Posted on Jun 2, 2015
MAJ FAO - Europe
132K
801
464
50
50
0
Lead 960
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/
Avatar feed
Responses: 189
SFC Bridge Crewmember
1
1
0
We haven't lost, we have allowed political leaders to make our wars a campaign theme rather than focus on the fight at hand. We don't necessarily loose wars, we FAIL to completely secure a peace. Also, we fight a PC war these days: trying to fight and rebuild at the same time. We must first win the fight, forget rebuilding anything until that objective is completed. The last war we fought and truly won was WWII. We did this by bringing BOTH enemies to their knees, destroying their will to fight any longer. THEN AND ONLY THEN did we focus on the rebuilding. Also, our wars are no longer a national struggle. In WWI & WWII for example the entire country was involved-rationing, refocusing our supply lines and many other aspects were dedicated to that cause. These days the wars we fight are nothing more than a news story that effects only the 1/2 of 1% that have fought the war. People listen to pundants that cover the war more then the leaders that execute the battleplan and those that do the fighting.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Training Sergeant
1
1
0
Looking at what we have accomplished on the military side of each conflict we clearly have met all military objectives in OIF and OEF as well as Desert Storm. Vietnam was a loss in that the politicians ran the war and we did retreat and abandon the South Vietnamese people. This is in no way a slight to those military personnel who served in Vietnam - the politicians lost the will and the war. Korea has not ended - it is a stalemate. WWII is obvious the war we won - and the last declared war we fought.

It is my belief that the quick rush to declare the war in Iraq over and done by President Obama was wrong and that his administration bears the responsibility for losing Iraq if it goes that way. Politicians and political hacks lose the peace. The military successfully meets its missions and responsibilities.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
I'm not so sure that the senior DoD leaders should be absolved from responsibility for the outcomes of the engagements we're in. Implementation of COIN as a strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan; yes, Pres. Bush was in office when The Surge occurred in Baghdad in 2007-2008, but senior military officials promoted this approach, arguably negligently.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG Training Sergeant
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
I agree Major - It is the duty of our senior leaders to provide the best options to the civilian leadership. In the overall scheme of things "we" the military do what we do to the best of our abilities. Then others come in and muck it up.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
PV2 Abbott Shaull
>1 y
Once the Senior Military Officials advise the President of his options, and the President fails to do anything. Then falls back on him. Plain and simple. Then you get a situation where 'We' get the blame of failing to doing our job properly because 'we' weren't allowed or given the tools that were needed to complete the job properly. That on them. We know the truth, so we should kick ourselves in the collective ass because some shithead decided to look the other way, then call us out for his failure to react properly when advise properly.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Cpl Christopher Bishop
1
1
0
It seems to me that many of our so-called Allies tend to rely upon the US to handle things. When this goes on for too long, it takes a toll upon the US Economy. In order for the US to medicate from the past 15-20+ years of "playing in the sandboxes", allies need to step it up a notch, and allow the US its own recovery time block. I think that for a time, the focus slider needs to slide a bit more towards America's internal issues and a bit away from International issues. I'm not suggesting complete abandonment of eyes and ears of the Foreign, but just a bit more focus on the Domestic could help America.

I believe the relevant questions are no longer about Why do others hate us, but rather, Why do they no longer fear us?
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
Classic isolationism vs. interventionism comment here. But why should our Allies spend more when we're so very willing to spend so much ourselves? Logically, our Allies know that we'll spend, spend, spend, so they don't have to.
(1)
Reply
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
PV2 Abbott Shaull
>1 y
Honestly our Allies have been doing more in recent years than they have in years, U.K. and France alone have always their hands in places, we just don't see them all the time, same with Germany and other allies. Many of them use their Special Operation unit in various countries much like we use US Special Command around the world. Just because you don't hear they are there, doesn't mean they aren't.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CW3 Craig Linghor
1
1
0
Because we don't fight to win. We let the media and political correctness dictate the outcome.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
TSgt Chip Dollason
1
1
0
The US doesn't lose wars. Because of this bullshit "Kindler Gentler" nation that our current admin adherer's to, we pull out before the job is done and there fore the enemy who was pushed back and on the verge of defeat is given new life. Reagan would have gone in and kicked ass and been done with it. So would Bush Sr. Today we just apologize.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
The articles talk about losses besides Afghanistan and Iraq. Are you blaming Korea, Vietnam, and etc on Obama, too? Seems a bit of a stretch!
(0)
Reply
(0)
TSgt Chip Dollason
TSgt Chip Dollason
>1 y
No I got interrupted and didn't get to finish the article. Perhaps I should have before commenting. Korea, I don't know but Vietnam we were not prepared for in many different ways. We half ass committed to Vietnam and until it was too late and we were no prepared for their resolve not had we faced that type of warfare before. Tunnel rats, Pongee sticks, civilians fighting and not being able to tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys. Children soldiers and many other reasons why we failed in Vietnam. That was a lack of intel war.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA
1
1
0
Real simple, because we have not really fought wars. Let me elaborate:

Up until WWII, Wars were "officially declared", it was an act that was universally declared and supported by the country as a whole.

The entire country went to war. There were clear actions taken against us as a country, and the country, in turn, wanted to respond in kind.

Since Korea, "wars" have been more of a "clash of wills" or a politically motivated male genitalia measurement competition.

Korea was our first attempt at supporting the UN, the country was tepid about it. 60 years later we're still paying to defend South Korea.

Vietnam, well...a clear example of politically motivated conflicts that only served to perpetuate hegemonies and a war by proxy against the Soviet Union that did not the support of the country as a whole. When you cut and run from Saigon, that's a loss in my book.

Desert Storm, when you send 400k soldiers to rat out a couple Iraqi divisions, I wouldn't call that a war either, lives were lost of course, but that's another example of politically motivated conflicts to save face. Extrapolating, from this one, we left forces in Saudi Arabia, which in turn was the declared reason for UBL to switch from mujahedeen to anti-us terrorist.

And on and on.

If the country is not behind a legitimate desire to wage war, a politically motivated conflict will be doomed to fail. Either by attrition (as it is the case now), or by flat out being defeated.

When the country barely remembers it is at war (99% are not fighting) it is easy for our foes to consider themselves the victors.
(1)
Comment
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
PV2 Abbott Shaull
>1 y
That is very valid point, and if we did go entirely to war do think people would grasp the concept of being on
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC(P) Senior Instructor
1
1
0
We have ignored the maxim that is hell.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Guillermo Vega
1
1
0
Let's see. Could it be since we abandoned our allies in the battlefield? What is that tell other countries.
Could it be since we bow to left wing communists / sleeper cells like Obama?
Since the Democratic passed from left of the right into far left of the left?
Since we stop charge reparations? Since gangsters and criminals are more important than the police? Since we gave away the Panama Canal Zone? Since, since, since ...

Get a grip, we are turning red faster that lit stove. We have nothing to say, for instead of conquering we let other conquer what costed us much blood, resources, and tears.

Since we give more than what we take! Americans need to get their head out of their 3rd point of contact and go back to the basics. Rome, is that brings a memory. We need instead do as our forefathers do, shop heads and take names!

Who came with the great idea of giving our secret to the Chinese, so now we owe them everything, lock, stock, and barrel? Who came with the hair brain idea that we can feed a billion Chinese, some many more Arabs, and Africans? We are 20 trillion US dollars in debt, get your head out of your anus!

We do not need to help anyone, we need to help ourselves as in the gas mask example.
Do not drop food to the enemy, drop bombs!. Why are we giving money and equipment to Nicaragua. Why are we taking away Cuban status when they are the once that corrupted Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, now even Brasil and Chile.

Let me help America, send a donation so we can fight in Nicaragua, and everywhere else!

http://www.youcaring.com/medical-fundraiser/america-s-freedom-and-security-push/335842

Pick up your weapon and follow me, I am the Infantry!
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1SG David Lopez
1
1
0
Lose is not the correct term;

But to answer your question, HONESTLY, our politicians are managing the war fighting, not our Generals. If the politicians who got us into these wars/conflicts just leave the Officers and Soldiers to Win, that is exactly what the outcome would be. The Win would be swift and complete. Our Soldiers would TCB and come home quick like.

Our politicians want us to coddle and rebuild nations/armies/enemies and apply ROEs that benefit the enemy forces.

That's my two cents, common sense, I can say it cause I am Retired, but it is the truth. Hopefully our politicians are reading this and pay close attention, Let Our Military Leaders do their Jobs!!!
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
How would you define "win"? Is a military victory enough? Do our senior military leaders not have some responsibility for the advice they give our senior politicians, on which the senior politicians thus act?
(0)
Reply
(0)
1SG David Lopez
1SG David Lopez
>1 y
Win is defined as: annihiltion of our enemy and its will to fight us and/or their complete surrender. Yes our military leaders have a responsibility to advice our politicians. The responsibility to frankly advice them that when their negotiations fail and/or cease; when military operations are necessary; politicians must stay out and allow the military leaders to perform their jobs in the interest of the Soldiers actually fighting. We must go into any war/conflict with the means to decisively win, not half-ass lets put minimum boots on the ground and allow this to carry on for a decade +.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
Cpl Christopher Bishop
>1 y
I don't completely agree. Win should have something to do with meeting our goals of why we ever got involved with X Y or Z in the first place.
(0)
Reply
(0)
1SG David Lopez
1SG David Lopez
>1 y
Of course, but That is the problem. We should not use American Service men/women to be the Police of the World. If our politicians want to negotiate something for their political agenda or to line their pockets $$$ by using our military as a negotiation tool, I say wrong wrong wrong. But if our Country is threatened, with a viable threat that needs to be dealt with by our military, then unleash the pit bulls to deal with the problem. Point being, leads me to the original question.... the reason we (The U.S.A.) does not decisively win is because our politicians are controlling our Armed Forces to the point that the ROEs constrict our fighting force from achieving our goals (militarily speaking) (not politically speaking).
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC It Technician/Consultant
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
I believe "lose" may be a bit much, Major.

As for the question, we stopped winning wars because we lost our resolve. Just look at the RoE. Not only that, but there are so many stipulations and restrictions on the US's combat capability it's ridiculous -and we only have ourselves to blame.
When we went to fight the Germans in WWII, we wouldn't stop firing at enemy troops just because they hid in a damn church. We would destroy as much of that building as needed to destroy the enemy.
When the marines were in Japan, they didn't have to know where the hell the rounds were coming from or who was firing. They didn't have to ask themselves retarded questions like "Are they really firing at me, or just at the ground near me?" All they had to know is that if they have a weapon or display hostile intent, shoot until they are no longer a threat.
What we need to do is get our balls back. We need to stop pussy-footing around and execute a blitzkrieg-style attack so ferocious, it'll make Adolf Hitler fear-fart in his personal pit of hell. We need to level the ground with explosives like we did in Germany. We need to shoot the enemy until they are no longer a threat.
Like my former 1SG used to say, "Sometimes, you gotta destroy everything. Clear out all the bad, weak, and evil; until nothing remains but a blank slate. You do this not to leave ruin, but to rebuild something stronger, better, and more resilient than before."
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
Lots of folks have mentioned the negative impact of ROE on the outcomes of recent conflicts. I still don't get this; care to expound a bit?

It seems like your former 1SG was a proponent of total war. Fortunately, since the end of WWII, the civilized world has agreed that total war is not appropriate, and that, as the say in the Big Lebowski, "There are rules, man!" Granted, folks like ISIS don't follow the same rules, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close