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
It's because we are the only country that asks our soldiers to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. Political corre has no place on the battle field.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Our politicians send us into battle and don't allow us to fight to victory.
I was in the Navy from September 1971 until July 1977. I joined to win the War in Vietnam. I was sure that if I enlisted and did my duty, the day would come when one of our aircraft carriers would drop anchor in Haiphong Harbor, the North Vietnamese would come aboard and sign an unconditional surrender, we would all go home, and we would all get the Victory in Vietnam Medal. We could have won the war, big-time -- but the politicians wouldn't let us. They are as personally guilty for each casualty as if each politician had personally shot each casualty.
I am angry with the politicians. I have a son in the Mississippi Army National Guard. He has been to Iraq once, and he is about to go again -- and the politicians won't let us win the war.
I was in the Navy from September 1971 until July 1977. I joined to win the War in Vietnam. I was sure that if I enlisted and did my duty, the day would come when one of our aircraft carriers would drop anchor in Haiphong Harbor, the North Vietnamese would come aboard and sign an unconditional surrender, we would all go home, and we would all get the Victory in Vietnam Medal. We could have won the war, big-time -- but the politicians wouldn't let us. They are as personally guilty for each casualty as if each politician had personally shot each casualty.
I am angry with the politicians. I have a son in the Mississippi Army National Guard. He has been to Iraq once, and he is about to go again -- and the politicians won't let us win the war.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Probably already in here somewhere but put very simply wars were never meant to be run by politicians.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Despite popular myth, we did not lose the VietNam War. We turned it over to the South Vietnamese after stabilizing the South (crushing the VC during Tet and stopping the NVA in their tracks). We trained and equipped the South and went home. Same as Iraq and Afghanistan. We can not stay 'on station' for ever. Eventually the locals must win or lose on their own.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
You've conveniently omitted mention of the places we have stayed forever, at least since the end of WWII: Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea, elsewhere. This might be an apples and oranges issue, but so might the comparison between Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan that you make.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
I see your point. However, those are self-supporting nations who have allowed us operating bases within their territory. As a result, we protect our interests in those regions. Admittedly, the US ground presence in South Korea is an "I dare you" to the North. But it has succeeded for over 50 years.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
60 years ago, there was no guarantee that these states would develop into the states they are today. One could argue U.S. and Allied presence directly led to their development. These weren't "self-sustaining" states at the end of the conflict. The argument that remaining engaged is the decisive action that has contributed to development. So, perhaps we need to stay "on station" for ever to ensure our interests are protected and our objectives achieved.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Could it be that we don't know how to fight unconventional wars? The new enemy is terrorist that don't give a sh*t about the Geneva conventions.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
America has stopped winning wars because its leaders lack the will to win, and they are more interested in fighting with one another than in fighting the enemy.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
To me, its because we don't fight them to win them. We didn't fight the Korean War to defeat North Korea, we fought it to uphold South Korea and got a stalemate and are still there to this day. In Vietnam, we didn't fight to defeat North Vietnam, we fought to preserve South Vietnam and ended up losing. In the first Gulf War, we didn't fight to defeat Iraq, we fought to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. In our current wars, we removed dictatorships and found a people either unable or unwilling to govern themselves.
Frankly, I'd like to find the person who came up with the phrase winning hearts and minds and either kick him in the balls if he's alive or piss on his grave if he's not. If there was any truth to this idea whatsoever, Vietnam would've been our greatest victory and we'd still be fighting guerilla wars in Germany and Japan. You don't win hearts and minds until you've first broken and defeated them. We, by which I mean our civilian population and leadership, lack the will power to do what's needed to do this.
Frankly, I'd like to find the person who came up with the phrase winning hearts and minds and either kick him in the balls if he's alive or piss on his grave if he's not. If there was any truth to this idea whatsoever, Vietnam would've been our greatest victory and we'd still be fighting guerilla wars in Germany and Japan. You don't win hearts and minds until you've first broken and defeated them. We, by which I mean our civilian population and leadership, lack the will power to do what's needed to do this.
(1)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
Sgt David G Duchesneau - If you're talking about battles, you're absolutely right. We as in the military didn't lose Vietnam. However, from the standpoint of the mission, why we were there in the first place, South Vietnam was overrun and is now part of a country we once fought against. I meant no disrespect to Vietnam Veterans or what they did there but at best, we failed to meet our objectives. Again, blame the politicians but the point remains.
(0)
(0)
Sgt David G Duchesneau
You are absolutely right about the objectives which was to stop Communism. But, It was the politicians and the freaking media that lost that war, not the Military!
(1)
(0)
SGT Lawrence Haney
Bravo gentlemen,
U.S. Foreign policy is to liberal. Being in charge of the United Nation's Security Force has put the U.S. in a position where we must respond or participate in all occupational or civil wars. We were asked to help South Korea, by South Korea, we were asked to get involved in Vietnam-Nam by France, we were asked to get involved in Kuwait by The United Kingdom, we were asked to get involved in Iraq by the Kurds and Isreal, and we were asked to get involved in Afgahnistan for retaliation to 911... No one wants a 3rd world war and even though I would like to let another nation take charge of the UN security force I don't think the U.S. has the confidence that another country could handle it.
U.S. Foreign policy is to liberal. Being in charge of the United Nation's Security Force has put the U.S. in a position where we must respond or participate in all occupational or civil wars. We were asked to help South Korea, by South Korea, we were asked to get involved in Vietnam-Nam by France, we were asked to get involved in Kuwait by The United Kingdom, we were asked to get involved in Iraq by the Kurds and Isreal, and we were asked to get involved in Afgahnistan for retaliation to 911... No one wants a 3rd world war and even though I would like to let another nation take charge of the UN security force I don't think the U.S. has the confidence that another country could handle it.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Alex Hernandez
I think it may have been Robert McNamara that coined the "Hearts and Minds" phrase. Regardless of who did, once we moved to the left of center and sought to shore up governments we lost. Governments are only as good as the people being governed so once we decide to step in and fight oppression to uphold that government, we will continue to lose. Nothing will change as long as we the people continue to re-elect the same Congressional and Senatorial members that are only concerned with their next re-election. If they are the ones to dictate rules of engagement, then let them lead from up front. Not by sitting behind a desk dictating policies for combat.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
ROE Sir, it binds the hands of those who should be able to do their jobs. Too many times did we get shut down by the worthless JAG because we weren't taking enough gunfire.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Politics is the reason military has not been allowed to win. If politicians would give us a mission and step back things would be much better
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google