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
2
2
0
Because the people in office are to worried about what if sir !
I say from my point of view we should end it fast and quick and get things done. We are starting to look like amateurs comparing to how the army was during Vietnam and previous wars before desert storm !!
I say from my point of view we should end it fast and quick and get things done. We are starting to look like amateurs comparing to how the army was during Vietnam and previous wars before desert storm !!
(2)
(0)
SGT Darryl Allen
WO1(P) Jonathan P. and what would you suggest we do? Not to be an ass but you (much like this war) don't have any clearly defined points of victory. We can't go in "fast and quick" is we don't know what the objective is.
(0)
(0)
WO1(P) Jonathan P.
That would be a tactically plan and detail mission to deter every main structure and compound that is utilized to train and prepare our enemies. It is a strategy that will take some time to put together, and it is obviously we can't go without the objective that is something to be determined by our command. So far has anything that has been done really and truly workEd, I guess not because if it did we wouldn't be in this position or having this discussion. SPC Darryl Allen
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Please explain what we've lost.....still live in a land of freedom, no ones invaded us......what have we lost and what wars are we losing? 'Nam? Help me understand what your asking.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I was just asking the question---but your frame is a great perspective. If our grand national strategy is to preserve the homeland and the American way of life, we're winning. If it is to decisively win foreign military engagements, maybe not so much winning there.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
MAJ (Join to see)
Interesting perspective--it would seem that we lack a grand national strategy apart from a bit of whack-a-mole. I think framing is an important concept here; if we do look at the unclassified national defense strategy and national military strategy (and all the other national strategies that feed in to them), there is a framework in which our current actions make sense---but looking at the big picture is difficult, especially when the big picture grand national strategy either doesn't really exist or isn't well communicated.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
We continue to lose wars for two reasons......
First, we don't commit the necessary troops to an area that is needed for whatever cause or war. Second, we don't have enough war time efforts here in America that allow our economy to prosper like WW2 and use that money toward wartime efforts and the home fromnt economy.
First, we don't commit the necessary troops to an area that is needed for whatever cause or war. Second, we don't have enough war time efforts here in America that allow our economy to prosper like WW2 and use that money toward wartime efforts and the home fromnt economy.
(2)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Gents, both need to include the fact that the leadership lacked experience at the top levels and down to the company level. We were relearning lessons that previous leaders had learned but the almost twenty years of non conflict the knowledge was not passed on.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CPT Pedro Meza The old adage that we prepare to fight the last war couldn't be more true in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, for sure.
(2)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Maj Jeff Jager, that greatest issue that I saw was that majority of generals I met in Afghanistan had not actual Low Intensity Conflict/Guerrilla War experience and were reluctant to accept advise from those of us with the old school experience. I got hell from the 0-6 P because I argued tactics with a one star, my team supported me but who listens to a small team. I am grateful to see the book Why We Lost, because it vindicates us older timers.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I think many of us saw a generation of senior and mid-grade leaders (O-4 and above) who had no experience in combat not pay attention to the vast majority of lower ranks who did, especially in the say 2006-2012 timeframe. My second deployment to Iraq, all company commanders and 1SGs had deployed recently; battalion and brigade cdrs and csms hadn't, nor had many field grades---and to say they weren't that interested in listening to us is an understatement. But now, most of the senior folks (maj to mg) have multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, or at least should, and should be not only very willing to listen to advice but have enough relevant experience to understand the operating environment.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
We lose or lack the ability to secure a proper victory because of ideals and politics.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Money! As long as we are engaged in a war where we are expending supplies and materials, some person(s) or companies are making money. If we were to win and end the war, that would mean supplies would no be needed (as much) and there would be a loss of revenue. Here is an exerpt taken from: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/03/14/who-are-the-private-contractors-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/ - "In 2016, one in four U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan was a private contractor. This means that the war is already being outsourced, yet scholars, the media and the general public know almost nothing about it." (retrieved 15 APR 2020).
Who are the private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan?
An op-ed takes a peek at an often invisible military force.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't agree that we have lost any wars. We have been involved in many conflicts since WWII, with varying degrees of political will to support our Armed Forces, Vietnam being the worst example. There have been no easy villains to pursue, only vague outlines of evil regimes or ideals to thwart. Until the American people can all get on the same page about any conflict, our Armed Forces will continue to be tasked to fight with one arm tied behind its back and it legs in shackles. Let's stop talking about winning or losing and look at the real cause of any inability to reach objectives, our politicians and the public who actually don't have a will to "win."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think that the non-combatants have a major factor in the outcomes of war. The rules of war have changed. Command decisions are now weighed by public opinion and newsworthy actions instead of fighting to win at all costs. Commanders nowadays can’t win, they hope for the best outcome from their calculated decisions.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I disagree. In Korea we fought to a tie. That is not a loss. In Vietnam we fought to a treaty with the North Vietnamese. That is not a loss. They never beat us on the Battlefield. So that means it was given away in Washington. So the record should be 3 wins 1 tie. You cant blame the military for Korea or Vietnam. The Military did what our commander and chief (The President) asked us to do. The DOD budget had nothing to do with Korea or Vietnam. We were trying to stop communism in Asia and we fought them to a standstill. The height of the cold war we fought the communist chinese troops and Russian equipment in Korea. We fought The VC. The north Vietnamese using Russian equipment again and Public opinion in the US. We did stop communism in Asia, with 52,000 casualties in Korea and 58,000 casualities in Vietnam.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If you are not fighting to win in the first place, how do you call it a win or loose? The United States had a treat and obligation to the people of South Vietnam, similar to the one we have in Korea. Combat forces left Vietnam in 1973, the South Vietnamese Government was over run in 1975. How did the American Military loose a war they were no longer in? Gerald Ford as President asked to the U.S. Congress to stand up for their treaty, not only did they refuse but some got up and walked out.
There were 700 Soviet Tanks, Soviet gas, food and bullets and other supplies in the final push when Saigon fell. Our government sold out the American Military and South Vietnam. Our Congress worked with the Soviet Union and Red China to destroy South Vietnam. But the troops were gone 2 years before. Korea was not a loss in that it has never ended, no treaty no surrender no win or loss. But we still have troops there, we still furnish aid to South Korea.
There were 700 Soviet Tanks, Soviet gas, food and bullets and other supplies in the final push when Saigon fell. Our government sold out the American Military and South Vietnam. Our Congress worked with the Soviet Union and Red China to destroy South Vietnam. But the troops were gone 2 years before. Korea was not a loss in that it has never ended, no treaty no surrender no win or loss. But we still have troops there, we still furnish aid to South Korea.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google