50
50
0
Two recent, interesting articles. One from The Atlantic, one from Salon (and I'll acknowledge the bias of Salon from the get go, so no one needs to spend time attacking the source; The Atlantic, though, is, as they say, "of no party or clique."
Do you agree the US win-lose record since 1945 is 1-4? Do you agree that the US loses wars precisely because it is so powerful? Why haven't Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex led to any sort of meaningful controls on the DoD budget?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/america-win-loss-iraq-afghanistan/394559/
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/16/the_dwight_eisenhower_lesson_america_forgot_partner/
Do you agree the US win-lose record since 1945 is 1-4? Do you agree that the US loses wars precisely because it is so powerful? Why haven't Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex led to any sort of meaningful controls on the DoD budget?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/06/america-win-loss-iraq-afghanistan/394559/
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/16/the_dwight_eisenhower_lesson_america_forgot_partner/
USA
Iraq
Afghanistan
Politics
Vietnam War
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 189
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
MSgt James Mullis
MAJ Jeff Jager: When you loose a war, the enemy controls your resources, your ability to resist, and your ability to govern yourself. That did not occur in Vietnam! US politicians pulled us out of Vietnam for strictly political reasons. South Vietnam, lacking the support of the United States, then lost its war against North Vietnam (ceding control of its resources, its ability to resist, and its ability to govern). I would argue that our primary goal in Vietnam (and Korea) was to stop the progress of Communism in the far east, which was accomplished in both cases.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Gwen Walcott
We loose all wars that we sacrifice our kin to without positive results for our benefit.
If we aren't going to accomplish "total victory", we have no business committing troops to battle
If we aren't going to accomplish "total victory", we have no business committing troops to battle
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sgt Mark Ramos I agree with lots of points the authors of the two articles make. I agree with several of your points, as well. I think it is fair to say the US achieved its initial objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then lost the wars later. Please feel free to make a strong case that the US won Korea and won Vietnam; others have, and, for Korea at least, a strong case can be made. Not so much for Vietnam, unless you place it within a historical periodization where losing a war doesn't matter, only the long-term impact of the loss. We're pretty good friends with Vietnam now, the West "won" the Cold War, etc, etc....but we lost the war in Vietnam.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
MAJ (Join to see), Thank You. Your new comments are much more constructive. Now I know that we are in agreement more than I knew. I agree with you that we achieved our initial objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, I disagree that we later lost the "wars". I think we lost something else. In Iraq specifically, it was relatively stable for a few years, or at least two. We mismanaged the withdrawal of both military and political support and oversight. They needed political guidance, backed by military might, to prevent falling back into sectarian violence. That wasn't a military failure, it was abandonment. I think characterizing it as a lost war doesn't fully explain or even fit what happened.
As far as Korea and Vietnam, I agree with you for the most part.
As far as Korea and Vietnam, I agree with you for the most part.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
MAJ (Join to see), the collapse of the U.S.S.R. did occur well within the authors' timeframe, as did the majority of the actual conflict. Ignoring the strategic context that both Korea and Vietnam were fought as part of our containment strategy (locked in place after the loss of mainland China to Marxists) is a "subtle" historical revision which opens the door to all sorts of re-interpretations which conveniently ignore the fact the the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were locked in an existential struggle under an umbrella of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads.
Historical context matters. Just as the treaty at Versailles set the stage for World War II and most of the post-colonial conflicts, the U.S.-U.S.S.R. struggle shaped our current engagements -- the Soviet disinformation campaigns were especially fruitful in the Arab world, and our decision to delegate control of our material support of the Afghan resistance to Pakistani's ISI (which adhered to General Zia's overarching Islamist doctrine by refusing to support any secular groups) bore unanticipated fruit.
Historical context matters. Just as the treaty at Versailles set the stage for World War II and most of the post-colonial conflicts, the U.S.-U.S.S.R. struggle shaped our current engagements -- the Soviet disinformation campaigns were especially fruitful in the Arab world, and our decision to delegate control of our material support of the Afghan resistance to Pakistani's ISI (which adhered to General Zia's overarching Islamist doctrine by refusing to support any secular groups) bore unanticipated fruit.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I appreciate your perspectives; I think there are issues with either periodization. If one starts with a periodization of 1945, post-WWII, as the author of The Atlantic article does, one misses the historical context from pre-WWII that you so rightly note matters; one might also look at conflicts like Vietnam and Korea as distinct events, and not simply pieces of a larger Democracy v. Communism existential struggle. But your periodization, 1919 to present, subordinates the importance of Vietnam and etc TO the larger existential struggle, omitting so much of the historical context which you rightly note matters.
Probably best to meld the two--acknowledge the larger historical context post-WWII (ie, the Cold War, which most at this point argue the West won) while also accepting that everything isn't all lollipops and unicorns when it comes to success/failure in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Probably best to meld the two--acknowledge the larger historical context post-WWII (ie, the Cold War, which most at this point argue the West won) while also accepting that everything isn't all lollipops and unicorns when it comes to success/failure in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google