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
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Great point. There's a need to provide the necessary means and use the appropriate ways to meet the desired ends. This is called strategy, something we all too often forget.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Appreciate the perspective---it seems we're in the midst of a sea change in the way the military operates, seeming led by SECDEF and SECNAV. Perhaps sequestration will turn out to be a major positive for the DoD, as it will force us to reassess how we do business. But, the entrenched traditions of the military are extremely difficult to change--so we'll see if anything actually comes about from the various proposed reforms.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Actually, we're still in both Germany and Japan, so 60+ years. Perhaps that's the lesson here: if you don't think you can stay for 60+ years, don't go.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I refuse to comment on the grounds I would incriminate our leaders of this Fine country.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT Guillermo Vega
incorrect. If you are walk down the middle of your block and some bully tells you he does not want you to go that way and from now on, you will have to walk around the other way, it does not matter if up to that point the block is ok. If in the next block they here you gave way, it won't be long for many blocks you will not be allowed to walk that way, some day, you will have no way to go your way (Korea).
If you do fight the bully, and all of the sudden you take off the other way, who is going to stop the bully from taking over the rest of the block (Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, etc) Even ir Irak after you beat the bully, you let them push around all your friend/allies/property/etc My daughter did 2 tours in Afghanistan and she still can't figure our why we went there, to then give it all away, so is my wife during the Irak war. Deep in your mind you like to tell yourself you won, well let me tell you, young man, there is no need to explain. The military did not loose these wars, the politicians did. There is no doubt Americans will fight to the end, but is not in their hands to do so. Most Americans will fight like Gurkas, but how do explain the crying parents, wives, and children that you walked away. Why would you spend precious resources on something you are ready know is going to fail? We did not had to do that in World I and II, now that was a win. Not important? Do you invest your money in something you know you are going to loose? Politicians control our wars not the military. Even what the Major make sense in that, in all reality, our job is just to obey. Not to question but to obey, it says so in you promotion document. Obey! Lawful orders, just obey and shut the f up. The question here is not whether we won or not, the question is: Why we continue to loose wars. The answer is as he said, we are not in Total War mode. Who Commands this type of orders? The Commander in Chief brother. The Congress my man. It seems you forgot the days you had to lead a patrol into fire. Other countries want to know if you lost or won, because contrary to America, they want to make a sound decision. No one in this world likes losers. I think you have heard in the news, we do not even have a sound foreign policy, much less a War policy. So tighten your belt and continue to war, unless you want to give your spot to someone else. I wish I could. Many in my family have served. Me, my wife, and my only daughter. My cousins and nephews. Is not about what the Infantryman does, is about you and how you vote. I work with veterans so wait until you get out so you can tell them, whether it matters if we won or if we lost. Our allies, they are still fighting after you were gone, ask the Vietnamese, or let me show you what Ortega do to those allies who are still fighting, when you took off. Angola 10K massacred, and if take a look, most African Countries are communists today. Vietnam thousands killed most Asia is communist because you walked away, Nicaragua still fighting and now one cares? We won? Sir, I think we did not. That is just my opinion.
If you do fight the bully, and all of the sudden you take off the other way, who is going to stop the bully from taking over the rest of the block (Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, etc) Even ir Irak after you beat the bully, you let them push around all your friend/allies/property/etc My daughter did 2 tours in Afghanistan and she still can't figure our why we went there, to then give it all away, so is my wife during the Irak war. Deep in your mind you like to tell yourself you won, well let me tell you, young man, there is no need to explain. The military did not loose these wars, the politicians did. There is no doubt Americans will fight to the end, but is not in their hands to do so. Most Americans will fight like Gurkas, but how do explain the crying parents, wives, and children that you walked away. Why would you spend precious resources on something you are ready know is going to fail? We did not had to do that in World I and II, now that was a win. Not important? Do you invest your money in something you know you are going to loose? Politicians control our wars not the military. Even what the Major make sense in that, in all reality, our job is just to obey. Not to question but to obey, it says so in you promotion document. Obey! Lawful orders, just obey and shut the f up. The question here is not whether we won or not, the question is: Why we continue to loose wars. The answer is as he said, we are not in Total War mode. Who Commands this type of orders? The Commander in Chief brother. The Congress my man. It seems you forgot the days you had to lead a patrol into fire. Other countries want to know if you lost or won, because contrary to America, they want to make a sound decision. No one in this world likes losers. I think you have heard in the news, we do not even have a sound foreign policy, much less a War policy. So tighten your belt and continue to war, unless you want to give your spot to someone else. I wish I could. Many in my family have served. Me, my wife, and my only daughter. My cousins and nephews. Is not about what the Infantryman does, is about you and how you vote. I work with veterans so wait until you get out so you can tell them, whether it matters if we won or if we lost. Our allies, they are still fighting after you were gone, ask the Vietnamese, or let me show you what Ortega do to those allies who are still fighting, when you took off. Angola 10K massacred, and if take a look, most African Countries are communists today. Vietnam thousands killed most Asia is communist because you walked away, Nicaragua still fighting and now one cares? We won? Sir, I think we did not. That is just my opinion.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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!
NEVER FORGET OUR FALLEN BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO FOUGHT TILL THE END TO PRESERVE OUR WAY OF LIFE, AND SPREAD DEMOCRACY TO OTHER COUNTRIES!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google