"Can America Win The Next War?" Topic

"The two divisions, totaling nearly 22,000 men, were massed on the east bank of the river. With their superior numbers, arms and veteran officers, not to mention a long tradition of battlefield triumphs, they were confident of routing the ragtag band of rebels hiding in the woods and marshes on the other bank.

The signal was given, and the first artillery volley fired. The soldiers moved out, crossed the river—and marched into military history. Within three days, the two divisions were annihilated, and their commander's head was severed and sent back across the lines as a message: Don't come back.

This was not a battle from the worst days of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. It was the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, nine years after the birth of Christ, in what is now northwestern Germany. It has been called "the battle that changed the course of history," because it marked forever the limits of the Roman Empire. Latin would never take root east of the Rhine…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Depends upon the Rules of Engagement, and who is in office controlling them.

We can win pretty much any war, other than perhaps a nuclear one, if the gloves are taken off.

We proved that in WWII, along with the assistance of our allies, against far more cunning and powerful foes than we've fought in the last 70 years.

Of course, to win, you need the will to succeed, and to get the people of your nation on board with that as well.

Mako, totally disagree with ROE being the limiting factor. The Russians were absolutely brutal in their Afghan war and still lost.

The difference between total wars such as the ACW and WWII and wars we've lost recently is mass. In those earlier wars the victors had sufficient force to utterly dominate the defeated. The force to space/population ratio was enough for the victors to impose their will.

But even the most ardent hawks in the U.S. are unwilling to pay for the wars they support (that gets billed to children and future generation) and are unwilling to draft the manpower needed for total war (instead, as we saw at the height of OIF, recruiting standards were lowered and we never had enough force to control space beyond random patrols).

It has less to do with restraint of force ("our ROEs won't let us kill enough bad guys because we're afraid we'll kill too many civilians) or unrestrained force ("Comrade, if we destroy those NEXT villages surely the Afghans will stop fighting us") and more to do with national will.

The ACW and WWII demonstrated the tremendous effort required for total victory. If even your most belligerent leaders are unwilling to pay the price then ROEs become meaningless. The Britons didn't submit under bombing, the Germans didn't submit either, and the Japanese didn't submit until faced with the existential threat of nukes for which they had no reply.

And in the case of situations like Afghanistan, even if we threatened to nuke it, there's nobody to "organize" and lead a surrender. You literally CAN'T win a war like OEF through nukes unless you're willing to kill the 90% of stone age civilian peasants who have no idea what's going on beyond their own poppy field.

Visceral +1.

The US does many things very well, and one of the things we do best is export our culture, the good and the bad. THAT'S the best way to "defeat" an enemy today: Kill them with "kindness" – high-fructose, high-fat, mass-media, consumerism, immediate gratification kindness.

Fine carpentry is not all about the tools. It's about the carpenter.

You can have two people running competing shops with the exact same tools, but the more skilled, determined and disciplined one will likely beat the other one's work, every single time. The other one may even end up suffering multiple self-inflicted injuries or hurting others in his shop in the process.

Dan

We can win any war, just bomb them with blue jeans, bubble gum and color T.V. sets!

Visceral, jpattern and Cyrus all have it right. It is the strength of our economic, governmental and cultural example that dominated the globe after WWII. Sure, we had military all over the place, but none of that is worth much if the world thinks you're idiots. Which they do, now.

The notion that we can bomb our way to everyone agreeing with us is silly. Particularly when our example to the world is failing. Disrespect for science, adherence to old technologies, concern for only those at the very top, lousy education results, lousy health care results, disrespect for learning, rampant violence. Falling standards of living. Its interesting that so many Americans do not know we are a laughing stock, particularly in other 1st world nations.
As they told us in the Army, you lead by example.

A little Sad to see an M1 in such condition. Must be a recent pic of one of the M1s the USA gave/sold to the Iraqis ? That they abandoned when they were shot at by Daesh. That is the real sad part … Now "Can America Win A [modern] War ? It depends on the victory conditions and the current paradigm for the definition of "winning" … With the current conditions in the Middle East, North Africa, and SW Asia, we see there is no winning in the "classical" sense. And I think the headline and pic is part sensationalism from the media's playbook … again … still … Now ROE is only a part of the much bigger puzzle as Visceral noted. Unlike many wars/conflicts in the past. These recent conflagrations have some unique components. Very weak corrupt leadership at many levels and no real national affilations. Thanks to, among other errors, long dead Euro politicians' decisions after WWI. Dividing up regions/areas that suited their needs. Not the local populations, etc. … Tribal, ethnic, religious, warlord, cleric, etc., [very old] ties/hatreds over any nationalistic feelings. Many it these regions being blinded/obsessed by religions that are their guiding principle as oppossed to the reality of more modern considerations. Their predilections to blame the West from all their ills. Which contributed only a small part to their current situations. It's one thing to blame the West/Europe for things that happened after WWI, a 100 years ago. But to bring up the Crusades, battles, events, etc. that happened centuries ago ? Still referring to the non-moslems as not only infidels but Crusaders ? They are lost in the past based by their religious beliefs, etc. … So how can a modern non-islamic force "win", etc., in such conditions ? We can't … ONLY they can "fix" what is wrong and move forward. Not look back to their distant past … IMO …

Pan Marek: "The notion that we can bomb our way to everyone agreeing with us is silly. Particularly when our example to the world is failing. … Its interesting that so many Americans do not know we are a laughing stock, particularly in other 1st world nations. As they told us in the Army, you lead by example."

Yeah. We still believe we lead the free world until we turn to take a look at who's following.

This interesting documentary shows what most people around the world think of America these days:
YouTube link

While this other one sheds a little light on why many feel that way:
YouTube link

Basically, we have lost all credibility around the world and destroyed ourselves from within. Yet we rather play ostrich, and bury our heads, and continue to live in a fantasy reality. We're like someone going through a mid-life crisis. Very sad.

Dan

Dan, those YouTube links are laughable.

Win a war against who?
What constitutes "winning"?
What is at risk if we don't win?
What are we willing to pay for that?

How much are you, personally, willing to pay for that?
In taxes, blood, loved ones enlisted, shaky economy?

As I said, the article's title and magazine cover pic is more about a little media sensationalism and sales than reality. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

How much are you, personally, willing to pay for that?

Something which affects very few people personally with the USA's all volunteer professional military. With less than 1% of the population being in the armed forces. Which IMO is better than a draft, regardless …

The only way we can win a war right now and in the foreseeable future is if an opponent is foolhardy enough to fight us conventionally and symmetrically. That is no longer the case because why would they when they can resort to insurgency and bleed us slowly, sapping our national will in the long run?

Weasel,

You are absolutely right. The elected officials need to understand what "winning" a war really means. they didn't even let us win the last one.

And you certainly don't start by telling the enemy how long you are willing to fight. Nor by telling them there won't be any boots on the ground.

Dan
PS. JPattern2, based on the quick reply, I guess you didn't watch them for long, if at all. :). And yes, I've been getting a bit paranoid lately. But at least I'm not the only one paranoid, so I might end up having plenty of company in my padded cell.

Yes

The question isn't so much "Can America win the next war?" but "Should America keep getting involved in expensive wars that do not threaten her core interests?". In MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow's bestseller "Drift," she made the compelling argument that, since Vietnam, America has been so enamored with fighting wars that we no longer have a serious national debate on the merits of entering into such wars. In so doing we have deviated ("drifted") from the intentions of America's founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

"Drift" is far from a leftist treatise of pacifism. It is a well researched, intelligently reasoned and practical book that garnered praise from Democrats and Republicans alike, including FOX News to my mild surprise.

28mm Fanatik,

Funny you should bring up that book. I hadn't heard about it until now, but I was already going to comment that, since Vietnam the U.S. has shown unusual eagerness to rush to get militarily involved in most causes out there but, ironically, we have also demonstrated lack of true follow-through resolve in most of those wars we have gotten into.

I'm going to look up the book now. Thanks!

Dan

The real question should be do we want America to win the next war?
I honestly wish somebody would hand out Q-Bombs to all the little countries we've ed on to rein in all the big players who are making things tough for everybody.

"Q-bombs"?

You mean like this one?

link

link

link

My favorite clip:
link

Prime Minster Count Rupert Mountjoy: We must declare war on the United States.
Benter: But we can never win such a war!
Prime Minster Count Rupert Mountjoy: Of course not, but we could win the peace. I've given this a lot of thought gentlemen and I'm perfectly positive that I am right. You must remember, the Americans are a very strange people. Whereas other countries rarely forgive anything, the Americans forgive anything. There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated.

Tulley Bascombe: There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated.

I guess our world image has only gone downhill since that 1959 film.

Dan

I think it depends on how you define victory.

The Afghan war, for instance, is a quagmire for the American military because US leadership transformed what amounted to a punishment expedition against a rogue government, into a nation building project. If they would have stuck to their original purpose -to prove the World that the US was willing to retaliate with extreme prejudice against any government harboring anti-american terrorist-, none would hesitate to describe the Afghan War as a victory.

Another example would be the Yom Kippur War. Sadat defined the purpose of the attack in political terms, and even when 3rd Army had been cut off from its bases in Egypt by the Tsahal, by recovering the pride of the Egyptian army lost in the Six Days War and making the Israelis pay dearly for their military victory, he was able to: a) Get the support of the Egyptian Army, b) weaken the political position of Israel's hawks, c) use the US as political intermediary between Israel and Egypt, and d) acquire the political capital that he needed to negotiate a separate peace treaty with Israel in exchange for the Sinai. For Egypt, the Yom Kippur War was a victory, even if it was a defeat in the battlefield.

That's how you achieve victory: define your political goals and use the tools adequate to the task. You can't win if you use a expeditionary force with limited manpower and a short projected time-frame of operations, for nation-building purposes.

We can win if we are allowed to by our political leaders. There will be casualties. There will be civilians killed, its just the nature of warfare.

Paul,

That's the problem. Politicians want to win over the unrealistic masses who believe that a casualty-free war is possible in today's world. They believe the hype that everything can be done via the joystick, using drones and other remote-controlled devices that will not put our troops in harm's way. They also believe that satellites and drone cameras can guarantee zero civilian casualties.

Media's constant coverage of each and every report of casualties actually reinforces that ridiculous attitude.

Dan

"The Afghan war, for instance, is a quagmire for the American military because US leadership transformed what amounted to a punishment expedition against a rogue government, into a nation building project."

You make an excellent point, but if we didn't at least attempt to change their political culture, we would be allowing them to reestablish Taliban/Al Qa'ida camps, and 9/11 would happen over and over again. So, as misguided as it appears in hindsight, there was a reason to attempt nation building.

Tuscaloosa: "if we didn't at least attempt to change their political culture, we would be allowing them to reestablish Taliban/Al Qa'ida camps, and 9/11 would happen over and over again."

Well, they HAVE re-established their camps, but outside of Afghanistan! And now they are better armed than before and, what's worse, they now know our tactics and limitations.

They were never fully contained and eradicated. So all we did was make them relocate until we leave the country and they can then make their return. Plus, now that they have spread, the cancer is everywhere.

There WILL be another 9/11. It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

And now we are in a worse situation. The enemy now knows how easy they can get to our facilities and infrastructure, how porous are our borders, how we don't allow authorities to do any ethnic profiling, how we no longer say there's a war on terror, how we refuse to identify them as radical Muslims, how we underestimate their determination and resourcefulness, how we negotiate with terrorist and allow the same architects of 9/11 to get back to work, and how we try to make treaties with nations that promote terrorism while alienating our allies, how we ignore solid warnings about Chechen jihadists, and they already have cells everywhere, many of them made up of recruited US citizens and people with refugee status, who communicate freely with their leaders via social media and other means that can stay functioning for long periods before they are detected and the accounts closed.

As if that wasn't enough, now our enemies can walk about in plain sight, and we can't or won't make them identify themselves:

Believe it or not that's the picture media has posted today of a Seattle journalism student that turns out was a "primary" social media ISIS recruiter. Authorities are asking the public to report any sightings of her.

link

We don't even make them disclose their age, or believe we still have to protect their privacy!!!

Pathetic situation we find ourselves in these days. Ripe for worse things than 9/11.

Dan

You make an excellent point, but if we didn't at least attempt to change their political culture, we would be allowing them to reestablish Taliban/Al Qa'ida camps, and 9/11 would happen over and over again. So, as misguided as it appears in hindsight, there was a reason to attempt nation building.

I agree … as we now see it's probably going back to about the way it was just after the USSR left … and more chaos.

Cacique,

Actually I don't think casualties are much of a factor anymore for the "unrealistic masses" because only 0.5% of Americans serve in the armed forces and most Americans are perfectly content living their normal lives while our troops bleed on the battlefield. Of course, they'll wave the flag and "support the troops" just to prove how patriotic they are without having the slightest clue of what the servicemembers went through. Also, the horrors of war are no longer brought home to our TV sets a la' Vietnam and the media ceased coverage of flag-draped coffins of our casualties returning to Andrews or elsewhere. We are more insulated from the realities of war than ever before.

So why did we finally decide to call it a day (or rather, a decade) in Iraq and Afghanistan? Economics. Eventually people are going to get tired of paying for them, and if nothing else we still vote by our pocket books.

It says something about the "unrealistic masses" when congress is clamoring for military action in Iran while the generals are counseling restraint.

Looking at Cacique's post, I see we need a strong border, no tolerance approach to crime, locking up suspected terrorists and a strong, prominent military.

I thought I was the only communist on the site!

I don't have a problem with us going in at all. We absolutely needed to.

But like I said "they were never fully contained and eradicated". They had plenty of time to prepare and lots of connections across their borders from sympathizers and kin. Specially from our ever-so-loyal ally, Pakistan.

When you want to kill a weed you make sure all the root system has been hit at once, and before it has spread the roots and formed offshoots. That didn't happen, and that's why it took so long.

Dan

Weasel: "Communist"!?!?!?

LOL. If anything I'm a fascist (about security during this period), but with extreme capitalist ideals.

Dan

"they were never fully contained and eradicated"

And, if the long history of the region (back to Alexander) is any indicator, they never will…

True, though Genghis Khan did have an interesting way of clearing huge areas (perimeters of several hundred miles), by encircling the entire area quickly and then tightening the noose, while giving the victims the impression that they had an escape avenue right up to the last minute.

Then it was game over.

But I'm a bit brutal in my way of thinking when they cowardly kill thousands of innocent civilians and first responders in one of our cities.

Dan

Cacique Caribe:
You wrote:
"…by encircling the entire area quickly and then tightening the noose, while giving the victims the impression that they had an escape avenue right up to the last minute.
Then it was game over.
But I'm a bit brutal in my way of thinking when they cowardly kill thousands of innocent civilians and first responders in one of our cities."
Then why not tighten the noose and eliminate Saudi Arabia where almost all of the hijackers came from and who were financed indirectly by Saudi Arabia in the run-up to the attack. Why slaughter innocent civilians in Afghanistan if it's wrong to slaughter innocents in NYC?

Kyote,

I once saw an entire Union regiment with muskets get shredded by an opponent with a force made up exclusively of medieval Mongol horse archers. It was worse than Custer's last stand.

Those of us watching learned a very valuable lesson that day, about the value of mobile massed archery, with exceptional rate of fire and a long effective range, running circles around their enemy. Specially against unarmored musketmen in rigid formation, accustomed to firing against opposing lines of equally equipped forces standing foolishly facing each other at close range.

Dan

Rod: "Why slaughter innocent civilians in Afghanistan if it's wrong to slaughter innocents in NYC?"

Because I'm not as civilized as most of you guys. Not anymore. My sense of morality has been gradually eroded to the point where it usually feels more like an obstacle and a handicap than a comforting set of strict principles and code of honor. "More like guidelines than actual rules".

YouTube link

Besides, my mention of Genghis was about his use of near-inescapable tactics and not about his objectives.

In other words, a massive capture doesn't have to lead to massive slaughter, just like a sudden police raid on an illegal gambling establishment, when entering from every possible exit point, can result in quick arrest of all the main crime lords present. Sometimes with little to no violence, specially if they feel they save a guaranteed escape route, in their case the use of clever and corrupt attorneys. To avoid causing the enemy to panic and create avoidable civilian casualties, they have to believe they still have a way out.

Sun Tzu: "To a surrounded enemy you must leave a way of escape", or they will stand and fight to the last man, and will use civilians as human shields.

But surprise containment is the key. What you do with the catch is up to you.

Dan

Cacique Caribe:
"In other words, a massive capture doesn't have to lead to massive slaughter…"
But it did and it likely will again.
YouTube link
Rod Robertson

Because I'm not as civilized as most of you guys. Not anymore. My sense of morality has been gradually eroded to the point where it usually feels more like an obstacle and a handicap than a comforting set of strict principles and code of honor. "More like guidelines than actual rules".

Unfortunately for better or worse many are beginning to or have in the past felt this way. I have a tendency to agree with this line of thinking frequently with the rise of islamic fanatical jihadis, terrorists, et al. … No easy answers, many shades of grey … but groups like Daesh, AQ, etc. are running amuck and nothing is really being done to effectively stop them. I think the hope that eventually they will burn themselves out with attrition, etc. is not realistic. But we know that the West's total involvment is not that effective. And most of the locals don't seems to be able to do the job. With the enemy at the gate, in their back and front yards, etc. …

Legion 4,

When I was much younger, I worked as a pest control tech for about 4 years. I actually enjoyed protecting clients from pest bugs. There's nothing wrong with enjoying what you do. There was no reason for me to feel any guilt.

Unfortunately, occasionally a beautiful butterfly or praying mantis became collateral damage. But that simply couldn't be avoided.

Anyway, that's the closest I've ever been to combat! :)

Dan
PS. ISIS and their clones are much worse than the roaches I killed. Roaches aren't evil, just disgusting. ISIS and similar groups attract the worst of humanity. Eliminating every single one of them presents an excellent opportunity to cull the herd and improve the gene pool, I think. :)
YouTube link

ISIS and similar groups attract the worst of humanity. Eliminating every single one of them presents an excellent opportunity to cull the herd and improve the gene pool, I think. :)

You won't get an argument from me ! Daesh, AQ, the Taliban, etc., etc., types cashed in their humanity a long time ago. Now there is nothing left to do, but "terminate with extreme prejudice", as the line goes. I don't think you could even rehab these nut jobs. Again, the rub is how to do this … without having massive collateral damage, etc., etc. … ?

Double Post !!!!! DOH !!!!!