methods that allow flexibility like we see in tech startups (as a collective industry, not any individual firm). If we were able to change, you probably wouldn't see much of enlisted culture or officer culture left, but we could become a very formidable foe with swarm-like flexibility and combat effects.

Response by Sgt Adam Jennings made Jun 3 at 2015 3:57 PM

Sgt Adam Jennings — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:57:23 -0400

Because our government has this insane idea that winking hearts and minds is how a war is won. It's nearly impossible to win the hearts and minds of people that already hate you. Let us fight a war the way it should be fought and not by some ideological theory and we'll win. Sherman wasn't too worried about hearts and minds in 1864. Submission was key to his victory. We weren't real concerned with hearts and minds in WWI or WWI, it was about submission. Germany and Japan had ideals just like the Muslim extremists do these days. So yes, we do still have a physical enemy just as much so as we always have. They just don't look like they did in the past. Tell the politicians to get the hell out of our way and let us do our jobs and we will beat extremism into the ground.

Response by SSgt James Bowman made Jun 3 at 2015 4:11 PM

SSgt James Bowman — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 16:11:42 -0400

Clausewitz: "a certain grasp of military affairs is vital for those in charge of general policy.” Soldiers win battles and our politicians lose wars precisely because most of them have zero understanding of "military affairs".

Response by 1SG Jason Smith made Jun 3 at 2015 5:12 PM

1SG Jason Smith — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:12:17 -0400

Why do we judge the success or failure of a military conflict in terms of win or lose. Are we saying that unless there was an unconditional surrender and democracy became the law of the land that we lost? We fought hard and tried to help people obtain freedom from oppression, but as my Battalion Commander once told me. "You can't change the minds of people that think fundamentally different than you do." I know my time in Iraq with you Jeff was a hard fought battle and that we had a sense of accomplishment when we turned our AO over to our follow on forces but we had put change in place. It was up to the Iraqi people to build on that. My feeling was they didn't care who ran their country as long as it didn't affect their daily lives. So in terms of win-lose, most will agree that the Soldiers won, but politicians and the Iraqi people lost failed to capitalize on it.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 5:44 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:44:41 -0400

This article and the discussion below make me want to drink.

Guaranteed if another war kicks off, I'll be first in line. But I won't be too happy about it. Or optimistic.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Jun 3 at 2015 5:51 PM

1LT William Clardy — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:51:05 -0400

I disagree with the tally.

We won the 70-Year War against the Soviet Union, which Korea and Vietnam were effectively subordinate campaigns of.

We initially won the war against Iraq, both in the initial campaign to recover Kuwait and in the subsequent campaign to occupy Iraq (which was authorized as a resumption of combat operations due to alleged violations of the conditions set for the truce), although it is questionable whether will ultimately win because we really don't have a current definition for victory after achieving a decisive operational victory over the secular Baathist regime.

Afghanistan is looking like a technical win against al-Qaeda which has resulted in the metastasizication of that threat across Asia and Africa and the creation of an Islamic Caliphate (which is an existential threat to, among other things, the neutered regime we left in place in Iraq).

So, if you have to have a scorecard, I'd put the count at 1 win (USSR), 0 losses, and 1 tie (Iraq), with one war still to be decided.

Response by SPC Joseph Durham made Jun 3 at 2015 6:21 PM

SPC Joseph Durham — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 18:21:06 -0400

It's simple to explain how to win a war: Deploy enough assets to do the job. It's no longer a simple numbers game. And infantry company with almost unlimited air support and artillery support can pretty much take on a poorly supported division as the soldiers would be doing mop up duties rather than the actual fighting. Don't put any rules of engagement to hinder troops from firing.

How not to win or lose: Deploy a minimum number of assets. Put a minimal number of simple rules of engagements in place that require troops to enter special circumstances before they can fire. IE., Cannot fire unless fired upon then only if you have a clear defined target. US troops have been court marshalled for violating this type of restriction.

How to lose a war: Fail to deploy the necessary military assets. The few that are deployed, need rigorous target confirmations. Then need permission to fire which could take over 10 minutes to an hour to get both. Then fire a few missiles at rocks just for good show because the enemy has already moved out of the target area. Anybody that been in combat knows that 10 minutes is way too long to hold fire. Sometimes you have less than a second to open fire to hit your target. The Benghazi incident or combating ISIS fall into this category.

I don't think troop withdrawal counts as a lose. But it 100% prevents victory. And we withdrew our forces too soon out of areas many times since the Vietnam War. And I would be ashamed if I was in command and could not make the case for staying until we did win.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 6:35 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 18:35:36 -0400

I believe "lose" may be a bit much, Major.

As for the question, we stopped winning wars because we lost our resolve. Just look at the RoE. Not only that, but there are so many stipulations and restrictions on the US's combat capability it's ridiculous -and we only have ourselves to blame.
When we went to fight the Germans in WWII, we wouldn't stop firing at enemy troops just because they hid in a damn church. We would destroy as much of that building as needed to destroy the enemy.
When the marines were in Japan, they didn't have to know where the hell the rounds were coming from or who was firing. They didn't have to ask themselves retarded questions like "Are they really firing at me, or just at the ground near me?" All they had to know is that if they have a weapon or display hostile intent, shoot until they are no longer a threat.
What we need to do is get our balls back. We need to stop pussy-footing around and execute a blitzkrieg-style attack so ferocious, it'll make Adolf Hitler fear-fart in his personal pit of hell. We need to level the ground with explosives like we did in Germany. We need to shoot the enemy until they are no longer a threat.
Like my former 1SG used to say, "Sometimes, you gotta destroy everything. Clear out all the bad, weak, and evil; until nothing remains but a blank slate. You do this not to leave ruin, but to rebuild something stronger, better, and more resilient than before."

Response by PV2 Michael Nichols made Jun 3 at 2015 6:48 PM

PV2 Michael Nichols — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 18:48:06 -0400

because politicians want to get reelected and want to tell the field personal it is over!

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Jun 3 at 2015 6:58 PM

1SG David Lopez — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 18:58:50 -0400

Lose is not the correct term;

But to answer your question, HONESTLY, our politicians are managing the war fighting, not our Generals. If the politicians who got us into these wars/conflicts just leave the Officers and Soldiers to Win, that is exactly what the outcome would be. The Win would be swift and complete. Our Soldiers would TCB and come home quick like.

Our politicians want us to coddle and rebuild nations/armies/enemies and apply ROEs that benefit the enemy forces.

That's my two cents, common sense, I can say it cause I am Retired, but it is the truth. Hopefully our politicians are reading this and pay close attention, Let Our Military Leaders do their Jobs!!!

Response by SPC John Decker made Jun 3 at 2015 7:24 PM

SPC John Decker — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:24:38 -0400

We need to let the military plan and implement tactics and strategy. NOT THE POLITICIANS!!!!! Give the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs an objective and let him/her decide, from a military perspective, how best to accomplish it.

Response by SGT Guillermo Vega made Jun 3 at 2015 7:34 PM

SGT Guillermo Vega — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:34:29 -0400

Let's see. Could it be since we abandoned our allies in the battlefield? What is that tell other countries.
Could it be since we bow to left wing communists / sleeper cells like Obama?
Since the Democratic passed from left of the right into far left of the left?
Since we stop charge reparations? Since gangsters and criminals are more important than the police? Since we gave away the Panama Canal Zone? Since, since, since ...

Get a grip, we are turning red faster that lit stove. We have nothing to say, for instead of conquering we let other conquer what costed us much blood, resources, and tears.

Since we give more than what we take! Americans need to get their head out of their 3rd point of contact and go back to the basics. Rome, is that brings a memory. We need instead do as our forefathers do, shop heads and take names!

Who came with the great idea of giving our secret to the Chinese, so now we owe them everything, lock, stock, and barrel? Who came with the hair brain idea that we can feed a billion Chinese, some many more Arabs, and Africans? We are 20 trillion US dollars in debt, get your head out of your anus!

We do not need to help anyone, we need to help ourselves as in the gas mask example.
Do not drop food to the enemy, drop bombs!. Why are we giving money and equipment to Nicaragua. Why are we taking away Cuban status when they are the once that corrupted Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, now even Brasil and Chile.

Let me help America, send a donation so we can fight in Nicaragua, and everywhere else!

http://www.youcaring.com/medical-fundraiser/america-s-freedom-and-security-push/335842

Pick up your weapon and follow me, I am the Infantry!

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 9:26 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 21:26:25 -0400

We have ignored the maxim that is hell.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jun 3 at 2015 10:52 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:52:25 -0400

We have not lost, we will not loose, and no matter what some hippie thinks the lands that were lost AFTER we have left because of their belly aching have been lost by the locals we left them to, not us.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Jun 3 at 2015 11:33 PM

SGT Lawrence Corser — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 23:33:08 -0400

Recently we have pretty much won every war, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghan. But keeping people under the idea of wanting to be free or having options is not what a lot of these people seem to understand. Sadly I think they work better under a semi dictatorship.

Response by SPC Carrie Cates made Jun 3 at 2015 11:49 PM

SPC Carrie Cates — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 23:49:56 -0400

Because we pick the wrong battles...either because of bad intel or ulterior motive.

Response by SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA made Jun 3 at 2015 11:55 PM

SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 23:55:15 -0400

Real simple, because we have not really fought wars. Let me elaborate:

Up until WWII, Wars were "officially declared", it was an act that was universally declared and supported by the country as a whole.

The entire country went to war. There were clear actions taken against us as a country, and the country, in turn, wanted to respond in kind.

Since Korea, "wars" have been more of a "clash of wills" or a politically motivated male genitalia measurement competition.

Korea was our first attempt at supporting the UN, the country was tepid about it. 60 years later we're still paying to defend South Korea.

Vietnam, well...a clear example of politically motivated conflicts that only served to perpetuate hegemonies and a war by proxy against the Soviet Union that did not the support of the country as a whole. When you cut and run from Saigon, that's a loss in my book.

Desert Storm, when you send 400k soldiers to rat out a couple Iraqi divisions, I wouldn't call that a war either, lives were lost of course, but that's another example of politically motivated conflicts to save face. Extrapolating, from this one, we left forces in Saudi Arabia, which in turn was the declared reason for UBL to switch from mujahedeen to anti-us terrorist.

And on and on.

If the country is not behind a legitimate desire to wage war, a politically motivated conflict will be doomed to fail. Either by attrition (as it is the case now), or by flat out being defeated.

When the country barely remembers it is at war (99% are not fighting) it is easy for our foes to consider themselves the victors.

Response by CPO James Hunter made Jun 4 at 2015 12:28 AM

CPO James Hunter — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:28:00 -0400

SECDEF Robert Gates, in his book DUTY, points to Iraq and outlines a major problem. Like the dog who caught the car, now what do we do with it?
The plan appeared to be that the grateful people of Iraq, and the Middle East would welcome us, and form a democratic government that just loved us.
In Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq the military mission of breaking things, and defeating enemy forces,within the limitations placed on us,was done. The transition to unconventional warfare, and nation building,at the same time, is the task that has the greatest chance of failure. Victory,at some point is dependent on the citizens of those nations, and its leaders. It has to be something they want, and are willing to fight for.

We underestimate the opposition, their intelligence, willingness to fight, and take huge numbers of casualties.

A culture that understood warfare, and nation building was Rome. A nation would bow to their demands or face complete destruction.

In our culture the military, and political goals are defined by our elected representatives. Breaking things, and nation building, at the same time, in places we begin to understand in the rear view mirrors, does not work well for us.

As for the military industrial complex,it appears to be working against us. As per SECDEF Robert Gates the focus was on the procurement of the next high tech weapons systems, for the next war, rather than the needs of our forces in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Response by TSgt Chip Dollason made Jun 4 at 2015 12:31 AM

TSgt Chip Dollason — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:31:34 -0400

The US doesn't lose wars. Because of this bullshit "Kindler Gentler" nation that our current admin adherer's to, we pull out before the job is done and there fore the enemy who was pushed back and on the verge of defeat is given new life. Reagan would have gone in and kicked ass and been done with it. So would Bush Sr. Today we just apologize.

Response by PO1 Rick Serviss made Jun 4 at 2015 2:41 AM

PO1 Rick Serviss — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 02:41:53 -0400

Do you think it's because we underestimate the enemy?

Response by CW3 Craig Linghor made Jun 4 at 2015 3:51 AM

CW3 Craig Linghor — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 03:51:24 -0400

Because we don't fight to win. We let the media and political correctness dictate the outcome.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Jun 4 at 2015 4:02 AM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 04:02:28 -0400

It seems to me that many of our so-called Allies tend to rely upon the US to handle things. When this goes on for too long, it takes a toll upon the US Economy. In order for the US to medicate from the past 15-20+ years of "playing in the sandboxes", allies need to step it up a notch, and allow the US its own recovery time block. I think that for a time, the focus slider needs to slide a bit more towards America's internal issues and a bit away from International issues. I'm not suggesting complete abandonment of eyes and ears of the Foreign, but just a bit more focus on the Domestic could help America.

I believe the relevant questions are no longer about Why do others hate us, but rather, Why do they no longer fear us?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 5:13 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 05:13:58 -0400

Washington politicians you think we learned our lesson look what happened to Vietnam my personal opinion if the government doesn't have the balls then don't use our military as a tool for their political gain and if they send their troops to battle there should be no rules of engagement our job is to blow up things eliminate the enemy threat beat them to submission make them surrender

Response by PO1 Don Mac Intyre made Jun 4 at 2015 6:06 AM

PO1 Don Mac Intyre — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:06:59 -0400

Politicians lose wars, not the military, especially US politicians.
If politicians use the military as "policemen" with "Rules of engagement" and not as intended, and allow a biased media free reign to report everything, that is a set up for failure.
War is horrible. If you have to go to war, you go all in. Such as in WWII, unconditionally.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Jun 4 at 2015 10:18 AM

Sgt Mark Ramos — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 10:18:21 -0400

The subtitle of the first article includes, "precisely because it’s a superpower in a more peaceful world."
Right from the start Dominic Tierney is incorrect. The world is not more peaceful. According to The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the number of people displaced due to conflicts is the highest since comprehensive record keeping began.

Refugee Population Surpasses 50 Million—Highest Level Since WWII

Refugees continue to pour our of Syria, the United Nations Refugee Agency reports.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 12:13 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 12:13:14 -0400

Looking at what we have accomplished on the military side of each conflict we clearly have met all military objectives in OIF and OEF as well as Desert Storm. Vietnam was a loss in that the politicians ran the war and we did retreat and abandon the South Vietnamese people. This is in no way a slight to those military personnel who served in Vietnam - the politicians lost the will and the war. Korea has not ended - it is a stalemate. WWII is obvious the war we won - and the last declared war we fought.

It is my belief that the quick rush to declare the war in Iraq over and done by President Obama was wrong and that his administration bears the responsibility for losing Iraq if it goes that way. Politicians and political hacks lose the peace. The military successfully meets its missions and responsibilities.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 12:22 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 12:22:41 -0400

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 the battleplan and those that do the fighting.

Response by SFC Tyrone Almendarez made Jun 4 at 2015 12:25 PM

SFC Tyrone Almendarez — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 12:25:23 -0400

We lose the wars but we win the battles

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 2:19 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:19:32 -0400

I would say the problem is a shifting in ideologies. In World War II there were clear parameters set for victory. We were waging a war against an alliance of nations. Thus the parameters were the successful defeat of said nations. These clear goal statemetns allowed us to push forward with objectives. The problem we face now, is that our wars aren't being waged against principalities but principles (or a lack thereof in my opinion). A microcosm approach to understanding the difference would be such: World War II would be comparable to any well designd five paragraph order. Clearly defined paramaters for what equated to mission accomplishment as stated earlier. Our current "wars", however, are more like when that new OIC steps on deck and makes these vague sweeping policy statements about how he has an open door policy and he is there to make sure we are all taken care of. No real clear direction or delineation...just these vague conceptual notions. When you are fighting a war where the end game is nothing more than some perceived theoretical model dreamed up with no real empirical backing...you can't EVER claim victory. Summation: It's not that we lost these wars...it's that we never won them. It may seem like semantics, but the difference is glaring.

Response by LCDR Jeffery Dixon made Jun 4 at 2015 2:32 PM

LCDR Jeffery Dixon — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:32:59 -0400

Lack of will power to win.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 2:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:45:18 -0400

My perception is that we are at 4 Wins, 1 Tie and 1 Loss since 1945.

Korea War: Tie
Vietnam War: Loss
Panama: Win
1st Iraq War: Win
Afghanistan: Win
2nd Iraq War: Win

A better question would be, why have our last two wins turned into disasters?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 2:56 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:56:12 -0400

Seems to me that the way the world wages war has changed and many countries are struggling to adapt to that to include ours. After Desert Storm/Desert Shield, the world saw the awesome power of our military. Smart bombs, stealth planes, reactive armor, satellite communications. Insert picture of large boot crushing soda can here. Now in the aftermath of that, opposition forces have changed their tactics to adapt to our technological superiority. When an enemy force takes off their uniforms, abandons technology, and hides among a civilian population, it becomes quite the challenge to drop a bomb on that or point a gun at the right enemy. The broadsword technique becomes less and less useful. These smaller, stealthier enemies have studied us, infiltrated us, and hit us on fronts where we're most vulnerable.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 5:34 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 17:34:58 -0400

Seeing how the U.S. hasn't had a formal declaration of war since December 11th, 1941 I'm not sure you're asking the right question.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 4 at 2015 6:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 18:11:02 -0400

We suck at counterinsurgency and setting up a democratic country is victory to us.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jun 4 at 2015 6:50 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 18:50:41 -0400

A couple of things come to mind. I think there has been a lack of a clearly defined end to the conflicts and that needs to come from the President. By clearly defined, I mean something that is clear but also that we can achieve. Second, there has been a lack of a national effort like there was in WWII. The nation really has not gone to war as a whole, despite what the military has done. I was in Afghanistan in 2012-2013 and my wife as a flight attendant would get asked all the time if we still had people fighting there. Finally, after just completed reading of THE GENERALS by Thomas Ricks, he makes a point that our general officers have failed at the strategic and operational levels of war while excelling at the tactical level. Moreover, there have been very few consequences to the GOs that failed. It is a combination of things but on the other hand, yesterday I went to the range with my wife and wore a new pair of pants I bought from REI. When I got back, I saw that they were made in Vietnam. So maybe the definition of victory may be different than what it was in the 1940's.

Response by SN Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 7:27 PM

SN Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 19:27:00 -0400

I think we have lost wars mainly because we have not really had a full out war.
some of the wars were to help other countries rather than defending ourselves. .....
But the number one reason that are forces aren't as effective as they were in WW II is wars are now used for political gain rather than crushing the enemy.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jun 4 at 2015 10:06 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:06:46 -0400

Simple, we lack the political will to let Sherman "march to the sea".

War sucks... It's brutal, disgusting, and should turn stomachs. If the NECESSITY to involve ourselves is determined we need to respect ourselves and our enemies enough to "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2015 10:52 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:52:39 -0400

I would like to agree that "loosing" is a relative term. Winning or loosing is defined by the political objectives as War has "always been an extension of politics by other means." How a war is carried to its ultimate objective is a result of political objectives and the leadership that shapes our political will to ensure those objectives are met. We forget that Theodore Roosevelt had to shape our political will as manyAmericans did not want us to get involved. Had Joe Kennedy won the presidency we would not have entered World War II, Roosevelt shaped political will. Thus Rating 1/5 is superficial in my opinion and limited in historical focus. Use of force should always be part of a broader strategy that supports political objectives and ends, accompanied with leadership to shape political will. I would agree that our national appetite for combat looses is low, the ability to transmit information instantly further complicates political decisions, but that does not excuse our politicians from muscling the courage to shape political will.

The article compares the United States to other nation states, when we should be comparing it to other "imperial" powers and make the historical assessment based on those historical cases, to better deterrence if we have won or lost. While we are not an "overt" empire we can hardly dispute our global dominance militarily, culturally, political, and economically. We exert unprecedented influence over the globe. Just look at discussions of the recent Decline of America after the financial crisis, but look at what our innovation has done to the oil markets in the past years. The US is now more in control of oil prices, than OPEC. Our economic dominance is undisputed. This influence and dominance we exert creates political winners and political losers, those disfranchised the influence of the dominant power. Most insurgencies and political uprisings are led by the disfranchised elites who can mobilize the masses. Osama bin Laden was an elite with a distaste for American Power, so are the leaders of ISIS.

Like other empires we are bucking up against other political forces (ISIS, IRAN, RUSSIA, etc) that take issue with our dominance. This "empire" though benefits most of the west, the middle east, and parts of Asia. It creates political freedom and economic growth. How many countries have progressed off our economic might and military sacrifice?

Wars of limited objectives are part of "Imperial" maintenance, to achieve longer term objectives and stability. Thus the wars that the article claims we have lost need to be viewed with the political objective they meant to achieve in maintaining our global dominance. We lost Vietnam but defeated communism. Look at Vietnam its a capitalist country... Yes, we lost, but in the long-view, capitalism won out which is paving the way for political openness. Vietnam is becoming an important part of our global supply chains. Did we loose??? While we did not have the right military strategy, Vietnam showed our military commitment. It did not break us economically, like Afghanistan did the USSR. Look at South Korea it is an economic power house and that can defend itself and is economically dependent on trade with us, how many of us enjoy Samsung Smart phones?

The first Gulf War achieved its objectives, limited albeit.

Now to Iraq II and Afghanistan: with the Iraq war the surge of 2007 should have been part of the original military strategy, thus, we had a short sighted military strategy in 2003 (I am not discussing whether we should have gone in or not. Once the decision to enter is made it should be accompanied with a military strategy that addresses exit strategies or continued engagement under various scenarios, we forgot our counter insurgency lessons from Vietnam and had to re-learn them) . The surge was working but a change in administrations changed the political calculus and objectives, the focus became to "get out" not to complete the mission, to see the development of stable Iraq and bringing it into the economic fold like Vietnam and South Korea. Again maintaining global dominance requires political leadership willing and able to shape political will. The Bush administration was shaping political will too late in the second term, giving an opening to another political party that diverged with the objectives set out during the invasion and the surge.

Afghanistan must be viewed from a historical perspective as well. We lost political interest in the late 1980s after we defeated the USSR. We should have remained engaged to avoid a failed state. Again Afghanistan suffered from poor military strategy and was side tracked by Iraq, which was a result of improper strategic calculations. The calculus should have been first Afghanistan then Iraq, but it wasn't. Our poor grand strategy does not obviate the need to create stability across our sphere of influence, which we should continue to pursue. The focus on Afghanistan should be continue military engagement as well as other source of political power, but with this administration the objective is to "get out". In my opinion leading to the same mistakes we made in the late 1980s.

Here in lies the problem: every empire needs maintenance, the Europeans get off free of blame by letting the US do the "Empire" maintenance . At the end of the day we need to maintain it in order to support our way of life and our economy which is supported by intricate global supply chains. But as with all empires in history there will be political forces that are disaffected with the influence and the domination of the greater power. Thus. military conflict will occur again.

However, as I mentioned above prosecuting a military conflict requires political leadership that can shape the political will. In this age were news stories are made and disseminated in a matter of seconds, we are finding fewer political leaders that can lead and shape the political will. We are an "empire' in the information age. It was easier for other empires that did not have televisions much less the internet and smart phones.

In conclusion, the outcome of Iraq and Afghanistan is still TBD. Declaring them a loss is premature, we have to see how it helps our global dominance and impacts our economic might in the long run. Are we too powerful to win? my conclusion is that such a thesis is short sighted and shows limited historical perspective that draws premature conclusions.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 1:48 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 01:48:03 -0400

We don't.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 7:25 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 07:25:18 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member I think there are several points that strategists routinely leave out when looking at our results post-WWII.
1. What were we trying to do in Korea and Vietnam? I contend that we were only trying to stop the spread of communism. Would it have been nice if we would have been able to march into Pyongyang and Hanoi, sure, but it was implausible due to a different style of warfare.
2. The Cold War was a huge win for the U.S. and Western Society, and people can claim all day long it was due to the economic fight that we gave the USSR, but I will say that it was part of the master strategy. D.I.M.E. I believe throughout the entire Cold War the Economic portion of DIME was always a huge capital E, while the Military portion of DIME fluctuated as needed between a lowercase m and uppercase M as needed.
3. With the success that our conventional military had in Desert Storm, we convinced the rest of the major world powers not to mess with us in a conventional fight. Think about it, Saddam Hussein had the 4th largest Army in the world at the time and we beat him in 100 hours. Why would anyone want to fight us conventionally again?
4. We have long doubted the ability of insurgent groups to share information and to be learning organizations. They are and we pay because of it. Where did the Somalis learn to shoot down aircraft with RPGs? There is evidence that the Somalis had Mujahedeen that had fought against the Soviets in Somalia in the time between the end of the Soviet-Afghan War and 1992-1993 that showed them how to use our technology against us.

Just my rambling thoughts.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 7:33 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 07:33:32 -0400

Civilian leadership has transitioned more from leaders to self-interested, career politicians, so they lack the will to fight through unpopular periods and public dissent. Along with that, the public's failure to understand that "victory" in modern wars (post-Korea) is based on which side chooses to quit fighting first - not some guy signing a surrender agreement on an aircraft carrier.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jun 5 at 2015 7:41 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 07:41:38 -0400

I think our main problem is that there are to few Americans that are putting anything into the fight. Unlike WWII to Vietnam where there was a draft. WWII also had a rationing system. If it is not affecting Americans they seem to not care.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 9:50 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 09:50:58 -0400

If you look at the timeline of human history it doesn't matter who the winners and losers are, the human race keeps moving forward.

Response by SFC Jason Porter made Jun 5 at 2015 11:25 AM

SFC Jason Porter — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:25:11 -0400

Oh politicians and the American public! If you don't have the support well...we see the outcome. Vietnam Fell, Iraq Fell etc etc.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jun 5 at 2015 11:27 AM

COL Jon Thompson — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:27:12 -0400

Another interesting way to look at this is to compare the qualities of the militaries of the countries we helped (South Korea in Korean War, South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) with the those of the enemy forces. In each case, we armed and trained these forces but yet, less armed and trained enemy forces consistently defeated them or caused huge losses. It seems like those we supported have been racked by corruption and poor leadership. I am not sure how this has totally affected our conduct of wars but I see some parallels from Korea to Afghanistan.

Response by Capt Whitney Davis made Jun 5 at 2015 12:35 PM

Capt Whitney Davis — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 12:35:59 -0400

It seems that a lot of people here want to blame the "public" and our political class for our lack of success in the last 70 years. That's a pretty easy thing to do, and is technically correct, since the population elects the politicians that decide on our involvement in these various conflicts.

To say that the military isn't wholly supported by the politicians when we are sent afield is simply not true, though (at least for Iraq and Afghanistan, I won't speak for conflicts I didn't participate in). Was anyone here lacking for bullets, chow, or water while at home or overseas? I certainly wasn't. That is the support that the country provides. Moreover, following Vietnam the country has largely supported the military morally in its conflicts.

Where does the fault lie, then? I agree with Dominic Tiery. We are too quick to get engaged in foreign nations that have very little impact, or potential impact on our country. As Mr. Tiery points out, after WWII we built an incredibly large and sophisticated military. It seems that we itch to use it every now and then. However we dress up the reasons for joining conflicts in faraway lands (containment of Communism, revenge for 9/11, Sadaam Hussein is evil and may have WMDs ...) we are not judicious enough in our use of military force.

There needs to be a higher bar to cross before we commit troops. Moving back to a more constitutional approach to war would go a long ways in this regard. While it is entirely possible that LBJ would have gotten the votes to go to war in Vietnam it would have made it tougher. Same for George W. Bush and his wars.

Why do we lose though? It's fairly simple. We cannot win. Did we pull out of Iraq to soon? Sure, but when is the right time? Do we stay there until there is no insurgency? Will that day ever come? How is Afghanistan going to end? Will the military we've trained be able to fight the Taliban? Do we stay there for decades until it is as professional as ours? We cannot build successful states. Only the population of that country can do so. As long as we keep trying we will continue to fail.

P.S. I'd also like to dispel a statement I keep seeing throughout Rallypoint. A lot of people say our legislators can't relate to the military. That isn't true as nearly 19% of our legislators are veterans, compared to roughly 7% of the general population (fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf ; http://www.va.gov/vetdata/).

NATIONAL CENTER FOR VETERANS ANALYSIS AND STATISTICS Home

The National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics (NCVAS) collects and analyzes data related to Veterans.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 3:22 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 15:22:57 -0400

America no longer plays for the end game, and that is the issue.

You can pick our foreign policy and actions apart, change the picture to fit the view you like, and you can argue statistics. But, the basis still is, we don't start with a clear defined end game objective that allows to fight for what "We" have decided would be a win.

I argue that Korea, Vietnam, Honduras, Grenada, and several others were just just extenuating battles fought through poxy in the Cold War. And, we won the Cold War. But, at the time, no one saw Korea, Vietnam, or any of the others as such.

As we enter the age of Foreign Policy debacle, we have no clear cut policies on where we want to go and how we want to get there. Not like with the Cold war Era when we knew the Big red must not be allowed to spread across the globe, and as such we trained, positioned troops, and responded to reach that goal.

In this new era we aren't fighting a different fight, we have seen this fight before. The British have seen this fight before. We are just slow to recognize and adapt to the fight. The tank on tank and huge armor welding fights Armor and Calvary Officers fantasize about are no longer realistic. But, we still have not scratched the POIs at each Branch's Basic Officer Course or Captain Career Course in order to train adaptable and agile leaders for today's battlescape. Instead we continue to teach cold war doctrine smashed with half written COIN doctrine.

All of that is almost secondary to the item the Military has neglected for years. I would go so far as to say they only got it right once in the last 60 years. Information Operations. We do not set the expectations of the American Public before we go. So, the media turns and sells us short to gain sales and sways the public to defeat us. Any person that knows the scope of COIN and how to read the Human Terrain Model would have told you Iraq was a 10 year fight, on the low end. But that is not what we set the American public for, and that is not the objectives and the training for the fight dictated. So, when the sons and daughters of America were continually gone, America reacted unfavorably.

I don't know if we will go back to the Military of might we were. I don't think it will be soon. As long as our Key Generals and Civilian Secretaries are political tools, we will never return.

Response by CPO Olen Redmond made Jun 5 at 2015 4:41 PM

CPO Olen Redmond — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:41:36 -0400

Because the "Greatest Generation" spawn a "WORTHLESS GENERATION" that does not have what it takes to win. This includes Politicians and the American people.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 5 at 2015 6:20 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:20:40 -0400

We lose wars because we place constraints on ourselves that no other country abides to. Also, politics / public opinion interferes too much with the way Military Leaders carry out warfare. Unfortunately, public opinion / voice help nudge politicians to act, which adversely effect the way we fight. Once a policy changes, sometimes those same people complain about the policies they pushed into effect. So, ironically, the American populace is actually the ones that have tied our Military's hands - yet, they wonder why we don't act...

Do you think Russian, China, or Iran have such limitations?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFYQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Fnation%2F2015%2F06%2F04%2Fobama-administration-nsa-surveillance-internet%2F28472865%2F&ei=aiByVZS5IYeRsAXLiICICw&usg=AFQjCNEzhqyAALPZWQLPTYE_6V-8u4yPSQ&sig2=DOaoMu0Nw68S_41ptWH_Cg&bvm=bv.95039771,d.b2w

Response by SSG Stephen Kimball made Jun 5 at 2015 6:27 PM

SSG Stephen Kimball — Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:27:04 -0400

Until the politicians understand that collateral damage includes civilians and their homes, we will continue to lose wars because we were nice. Remember Sherman, Ike and Patton.

Response by SPC Daniel Joslin made Jun 6 at 2015 9:43 AM

SPC Daniel Joslin — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:43:52 -0400

War is and always should be fought by the military and its leaders, not by politicians who have no "skin in the game." If we have asked our qualified military leaders it to fight a war, then it should be left up to them to come up with a list of attainable goals for said war and then let them accomplish those same goals without any political interference. PERIOD. Anything less is pointless. Car mechanics don't pull teeth so politicians shouldn't mess in military business either.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 7 at 2015 12:42 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:42:01 -0400

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ [login to see] /ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN= [login to see] &linkCode=as2&tag=forepolires03-20&linkId=M6UX2J3HGZTC2J3P&utm_source=FPRI+E-Mails&utm_campaign=12399e77d2-FPRI+Insights+060615&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e8d0f13be2-12399e77d2-179125285

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 11 at 2015 1:40 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:40:23 -0400

Our metrics are wrong. We build up infrastructure for services for the citizens, build up an army, create democracy, then we call it victory without much qualitative analysis.

Response by MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. made Jun 12 at 2015 5:20 PM

MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D. — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:20:39 -0400

Greed, personal gain...Please "google" General Smedly Butler's comments about the creation of multi millionaires and billionaires as a result of WWI.

Response by SSG Michael West made Jun 13 at 2015 4:32 PM

SSG Michael West — Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:32:44 -0400

It could be said that one of the last true leader we have had in the Whitehouse would be Truman for his action for Japan ,with that being said, today the American public and political type's wouldn't have the heart or the will to do what President Truman did also its a different world today.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Jun 14 at 2015 2:57 AM

Cpl Mark McMiller — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 02:57:00 -0400

Our military has not lost any wars. I get so sick and tired of revisionist and know-nothing historians. Vietnam is a good example: At the time a Democrat controlled congress bowed to the left and cut off military funding for the war, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, our military was in the process of B52 carpet bombing North Vietnam back to the stone age causing them to seek an end to the war. I challenge anyone to name a battle our military lost in Vietnam. "Lose", my ass!

Response by Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay made Jun 14 at 2015 10:34 AM

Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:34:17 -0400

Because there is a war between the Haves and Have-Nots; a class war.

Response by PV2 Abbott Shaull made Jun 18 at 2015 10:04 AM

PV2 Abbott Shaull — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:04:29 -0400

The reason we continue perceive we are losing these wars, is lack of leadership from the Commander-in-Chief on down. It doesn't matter if the O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, O-5, and O-6's in the field downrange have their shit together and try to protect their personnel in their command as best they can. If they those who are issuing the orders above, are limiting what they can they do, and giving them ROE that put them behind the eight ball to begin with. Or make complicated chain of commands, to the point where you proof CIA had authorized certain extra unauthorized means of tortures with pictures. Yet, only handful of enlisted personnel and the Base commander ever got punished for it. Everyone else in between walked, smells of cover-up all over it, for those in the middle and you can see plainly that other knew, because they were others captured in some of the photos they had shown on TV. Oh well, it is perception that media has spun to the general public. I would say we 5-0 militarily speaking. Did we achieve all the military goals that set forth, yes. Did we set the political goals set forth, well we aren't politicians, that is what the freaking State Department is for, and if they can't accomplish their mission it on them, not us. We can only do so much when they limit what we can do to protect their asses.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 18 at 2015 11:18 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:18:33 -0400

We the best leaders, troops and equipment so I will start at the very top.

Response by SFC Jeff Stevenson made Jun 18 at 2015 1:13 PM

SFC Jeff Stevenson — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:13:36 -0400

When we as a people put more emphasis on the speed of victory and pushing a political agenda, we will forever fail. We no longer do the research that was used in the past. We fail to learn history, we listen to a public that lives off of fast food, is overtly obese, and crave instant gratification. Also, the battle ground has changed significantly in the past decades. From uniformed forces fighting within the rules of war to civilian dressed fighters, engaging and vanishing and children triggering large quantities of explosives, killing men, women and children, and at times military. We now have "Politically Correct" and no more "Suck it up and just do it" and we have questioning of decisions by forces that have no business in making those decisions. Look at us now, buying multi ton vehicles over light quick vehicles due to this current war. What about in the mountains? The jungles? Its lobbyist directed and money in the pocket. PC wins and funding flows. Sorry but the truth hurts.

Response by SFC Dennis Yancy made Jun 19 at 2015 6:47 PM

SFC Dennis Yancy — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:47:42 -0400

Politics is the reason military has not been allowed to win. If politicians would give us a mission and step back things would be much better

Response by SPC Jason Sharp made Jun 21 at 2015 2:45 PM

SPC Jason Sharp — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:45:25 -0400

The reason is simple. During WW2 the people who came up the Doolittle Raid wore the uniform. The man with the GO-NoGO authority for D-Day wore Stars on his shoulders not a pin stripe suit. Since the end of WW2 politicians have gotten it into their heads they know better than the military how to wage war. Their record proves them wrong, but they are in office and don't know how to learn.

Response by SSG Bryan Van Hoose made Jun 24 at 2015 7:59 PM

SSG Bryan Van Hoose — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:59:26 -0400

ROE Sir, it binds the hands of those who should be able to do their jobs. Too many times did we get shut down by the worthless JAG because we weren't taking enough gunfire.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 6:51 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:51:12 -0400

Very simple answer. If the war occurred on enemy soil, the enemy died routinely, enemy social and governmental processes were disrupted and destroyed, and American soil was never touched, then America is the winner.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 28 at 2015 12:50 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:50:32 -0400

We build a society, military, democracy and we proclaim victory. That means very little to the enemy.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2015 11:57 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 11:57:02 -0400

Always comes down to politics and if we as a society are willing to fight until total victory (like WWII) or if we cave to pressure and depart earlier than required.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 29 at 2015 12:32 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:32:03 -0400

We do not understand the military problem and we focus too much on the civil authorities. If you don't go after the enemy, then your are doomed to lose.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jul 2 at 2015 8:56 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:56:48 -0400

To me, its because we don't fight them to win them. We didn't fight the Korean War to defeat North Korea, we fought it to uphold South Korea and got a stalemate and are still there to this day. In Vietnam, we didn't fight to defeat North Vietnam, we fought to preserve South Vietnam and ended up losing. In the first Gulf War, we didn't fight to defeat Iraq, we fought to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. In our current wars, we removed dictatorships and found a people either unable or unwilling to govern themselves.

Frankly, I'd like to find the person who came up with the phrase winning hearts and minds and either kick him in the balls if he's alive or piss on his grave if he's not. If there was any truth to this idea whatsoever, Vietnam would've been our greatest victory and we'd still be fighting guerilla wars in Germany and Japan. You don't win hearts and minds until you've first broken and defeated them. We, by which I mean our civilian population and leadership, lack the will power to do what's needed to do this.

Response by SSG Sean Gallagher made Jul 2 at 2015 9:31 AM

SSG Sean Gallagher — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:31:10 -0400

It's because we don't fight to win like we did in WWII. Washington D.C. are too caught up in how the average American civilian and the press feels about how we go about conducting our business. If we didn't let them dictate the ROE then we would have a higher rate of success. Also, look at what we did following WWII and Korea. We left a residual force and established bases all over Europe and the Pacific, where Obama's strategy was to bring everyone home no matter the cost which led to ISIS. BTW, I disagree with the 1-4 record. Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, and pre-Obama GWOT were winners.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jul 2 at 2015 3:04 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 15:04:25 -0400

Because we choose not to win them. Can't choose anything you can't define like an exit strategy that meets achievable objectives that weren't defined either.

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Jul 2 at 2015 5:46 PM

LTC Ed Ross — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 17:46:00 -0400

No I do not agree that the looses wars because it is too powerful. We "lose" wars because of poor leadership and the inability to maintain popular support. Pres GW Bush is the only president since WWII who has gotten it right.

Response by MAJ David Vermillion made Jul 15 at 2015 5:03 PM

MAJ David Vermillion — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:03:01 -0400

Simply too political.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Aug 4 at 2015 10:41 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Tue, 04 Aug 2015 22:41:40 -0400

Simple. Nobody wants to go balls to the walls anymore with combat. We should either conquer and rule or not get involved.

Response by PFC Tuan Trang made Aug 30 at 2015 6:54 PM

PFC Tuan Trang — Sun, 30 Aug 2015 18:54:29 -0400

I don't think we lose the wars, we just dont want any more sacrifice.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 31 at 2015 1:29 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 01:29:46 -0400

America has stopped winning wars because its leaders lack the will to win, and they are more interested in fighting with one another than in fighting the enemy.

Response by PO1 Rick Serviss made Aug 31 at 2015 4:34 AM

PO1 Rick Serviss — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 04:34:23 -0400

Could it be that we don't know how to fight unconventional wars? The new enemy is terrorist that don't give a sh*t about the Geneva conventions.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2015 12:28 AM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 00:28:51 -0400

Despite popular myth, we did not lose the VietNam War. We turned it over to the South Vietnamese after stabilizing the South (crushing the VC during Tet and stopping the NVA in their tracks). We trained and equipped the South and went home. Same as Iraq and Afghanistan. We can not stay 'on station' for ever. Eventually the locals must win or lose on their own.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 3 at 2015 1:29 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 13:29:43 -0400

We don't know how to isolate enemy Centers of Gravity and crush it.

Response by SGT Paul Mackay made Apr 22 at 2016 8:44 PM

SGT Paul Mackay — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 20:44:02 -0400

Politics

Response by SPC Michael Mullins made Apr 22 at 2016 11:07 PM

SPC Michael Mullins — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:07:27 -0400

Probably already in here somewhere but put very simply wars were never meant to be run by politicians.

Response by PO3 Mack McLendon made May 25 at 2016 12:37 AM

PO3 Mack McLendon — Wed, 25 May 2016 00:37:56 -0400

Our politicians send us into battle and don't allow us to fight to victory.
I was in the Navy from September 1971 until July 1977. I joined to win the War in Vietnam. I was sure that if I enlisted and did my duty, the day would come when one of our aircraft carriers would drop anchor in Haiphong Harbor, the North Vietnamese would come aboard and sign an unconditional surrender, we would all go home, and we would all get the Victory in Vietnam Medal. We could have won the war, big-time -- but the politicians wouldn't let us. They are as personally guilty for each casualty as if each politician had personally shot each casualty.
I am angry with the politicians. I have a son in the Mississippi Army National Guard. He has been to Iraq once, and he is about to go again -- and the politicians won't let us win the war.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2016 1:08 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:08:12 -0400

we never finish them

Response by SGT Jake Perry made Jul 11 at 2016 1:08 PM

SGT Jake Perry — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:08:33 -0400

Get the media out and don't set a timeline. Just say we leave as soon as we are done.

Response by SFC George Sease made Jan 28 at 2017 10:37 PM

SFC George Sease — Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:37:48 -0500

The political parties keep getting involved and most of the time the politicians don't know where their ass is even if you gave them a one hand head start. The politicians think that they know the best way to fight a war so that they can claim that they won the war.

Response by SFC Domingo M. made Jan 1 at 2018 10:43 PM

SFC Domingo M. — Mon, 01 Jan 2018 22:43:07 -0500

It's because we are the only country that asks our soldiers to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. Political corre has no place on the battle field.

Response by SGT Bill Dixon made Mar 20 at 2018 6:42 PM

SGT Bill Dixon — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:42:10 -0400

If you are not fighting to win in the first place, how do you call it a win or loose? The United States had a treat and obligation to the people of South Vietnam, similar to the one we have in Korea. Combat forces left Vietnam in 1973, the South Vietnamese Government was over run in 1975. How did the American Military loose a war they were no longer in? Gerald Ford as President asked to the U.S. Congress to stand up for their treaty, not only did they refuse but some got up and walked out.
There were 700 Soviet Tanks, Soviet gas, food and bullets and other supplies in the final push when Saigon fell. Our government sold out the American Military and South Vietnam. Our Congress worked with the Soviet Union and Red China to destroy South Vietnam. But the troops were gone 2 years before. Korea was not a loss in that it has never ended, no treaty no surrender no win or loss. But we still have troops there, we still furnish aid to South Korea.

Response by Cpl Bernard Bates made Aug 15 at 2018 5:21 PM

Cpl Bernard Bates — Wed, 15 Aug 2018 17:21:11 -0400

I disagree. In Korea we fought to a tie. That is not a loss. In Vietnam we fought to a treaty with the North Vietnamese. That is not a loss. They never beat us on the Battlefield. So that means it was given away in Washington. So the record should be 3 wins 1 tie. You cant blame the military for Korea or Vietnam. The Military did what our commander and chief (The President) asked us to do. The DOD budget had nothing to do with Korea or Vietnam. We were trying to stop communism in Asia and we fought them to a standstill. The height of the cold war we fought the communist chinese troops and Russian equipment in Korea. We fought The VC. The north Vietnamese using Russian equipment again and Public opinion in the US. We did stop communism in Asia, with 52,000 casualties in Korea and 58,000 casualities in Vietnam.

Response by SFC James (JD) Flemal made Aug 16 at 2018 11:29 PM

SFC James (JD) Flemal — Thu, 16 Aug 2018 23:29:12 -0400

I think that the non-combatants have a major factor in the outcomes of war. The rules of war have changed. Command decisions are now weighed by public opinion and newsworthy actions instead of fighting to win at all costs. Commanders nowadays can’t win, they hope for the best outcome from their calculated decisions.

Response by SPC Jackson Stevens made Apr 10 at 2019 6:08 PM

SPC Jackson Stevens — Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:08:57 -0400

The US Military has NEVER lost a war!!!!!
The Press and Politicians could not even accidentally win a war!
THE PRESS!!!!! My father, Capt Jack Stevens, was a CH-47 Pilot in Vietnam 6/67-6/68. He was on a resupply and extraction mission to a major fire base shortly after a major NVA attack. We successfully repelled the attack and the casualty rate was something like 100 NVA to 1 of ours. By ANY standards we won a major battle! US News & World Report ran a cover article about how badly we were beat in THAT encounter. Fake (LYING) News is more than 50 years old!
POLITICIANS: The Lying Bastard Johnson choose to send America’s finest to die by the TENS of THOUSANDS with NO intentions of winning.

Response by SGT Charles Butler made Sep 14 at 2019 2:10 AM

SGT Charles Butler — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:10:48 -0400

I don't agree that we have lost any wars. We have been involved in many conflicts since WWII, with varying degrees of political will to support our Armed Forces, Vietnam being the worst example. There have been no easy villains to pursue, only vague outlines of evil regimes or ideals to thwart. Until the American people can all get on the same page about any conflict, our Armed Forces will continue to be tasked to fight with one arm tied behind its back and it legs in shackles. Let's stop talking about winning or losing and look at the real cause of any inability to reach objectives, our politicians and the public who actually don't have a will to "win."

Response by SSG Derrick Iozzio made Apr 15 at 2020 3:29 PM

SSG Derrick Iozzio — Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:29:23 -0400

Money! As long as we are engaged in a war where we are expending supplies and materials, some person(s) or companies are making money. If we were to win and end the war, that would mean supplies would no be needed (as much) and there would be a loss of revenue. Here is an exerpt taken from: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/03/14/who-are-the-private-contractors-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/ - "In 2016, one in four U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan was a private contractor. This means that the war is already being outsourced, yet scholars, the media and the general public know almost nothing about it." (retrieved 15 APR 2020).

Who are the private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan?

An op-ed takes a peek at an often invisible military force.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 15 at 2020 7:03 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 19:03:33 -0400

I think we won the Korean War based on the strategic goal of saving S Korea. We did not win tactically at the Battle of Guadalcanal but we won strategically by denying the Japanese freedom of movement in that area.

We won Desert Storm.

I think we won in Iraq. Our strategic goal was to promulgate a democratic society and government. We have done that.

I don't quite know what will happen in Afghanistan. Sectarian violence will continue and I predict a civil war will ensue. Afghanistan can be characterized by the Taliban whose numbers are too small defeat the Afghan military forces in large battles, and the Afghan military is to small and probably inept to secure the whole country.

Response by SGT Justin Anderson made Aug 15 at 2020 8:37 PM

SGT Justin Anderson — Sat, 15 Aug 2020 20:37:00 -0400

We lose or lack the ability to secure a proper victory because of ideals and politics.

Response by Lt Col Charlie Brown made Aug 16 at 2020 9:02 AM

Lt Col Charlie Brown — Sun, 16 Aug 2020 09:02:39 -0400

when you don't declare war or let the military do its job, you end up in these quagmires

Response by SSG Jimmy Cernich made Aug 16 at 2020 1:09 PM

SSG Jimmy Cernich — Sun, 16 Aug 2020 13:09:30 -0400

America land of the free home of the brave.We are asked to intervene on another country problems and we come to the rescue with bravery and heroism.We get scared when we hit the ground but after a few bullets Wis by we are ok lol not really,we return fire.Sometimes we fire first.In any event I believe we are the police of the world has Col.Porter put it.Soldiers don't lose wars The Hill loses wars.Generals are asked to clean up situations and really they are being set up for failure they take the blame and retire and move on to the next chapter in their life.Now you say I can't say that because the Hill is America,no wrong We the People are America not The Hill.Im sorry if my unorthodox thinking doesn't suit your brain.

Response by SMSgt Robert Dahl made Aug 19 at 2020 4:53 PM

SMSgt Robert Dahl — Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:53:57 -0400

Easy answer: Politicians

Response by SFC Michael Peterson made Sep 4 at 2020 9:26 PM

SFC Michael Peterson — Fri, 04 Sep 2020 21:26:18 -0400

I challenge you to name a single war that “we”, the military, have lost. Any war that didn’t end in a decisive victory was due to weak politicians. Every war before Korea ended in a decisive victory. Korea-weak politicians, Vietnam-weak politicians, the fact that we had to go to Iraq twice-weak politicians, the fact that the war Afghanistan became a stalemate-weak politicians. I firmly believe that when politicians decide to send the military to war, the military leaders should be the ones who decide how to fight and, when to call it “over”. Until then, the politicians should have NO say in how or what we do. Then, and only then, will we have a decisive victory in every single conflict. “We” will never lose against ANY nation. Not China, or Russia, or Iran, or anyone else. We’re trained better and, we have superior equipment. There’s no one who can beat us, except our own politicians. THEY lost Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Not us!

Response by PO2 Dan Burke made Sep 4 at 2020 11:09 PM

PO2 Dan Burke — Fri, 04 Sep 2020 23:09:07 -0400

According to Clausewitz, We need to cut off our enemies source of supply. We refuse to cut the enemy off from their source of supply as we are unwilling to risk widening the war and choose perpetual war. According to Mazlovs theory of needs, we must remove the enemies motivation for war or beat them down so low they choose anything but war. The second option is politically unacceptable. The first is unachievable since we don't understand our enemies motivation and change it the problem to something we understand. So, we waste our people trying to solve a problem which does not exist.

Response by 1LT Voyle Smith made Sep 5 at 2020 9:16 AM

1LT Voyle Smith — Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:16:35 -0400

The American fighting man has never lost a war! Our spineless politicians have given away a few.

Response by MSG Glen Miller made Sep 8 at 2020 4:24 PM

MSG Glen Miller — Tue, 08 Sep 2020 16:24:39 -0400

It was 25 years ago when the average people of a small city in Montana “joined together to stand up to hate when their neighbors were under attack,” as the Not in Our Town website reminds us.

The town was Billings. The neighbors were Jewish, Black and Native American. The attackers were white supremacists. The average people standing up to hate were, for the most part, white people who, like most people of all colors, were offended by racism and anti-Semitism. That was then. This is now. The city is Kenosha … or Portland … or Seattle. The neighbors under attack are police officers or business people or any white people. The attackers are Black Lives Matter activists or antifa. The average people standing up to hate are — for the most part — missing in action.

What the hell happened to America in the last 25 years?

Response by PO2 Cyrus Barberia made Nov 10 at 2020 2:55 PM

PO2 Cyrus Barberia — Tue, 10 Nov 2020 14:55:05 -0500

I have a question to everybody there was world war I those world war II how many of the battles have we fought since then were declared wars?
I know Korea was a police action I know Vietnam was never declared a war I'm not sure about what others maybe you can help me?

Response by SPC Robert Coventry made Jan 25 at 2021 12:34 AM

SPC Robert Coventry — Mon, 25 Jan 2021 00:34:59 -0500

I hate to think the perception is that we "lose" wars, we might lose public opinion because of our politicians. Let the Generals fight the wars and the outcome would be a lot better.

Response by SSgt Salvador Martinez made Apr 19 at 2021 8:32 AM

SSgt Salvador Martinez — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:32:56 -0400

Too easy: POLITICS!

Response by Justin Underwood made Apr 19 at 2021 9:32 AM

Justin Underwood — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:32:41 -0400

I dont think the military in general has lost, but of course I am biased on that! When winning hearts and minds become a combative objective, we have lost the objective. We lose when it becomes political. How polical was Gen. Patton?

Response by PFC Eric Parrish made May 14 at 2021 10:34 AM

PFC Eric Parrish — Fri, 14 May 2021 10:34:31 -0400

Even though this was posted over six years ago it deservers a response. We have never lost a war, to include Vietnam. The objective in every conflict is controlled by the politician not the war fighter. In every conflict the political goals have been reached. Rarely are the goals of the government officials in line with actually winning a conflict. They seek only a better position to negotiate from. We as military personnel are often sacrificed to that end. If it were not true the powers that be would continue to supply resources until the bitter end. U.S. service men and Women have and continue to serve honorably and selflessly. We need to concern ourselves with the elected officials of which many are not nearly as honorable, even if addressed as such.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2023 12:42 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 Jan 2023 12:42:10 -0500

Politics, money and the stomach to actually wage wars. If the politicians let the military actually conduct a war without tying our dicks to our hands, we could win. That being said, I do not believe the American public has the stomach for what goes on in actual war. Then there is the question of if we actually want to win it or just stay 20 years, have no exit plan, and make money. 10 years into Afghanistan you could tell that was going to be another Vietnam. We all saw it coming, but the general populace, and the politicians acted surprised.