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
0
0
0
Our military has not lost any wars. I get so sick and tired of revisionist and know-nothing historians. Vietnam is a good example: At the time a Democrat controlled congress bowed to the left and cut off military funding for the war, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, our military was in the process of B52 carpet bombing North Vietnam back to the stone age causing them to seek an end to the war. I challenge anyone to name a battle our military lost in Vietnam. "Lose", my ass!
(0)
(0)
Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay
No one really "wins" a war. It is a struggle for conflict resolution, an attrition where the will and hope of one is broken and submits to another. This was recognized in the old days of "civilized wars" with rules. State-sanctioned wars should become obsolete like state-sanctioned slavery.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay , Actually, yea, one side does win when it forces the other side to capitulate. North Vietnam did not force us to capitulate; in fact, we lost no battles and did not surrender to anyone. We simply ended our military involvement in the war in 1973 and our military packed up and went home. South Vietnam continued to wage the war without our help until 1975. South Vietnam lost the war; not us.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It could be said that one of the last true leader we have had in the Whitehouse would be Truman for his action for Japan ,with that being said, today the American public and political type's wouldn't have the heart or the will to do what President Truman did also its a different world today.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Ronald Reagan spent Billions to increase the Military in showmanship to bluff the Soviets. He didn't want to go to war, but he also didn't want to go down without showing we were there for reason. At the time in 1980's when many include the U.S. in NATO had allowed their Military to dwindle to state where if it hit the fan, there was very little to stop the Soviets. The only deterrent was the threat of nukes that U.S., U.K., and France had pointed at them. Which made Germany(s), Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe very nervous. West Germany knew that the France didn't have no qualms about using nukes on them to stop the Soviets, Poland knew if the Soviets were pushed back into Poland they would get nuked by them or by NATO to stop reinforcement either way. Rest of Eastern Europe knew they face potential hits to stop the in depth reinforcements that the Soviet system relied on, and would count on their march towards the Rhine and onto France. Soviets would limit their use of Nukes to valid military targets, UK, and North America for the most part as they wouldn't to expose their troops to much to fall out, for odds would have been these were the troops they had to carry them to the Atlantic with limited reinforcements from Soviet Union due Eastern Europe suffering from multiple Nuke strikes.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Because the "Greatest Generation" spawn a "WORTHLESS GENERATION" that does not have what it takes to win. This includes Politicians and the American people.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Oh politicians and the American public! If you don't have the support well...we see the outcome. Vietnam Fell, Iraq Fell etc etc.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Seems to me that the way the world wages war has changed and many countries are struggling to adapt to that to include ours. After Desert Storm/Desert Shield, the world saw the awesome power of our military. Smart bombs, stealth planes, reactive armor, satellite communications. Insert picture of large boot crushing soda can here. Now in the aftermath of that, opposition forces have changed their tactics to adapt to our technological superiority. When an enemy force takes off their uniforms, abandons technology, and hides among a civilian population, it becomes quite the challenge to drop a bomb on that or point a gun at the right enemy. The broadsword technique becomes less and less useful. These smaller, stealthier enemies have studied us, infiltrated us, and hit us on fronts where we're most vulnerable.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
So why do we continue to field ridiculously expensive technology (say, the F-35) when that sort of technology isn't really relevant?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Show of force. The US is stuck on waving around scary technology. These enemy fighters don't have much to fear when their homes are either in mountains that render air power ineffective or they hide among a civilian population that makes our air power a bad choice. We can't expect to keep dumping money into large and expensive aircraft and ship projects to "compete" with nation states in terms of military power and still have the ability to fight enemies we can't even see. We need a new strategy. The broadswords of conventional forces won't cut it. We either need to bolster SOF units or re-align our conventional forces to wage war in a more unconventional way.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The subtitle of the first article includes, "precisely because it’s a superpower in a more peaceful world."
Right from the start Dominic Tierney is incorrect. The world is not more peaceful. According to The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the number of people displaced due to conflicts is the highest since comprehensive record keeping began.
Right from the start Dominic Tierney is incorrect. The world is not more peaceful. According to The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the number of people displaced due to conflicts is the highest since comprehensive record keeping began.
Refugee Population Surpasses 50 Million—Highest Level Since WWII
Refugees continue to pour our of Syria, the United Nations Refugee Agency reports.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Politicians lose wars, not the military, especially US politicians.
If politicians use the military as "policemen" with "Rules of engagement" and not as intended, and allow a biased media free reign to report everything, that is a set up for failure.
War is horrible. If you have to go to war, you go all in. Such as in WWII, unconditionally.
If politicians use the military as "policemen" with "Rules of engagement" and not as intended, and allow a biased media free reign to report everything, that is a set up for failure.
War is horrible. If you have to go to war, you go all in. Such as in WWII, unconditionally.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Washington politicians you think we learned our lesson look what happened to Vietnam my personal opinion if the government doesn't have the balls then don't use our military as a tool for their political gain and if they send their troops to battle there should be no rules of engagement our job is to blow up things eliminate the enemy threat beat them to submission make them surrender
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google