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
8
8
0
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.
(8)
(0)
7
7
0
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?
(7)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
I concur. I think Ike was right to warn us about the Military Industrial Complex.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I don't know that its to the advantage of the Federal Reserve (or the Treasury, or any other financial arm of the USG) to perpetually wage war, but it is definitely to the advantage of the big defense companies and the politicians they sponsor.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
when you don't declare war or let the military do its job, you end up in these quagmires
(6)
(0)
Lt Col Patrick Howard
Not only that...who says that the two "wars" were lost? What is the questioners perception of a war?
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
(6)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSgt (Join to see) - Staff; It may be technically correct to say "we have never lost a war" but the tradition of not winning them either stretches back for 200+ years.
However, the United States of America is still batting 1000 with respect to wars that it was involved in and didn't start. (Which ought to give pause to those who actually think about "waging war" on America. [NOTE - A bunch of sociopathic murderers committing random murders {even on a reasonably large scale} does NOT constitute "waging war" on America.]
PS - The DAILY birth rate for the United states of America is approximately 12,342 and the fatality count for the WTC/Pentagon mass murders comes to approximately 25% of that DAILY birth rate. Statistically (well, eyeball statistics) more Americans die daily from heart disease and cancer combined than were killed in the WTC/Pentagon mass murders.
However, the United States of America is still batting 1000 with respect to wars that it was involved in and didn't start. (Which ought to give pause to those who actually think about "waging war" on America. [NOTE - A bunch of sociopathic murderers committing random murders {even on a reasonably large scale} does NOT constitute "waging war" on America.]
PS - The DAILY birth rate for the United states of America is approximately 12,342 and the fatality count for the WTC/Pentagon mass murders comes to approximately 25% of that DAILY birth rate. Statistically (well, eyeball statistics) more Americans die daily from heart disease and cancer combined than were killed in the WTC/Pentagon mass murders.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) We rather spectacularly lost in Vietnam; there's no way one can reasonably argue we won the war in Vietnam (unless one argues that it wasn't technically a war). We haven't yet lost in Afghanistan or Iraq, but the on-the-ground evidence suggests we aren't winning, either.
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
MAJ (Join to see) and SSgt (Join to see), I see where you both are coming from and you guys remind me of the blind men describing an elephant. I don't mean that demeaningly. Each blind man has his hands on a different part of the elephant and he is describing it to the other blind men. One says it's a tree because he's wrapped his arms around the leg. Another describes it like a wall because he's pushing against the elephant's side. One describes it as a big snake because he is touching the elephant's trunk (or junk? : )~ ) Each man is right, from his own perspective.
So, bottom line: You both have valid points. The military didn't lose Vietnam; the politicians did. When @SSgt Camilo Canoa says "We," he's talking about the military. Name a war that America lost militarily? You can't. America lost Vietnam, not the military. Either the politicians messed up by micromanaging the military, tying its hands, or the Progressive media and Hollyweird elites, who had an anti-war axe to grind, swayed public opinion and the people pressured the politicians to get out. The military did its job and our politicians failed this country... [kind of like what's going on now].
@Maj Jeff Jager, when you say "We," you're talking about America. I totally agree that we are fighting to not lose, instead of fighting to win (correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth).
The winner is the one who comes to the table with every intention of winning. Unless one's strategy is to win, losing is the only realistic outcome... You will never win by trying to not lose. If your strategy is to avoid losing, then it's just a matter of whether or not you lose quickly or slowly, prolonging the pain experienced by all involved.
So my opinion is that if a nation lacks the will to fight and the resolve to win, that nation shouldn't go picking fights. Don't pick a fight unless #1 you have justification and #2 you have a plan for winning. Understand that a decision to not fight may have repercussions later and generally speaking it's better to nip a cancerous problem in the bud than to let it go untreated, which can allow it to metastasize into something that may require radical surgery to deal with later.
So, bottom line: You both have valid points. The military didn't lose Vietnam; the politicians did. When @SSgt Camilo Canoa says "We," he's talking about the military. Name a war that America lost militarily? You can't. America lost Vietnam, not the military. Either the politicians messed up by micromanaging the military, tying its hands, or the Progressive media and Hollyweird elites, who had an anti-war axe to grind, swayed public opinion and the people pressured the politicians to get out. The military did its job and our politicians failed this country... [kind of like what's going on now].
@Maj Jeff Jager, when you say "We," you're talking about America. I totally agree that we are fighting to not lose, instead of fighting to win (correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth).
The winner is the one who comes to the table with every intention of winning. Unless one's strategy is to win, losing is the only realistic outcome... You will never win by trying to not lose. If your strategy is to avoid losing, then it's just a matter of whether or not you lose quickly or slowly, prolonging the pain experienced by all involved.
So my opinion is that if a nation lacks the will to fight and the resolve to win, that nation shouldn't go picking fights. Don't pick a fight unless #1 you have justification and #2 you have a plan for winning. Understand that a decision to not fight may have repercussions later and generally speaking it's better to nip a cancerous problem in the bud than to let it go untreated, which can allow it to metastasize into something that may require radical surgery to deal with later.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Capt Jeff S. Sir: Great closing paragraph. Have a reason, have a plan for winning, understand the follow-on effects, acknowledge the domestic political perspectives (ie, we can't sustain a long war very well in a cycle of 2, 4, and 6 year election cycles).
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Capt Grant Zerbe
The United States military is outstanding at war fighting. It is nation building we do not do well.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Grant Zerbe and Capt Jeff Schwager, the primary reason we don’t win wars anymore is that we lack the vision and will to win them. We tie our own hands with needless restriction that make fighting more difficult than it has to be and that gives the enemy the advantage – they don’t care about collateral damage, and in fact they use it to terrorize the population into submitting to them.
Our politicians are more concerned with defeating their opposition than they are in defeating the enemy, and they believe that by sabotaging the war effort they gain political advantage.
And our population is deeply divided along ideological lines, with half the nation regarding American military power as a destabilizing force in the world rather than a force for peace and democracy.
Our problem is here at home – not the nature of the enemy we face.
Consider the ideological fanaticism of the Japanese soldiers during WWII; they were easily as committed to defend their Emperor to the death as any ISIS fighter today, and were equally as brutal to those they conquered. Yet today Japan is a peaceful democracy and our troops are still there. Our troops are still in Germany too, and our troops face no danger in either country.
If we could successfully engage in nation building in Japan and Germany we can certainly do it in the Mideast – but it will take vision and determination of a united nation to hang in for the long haul rather than just until the next election.
If we cannot pull together as a nation then Pax Americana will go the way of Pax Romana, and the world will fall under the control of the next meanest scorpion in the bottle.
The way the country is fighting itself today I find great comfort in getting old – perhaps I will be spared the “interesting times” that will result when totalitarians rule the world, including America.
Our politicians are more concerned with defeating their opposition than they are in defeating the enemy, and they believe that by sabotaging the war effort they gain political advantage.
And our population is deeply divided along ideological lines, with half the nation regarding American military power as a destabilizing force in the world rather than a force for peace and democracy.
Our problem is here at home – not the nature of the enemy we face.
Consider the ideological fanaticism of the Japanese soldiers during WWII; they were easily as committed to defend their Emperor to the death as any ISIS fighter today, and were equally as brutal to those they conquered. Yet today Japan is a peaceful democracy and our troops are still there. Our troops are still in Germany too, and our troops face no danger in either country.
If we could successfully engage in nation building in Japan and Germany we can certainly do it in the Mideast – but it will take vision and determination of a united nation to hang in for the long haul rather than just until the next election.
If we cannot pull together as a nation then Pax Americana will go the way of Pax Romana, and the world will fall under the control of the next meanest scorpion in the bottle.
The way the country is fighting itself today I find great comfort in getting old – perhaps I will be spared the “interesting times” that will result when totalitarians rule the world, including America.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
We "lose" wars because we set unobtainable goals for considering victory and rush into fights that can't be won on any battlefield.
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
The US Armed Forces have always and faithfully executed every mission they've ever undertaken. People forgot that the Marshall Plan only worked because of the brilliant military leaders who executed it and the nature of the surrender and people who surrendered. The Germans & Japanese were very homogenous societies. When the unconditional surrender was announced they submitted to military governance and because it was fair and well run, those countries made remarkable progress and recovery. Unlike the tale of woe in Iraq & Afghanistan.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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.
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.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google