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
I think our main problem is that there are to few Americans that are putting anything into the fight. Unlike WWII to Vietnam where there was a draft. WWII also had a rationing system. If it is not affecting Americans they seem to not care.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Civilian leadership has transitioned more from leaders to self-interested, career politicians, so they lack the will to fight through unpopular periods and public dissent. Along with that, the public's failure to understand that "victory" in modern wars (post-Korea) is based on which side chooses to quit fighting first - not some guy signing a surrender agreement on an aircraft carrier.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I thought I saw President Bush stand on an aircraft carrier and declare victory, sometime in 2003 or 2004?
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, I had to laugh out loud at this comment. Little did he know where we would be a decade after that.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Like I said militarily we won both in Iraq and Afghanistan, once State took things over, it was lack of leadership on their part and the sitting President that lost anything gained by military victory. So if they squander our win, it on them. Same thing happen Vietnam, we won the field most of the time, and those times we didn't win the field, both sides had fought to more or less to draw, where it just matter of who withdrew first. Much like after the Battle of Gettysburg in our Civil War, both side were in no shape to continue the fight on the 4, and General Lee withdrew. Granted Lee pretty much had no choice in the matter, but if had deeper reserve for another day of battle it would be a good example. Anyways, it bad enough in the small affairs the Military everyone wants a peace of the pie, and they all get a slice. The shame is that by the time everyone gets there, it becomes cluster, and people needless get killed because someone wanted them there to show off their abilities.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I would like to agree that "loosing" is a relative term. Winning or loosing is defined by the political objectives as War has "always been an extension of politics by other means." How a war is carried to its ultimate objective is a result of political objectives and the leadership that shapes our political will to ensure those objectives are met. We forget that Theodore Roosevelt had to shape our political will as manyAmericans did not want us to get involved. Had Joe Kennedy won the presidency we would not have entered World War II, Roosevelt shaped political will. Thus Rating 1/5 is superficial in my opinion and limited in historical focus. Use of force should always be part of a broader strategy that supports political objectives and ends, accompanied with leadership to shape political will. I would agree that our national appetite for combat looses is low, the ability to transmit information instantly further complicates political decisions, but that does not excuse our politicians from muscling the courage to shape political will.
The article compares the United States to other nation states, when we should be comparing it to other "imperial" powers and make the historical assessment based on those historical cases, to better deterrence if we have won or lost. While we are not an "overt" empire we can hardly dispute our global dominance militarily, culturally, political, and economically. We exert unprecedented influence over the globe. Just look at discussions of the recent Decline of America after the financial crisis, but look at what our innovation has done to the oil markets in the past years. The US is now more in control of oil prices, than OPEC. Our economic dominance is undisputed. This influence and dominance we exert creates political winners and political losers, those disfranchised the influence of the dominant power. Most insurgencies and political uprisings are led by the disfranchised elites who can mobilize the masses. Osama bin Laden was an elite with a distaste for American Power, so are the leaders of ISIS.
Like other empires we are bucking up against other political forces (ISIS, IRAN, RUSSIA, etc) that take issue with our dominance. This "empire" though benefits most of the west, the middle east, and parts of Asia. It creates political freedom and economic growth. How many countries have progressed off our economic might and military sacrifice?
Wars of limited objectives are part of "Imperial" maintenance, to achieve longer term objectives and stability. Thus the wars that the article claims we have lost need to be viewed with the political objective they meant to achieve in maintaining our global dominance. We lost Vietnam but defeated communism. Look at Vietnam its a capitalist country... Yes, we lost, but in the long-view, capitalism won out which is paving the way for political openness. Vietnam is becoming an important part of our global supply chains. Did we loose??? While we did not have the right military strategy, Vietnam showed our military commitment. It did not break us economically, like Afghanistan did the USSR. Look at South Korea it is an economic power house and that can defend itself and is economically dependent on trade with us, how many of us enjoy Samsung Smart phones?
The first Gulf War achieved its objectives, limited albeit.
Now to Iraq II and Afghanistan: with the Iraq war the surge of 2007 should have been part of the original military strategy, thus, we had a short sighted military strategy in 2003 (I am not discussing whether we should have gone in or not. Once the decision to enter is made it should be accompanied with a military strategy that addresses exit strategies or continued engagement under various scenarios, we forgot our counter insurgency lessons from Vietnam and had to re-learn them) . The surge was working but a change in administrations changed the political calculus and objectives, the focus became to "get out" not to complete the mission, to see the development of stable Iraq and bringing it into the economic fold like Vietnam and South Korea. Again maintaining global dominance requires political leadership willing and able to shape political will. The Bush administration was shaping political will too late in the second term, giving an opening to another political party that diverged with the objectives set out during the invasion and the surge.
Afghanistan must be viewed from a historical perspective as well. We lost political interest in the late 1980s after we defeated the USSR. We should have remained engaged to avoid a failed state. Again Afghanistan suffered from poor military strategy and was side tracked by Iraq, which was a result of improper strategic calculations. The calculus should have been first Afghanistan then Iraq, but it wasn't. Our poor grand strategy does not obviate the need to create stability across our sphere of influence, which we should continue to pursue. The focus on Afghanistan should be continue military engagement as well as other source of political power, but with this administration the objective is to "get out". In my opinion leading to the same mistakes we made in the late 1980s.
Here in lies the problem: every empire needs maintenance, the Europeans get off free of blame by letting the US do the "Empire" maintenance . At the end of the day we need to maintain it in order to support our way of life and our economy which is supported by intricate global supply chains. But as with all empires in history there will be political forces that are disaffected with the influence and the domination of the greater power. Thus. military conflict will occur again.
However, as I mentioned above prosecuting a military conflict requires political leadership that can shape the political will. In this age were news stories are made and disseminated in a matter of seconds, we are finding fewer political leaders that can lead and shape the political will. We are an "empire' in the information age. It was easier for other empires that did not have televisions much less the internet and smart phones.
In conclusion, the outcome of Iraq and Afghanistan is still TBD. Declaring them a loss is premature, we have to see how it helps our global dominance and impacts our economic might in the long run. Are we too powerful to win? my conclusion is that such a thesis is short sighted and shows limited historical perspective that draws premature conclusions.
The article compares the United States to other nation states, when we should be comparing it to other "imperial" powers and make the historical assessment based on those historical cases, to better deterrence if we have won or lost. While we are not an "overt" empire we can hardly dispute our global dominance militarily, culturally, political, and economically. We exert unprecedented influence over the globe. Just look at discussions of the recent Decline of America after the financial crisis, but look at what our innovation has done to the oil markets in the past years. The US is now more in control of oil prices, than OPEC. Our economic dominance is undisputed. This influence and dominance we exert creates political winners and political losers, those disfranchised the influence of the dominant power. Most insurgencies and political uprisings are led by the disfranchised elites who can mobilize the masses. Osama bin Laden was an elite with a distaste for American Power, so are the leaders of ISIS.
Like other empires we are bucking up against other political forces (ISIS, IRAN, RUSSIA, etc) that take issue with our dominance. This "empire" though benefits most of the west, the middle east, and parts of Asia. It creates political freedom and economic growth. How many countries have progressed off our economic might and military sacrifice?
Wars of limited objectives are part of "Imperial" maintenance, to achieve longer term objectives and stability. Thus the wars that the article claims we have lost need to be viewed with the political objective they meant to achieve in maintaining our global dominance. We lost Vietnam but defeated communism. Look at Vietnam its a capitalist country... Yes, we lost, but in the long-view, capitalism won out which is paving the way for political openness. Vietnam is becoming an important part of our global supply chains. Did we loose??? While we did not have the right military strategy, Vietnam showed our military commitment. It did not break us economically, like Afghanistan did the USSR. Look at South Korea it is an economic power house and that can defend itself and is economically dependent on trade with us, how many of us enjoy Samsung Smart phones?
The first Gulf War achieved its objectives, limited albeit.
Now to Iraq II and Afghanistan: with the Iraq war the surge of 2007 should have been part of the original military strategy, thus, we had a short sighted military strategy in 2003 (I am not discussing whether we should have gone in or not. Once the decision to enter is made it should be accompanied with a military strategy that addresses exit strategies or continued engagement under various scenarios, we forgot our counter insurgency lessons from Vietnam and had to re-learn them) . The surge was working but a change in administrations changed the political calculus and objectives, the focus became to "get out" not to complete the mission, to see the development of stable Iraq and bringing it into the economic fold like Vietnam and South Korea. Again maintaining global dominance requires political leadership willing and able to shape political will. The Bush administration was shaping political will too late in the second term, giving an opening to another political party that diverged with the objectives set out during the invasion and the surge.
Afghanistan must be viewed from a historical perspective as well. We lost political interest in the late 1980s after we defeated the USSR. We should have remained engaged to avoid a failed state. Again Afghanistan suffered from poor military strategy and was side tracked by Iraq, which was a result of improper strategic calculations. The calculus should have been first Afghanistan then Iraq, but it wasn't. Our poor grand strategy does not obviate the need to create stability across our sphere of influence, which we should continue to pursue. The focus on Afghanistan should be continue military engagement as well as other source of political power, but with this administration the objective is to "get out". In my opinion leading to the same mistakes we made in the late 1980s.
Here in lies the problem: every empire needs maintenance, the Europeans get off free of blame by letting the US do the "Empire" maintenance . At the end of the day we need to maintain it in order to support our way of life and our economy which is supported by intricate global supply chains. But as with all empires in history there will be political forces that are disaffected with the influence and the domination of the greater power. Thus. military conflict will occur again.
However, as I mentioned above prosecuting a military conflict requires political leadership that can shape the political will. In this age were news stories are made and disseminated in a matter of seconds, we are finding fewer political leaders that can lead and shape the political will. We are an "empire' in the information age. It was easier for other empires that did not have televisions much less the internet and smart phones.
In conclusion, the outcome of Iraq and Afghanistan is still TBD. Declaring them a loss is premature, we have to see how it helps our global dominance and impacts our economic might in the long run. Are we too powerful to win? my conclusion is that such a thesis is short sighted and shows limited historical perspective that draws premature conclusions.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Great comment. I would only challenge you to consider if COIN was an appropriate military tactic (turned strategy) for Iraq in 2007-2008, in Afghanistan later, or ever, in the course of recorded history. One of the biggest faults I find with our senior political and military leadership at the time was the idea that COIN could provide a long-term solution, when all of them knew (or should have known) that the structure of American domestic politics does not allow us to stick to one thing for a long period of time (given 2, 4, and 6 year federal election cycles and the 24-hour news cycle) and that COIN, in the extremely rare instances in history where it has "worked" takes well longer than 2, 4, or 6 years (as explained very well in the COIN field manual).
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I will say that COIN was the only option in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007-2008. In 2003, had we not dismantled the Iraqi army or the political establishment we could have avoided transitioning into COIN. In 2007 / 2008 the only way to address insurgencies in failing state is through COIN. The reason being is that "insurgencies" by their very nature will not confront us in conventional war, they have to find an asymmetric strategy to succeed. COIN is a long haul and requires that we defeat the insurgency to a point where the host country forces have become sufficiently capable of maintaining security, and the host country political system is open enough to allow for political grievances to be addressed. The 2007-8 surge was never about a quick win, after all the author of the COIN manual set out the surge strategy. We never set out a withdrawal date in 2007-2008. Again the political objectives changed with a new administration and "ending the war" became a political mission. Again political will was not shaped. For a hegemonic power like the US, the vast majority of wars we will encounter will be insurgencies (WWI and WWII were the exception). Max Boot in Savage Wars of Peace lays out this thesis very well. Hegemonies and "Imperial" powers typically find themselves fighting small stability wars because no power can conceivably defeat them in a conventional confrontation ( I am not saying we should not be prepared to fight a conventional war. We have to be prepared for both. COIN, however, will likely be the most likely type of fight we will see) To succeed in a COIN conflict we have to have the political will to go the distance. The question to be asked is: As a democratic society are we capable of going the distance? In this instant media age it becomes more difficult for a democratic society to stay the course on COIN. It requires very adept political leadership that can shape the message. Otherwise, the political party in the minority will find a way to use a steady stream of news to exploit any bad news to regain the majority. The question then becomes can a democratic society dominated by YouTube, Twitter,, Smart Phones etc.. effectively prosecute a counter insurgency, because our biggest enemy then becomes our own political parties that are addicted to instant media If this is the case then we are in trouble, as few countries or belligerent actors will take us on conventionally and they will exploit our lack of sustaining political will against us.
By the way, I appreciate your provocative question and the dialogue it engendered.
By the way, I appreciate your provocative question and the dialogue it engendered.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Simple, we lack the political will to let Sherman "march to the sea".
War sucks... It's brutal, disgusting, and should turn stomachs. If the NECESSITY to involve ourselves is determined we need to respect ourselves and our enemies enough to "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"
War sucks... It's brutal, disgusting, and should turn stomachs. If the NECESSITY to involve ourselves is determined we need to respect ourselves and our enemies enough to "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think we have lost wars mainly because we have not really had a full out war.
some of the wars were to help other countries rather than defending ourselves. .....
But the number one reason that are forces aren't as effective as they were in WW II is wars are now used for political gain rather than crushing the enemy.
some of the wars were to help other countries rather than defending ourselves. .....
But the number one reason that are forces aren't as effective as they were in WW II is wars are now used for political gain rather than crushing the enemy.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
A couple of things come to mind. I think there has been a lack of a clearly defined end to the conflicts and that needs to come from the President. By clearly defined, I mean something that is clear but also that we can achieve. Second, there has been a lack of a national effort like there was in WWII. The nation really has not gone to war as a whole, despite what the military has done. I was in Afghanistan in 2012-2013 and my wife as a flight attendant would get asked all the time if we still had people fighting there. Finally, after just completed reading of THE GENERALS by Thomas Ricks, he makes a point that our general officers have failed at the strategic and operational levels of war while excelling at the tactical level. Moreover, there have been very few consequences to the GOs that failed. It is a combination of things but on the other hand, yesterday I went to the range with my wife and wore a new pair of pants I bought from REI. When I got back, I saw that they were made in Vietnam. So maybe the definition of victory may be different than what it was in the 1940's.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir: Its scary that, as Tom Ricks argues, our generals excel at the tactical level of war, but have failed at the strategic and operational levels of war. I feel pretty confident that our O-5s and below can handle the tactical level of war---we need generals who excel at the strategic and operational levels. What's wrong with our system? Why does it produce generals who are excellent tacticians but terrible strategists?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
We go somewhere eliminate or capture opposing enemy forces and then leave, who is now in charge? Probably the element the old government was struggling most to suppress.
That meant we were in good shape in Kurdistan, it meant we were opening Pandora's box in most of Iraq.
We know how to win wars, the ugliest problems often occur once our enemy has been defeated.
That meant we were in good shape in Kurdistan, it meant we were opening Pandora's box in most of Iraq.
We know how to win wars, the ugliest problems often occur once our enemy has been defeated.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Seeing how the U.S. hasn't had a formal declaration of war since December 11th, 1941 I'm not sure you're asking the right question.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I just borrowed the title from the article in The Atlantic.
I agree, though--if you want to be technical about it, we haven't even fought a war since WWII. But this is more about Congress abrogating its responsibility to declare war and the Executive consolidating power than the performance of the military.
If we called the conflicts mentioned conflicts and not wars, would you agree we're 1-4?
I agree, though--if you want to be technical about it, we haven't even fought a war since WWII. But this is more about Congress abrogating its responsibility to declare war and the Executive consolidating power than the performance of the military.
If we called the conflicts mentioned conflicts and not wars, would you agree we're 1-4?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
My perception is that we are at 4 Wins, 1 Tie and 1 Loss since 1945.
Korea War: Tie
Vietnam War: Loss
Panama: Win
1st Iraq War: Win
Afghanistan: Win
2nd Iraq War: Win
A better question would be, why have our last two wins turned into disasters?
Korea War: Tie
Vietnam War: Loss
Panama: Win
1st Iraq War: Win
Afghanistan: Win
2nd Iraq War: Win
A better question would be, why have our last two wins turned into disasters?
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) Destruction is easy, we destroyed the enemy... isn't that the objective in war? Establishing a sustainable peace is where we failed, we didn't and perhaps even today don't know how to establish a sustainable peace that serves our interests short of committing genocide. At the end of WW2 there was a huge continuous occupation and the Marshall plan to establish a sustainable peace that would serve our interests, after the first Iraq war there was still a viable government in place with whom we could sign a peace agreement.
We are masters of war, we sometimes struggle to understand peace.
COL Jon Thompson The Armistice agreement left the country split in two... the war was a tie. The degree to which we were able to win peace and prosperity in South Korea is notable though... I'm very proud of what the US and South Korea have managed to accomplish together.
We are masters of war, we sometimes struggle to understand peace.
COL Jon Thompson The Armistice agreement left the country split in two... the war was a tie. The degree to which we were able to win peace and prosperity in South Korea is notable though... I'm very proud of what the US and South Korea have managed to accomplish together.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) The objectives in war vary greatly; sometimes, it is to destroy the enemy; other times, not so much. And sometimes (as with our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan), the objective is never really clear, or changes dozens of times, or etc.
(0)
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
I don't think we destroyed the enemy in any of these wars. Even in Desert Storm, large numbers of Republican Guards units were able to escape north only to fight again. I think defeat means the enemy no longer has the will to fight and in every case here, that never happened.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
By enemy I am referring to military forces that stand in opposition to us... in Desert Storm the objective was to liberate Kuwait and cripple Iraq militarily. We destroyed enough of the enemy to accomplish our objectives.
Germany quickly defeated France during WW2, however they still continued to resist... they never completely lost their will to fight. Were the Germans lacking in brutality?
Germany quickly defeated France during WW2, however they still continued to resist... they never completely lost their will to fight. Were the Germans lacking in brutality?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google