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
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
CDR Michael Goldschmidt
Exactly, Kevin. What does any basic leadership teach about goals? They must be worthwhile, attainable, and measurable. If you don't know when you've reached your objective, you don't know when to pull chocks or stakes. Why is this so hard for the "leadership to understand"? Oh, wait, it isn't. The goals just aren't what the TELL us the goals are.
(0)
(0)
CAPT Kevin B.
Interesting thing CDR Michael Goldschmidt is my time swirling around the political types is their goal is to reduce the noise so their constituents or their financial interests don't care any more. That doesn't translate well. Making the pain go away doesn't work either.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
But the CJCS plays at a level far above simply looking at military perspectives, or, at least, should. Perhaps this is where our recent experience has gone awry--senior military officers neglecting strategy for catchy tactics like counterinsurgency....
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
because politicians want to get reelected and want to tell the field personal it is over!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
1SG Jason Smith First, great to see you here on RP and thanks for the comment. I think you're absolutely on point--how do we define "win" in the current era (post-WWII); it certainly can't be decisive victory, because that definition would necessarily (most likely) mean that we will never "win" again, because in small, limited wars, decisive victory is not a possibility. At the tactical and operational level (say, brigade level and below), I've no doubt we "won" in Iraq and Afghanistan and continue to "win" in both places; I know during our time together in 2007-2008, we "won," even as we took some very tough hits along the way. We made substantial, quantifiable progress in our tiny piece of the battlefield. I feel very much the same about my first deployment to Iraq.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure any of the various strategies we've employed so far in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any of the various strategic endstates we've pursued, have been appropriate or accomplished (with, perhaps, the First Gulf War, for which the strategic objectives were clearly identified and accomplished). The biggest strategic blunder we've made so far in Iraq and Afghanistan was applying counterinsurgency tactics as a strategy. We were rather successful in employing counterinsurgent tactics at the battalion and company level in Iraq---and these tactical successes led to some short-term stability in Iraq (so, in isolation, perhaps The Surge could be called a qualifed success); but, in a strategic perspective, because perhaps exactly what you mention (a sense of apathy on behalf of Iraqis), Soldiers won, but the US lost.
Finally, I do think that our senior military leaders responsible for advising our senior politicians on the employment of the force have some responsibility for the outcomes in which force is employed.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure any of the various strategies we've employed so far in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any of the various strategic endstates we've pursued, have been appropriate or accomplished (with, perhaps, the First Gulf War, for which the strategic objectives were clearly identified and accomplished). The biggest strategic blunder we've made so far in Iraq and Afghanistan was applying counterinsurgency tactics as a strategy. We were rather successful in employing counterinsurgent tactics at the battalion and company level in Iraq---and these tactical successes led to some short-term stability in Iraq (so, in isolation, perhaps The Surge could be called a qualifed success); but, in a strategic perspective, because perhaps exactly what you mention (a sense of apathy on behalf of Iraqis), Soldiers won, but the US lost.
Finally, I do think that our senior military leaders responsible for advising our senior politicians on the employment of the force have some responsibility for the outcomes in which force is employed.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
No. We won the first three. I don't agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are separate wars, or that that war is over.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I agree--too early to call Iraq and Afghanistan, although the facts on the ground aren't encouraging.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Sorry, but we won the war in 2003, what was lost, ultimately was the peace and stability within Iraq following our departure.....
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google