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
1
1
0
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.
The entire function is to transfer the public's money into the pockets of military contractors.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
The team on the field doesn't own that - the suits in the box office own it.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
What about the suits at the Pentagon, you know, those civilian DoD leaders and general officers advising the national civilian leadership and making a lot of the strategic and operational calls that haven't worked out so well----do these folks (DoD leaders and generals) not have any responsibility?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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
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
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SPC Joseph Durham
When Obama first came into office, he went on a General firing spree. Again, google it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google