"With the most powerful military on earth, why can’t we" Topic

…decisively win wars?.

"Given all of the resources put into war making, why does the U.S. have such a poor track record at winning wars?"

YouTube link

Amicalement
Armand

It's a matter of willpower. The US could have vaporized North Korea, North Vietnam, and Afghanistan but we tried to avoid a larger war and we lost as a result. We also could have sent in 6 million troops, our armed forces were 13 million in WWII. We did not think those wars were that important. We also lacked the leadership to present clear war aims at the start and then work towards those goals. In WWII it was unconditional surrender and we mobilized the nation towards that goal. Most Americans would not even know we have been at war for 20 years if they did not read the occasional article about it online.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

As Napoleon said, when you start out to take Vienna…..take Vienna.

Define winning the war?

Yes, I think a lot of this comes down to how you define the goals of the conflicts. In Korea, eliminating the Chinese communist government after their entry into the war was not a war aim. We defended the independence of South Korea, which has become a stable and wealthy state. I would say the most critical aim of that conflict was fulfilled, even if we didn't succeed to the extent of our wildest dreams, or to the extent of MacArthur's absurd egotism. Ask the South Koreans if they were on the losing side of that war.

The goal in going into Afghanistan was to remove from power the Taliban, which was actively colluding with an international terrorist group that attacked the US. That war aim will not have failed unless the Taliban resume control of the country – a much longer shot than is popularly imagined.

Iraq is a very different kettle of fish, because the stated war aims at the beginning of the conflict were not the actual aims of the Bush administration. The WMD shenanigans and the allegations that Sadam had collaborated in the 9/11 attacks were knowing lies, intended to goad the country into a war with very different ambitions. The fact that Iraq is today basically an Iranian client state can in large part be put down to the arrogance of Bush and his people, and the impracticality of their goals. They saw how fast the Taliban collapsed under American and allied military pressure, and the absence of an effective insurgency there in the immediate aftermath, and assumed it would be the same in Iraq. But Iraq is a very different society with vastly more in the way of a sectarian divide, and the results were beyond our ability to control. So, merry Christmas Iran. We eliminated their biggest enemy in the region and created a vacuum for them to fill.

Define winning the war?

That's the problem, there is no clear definition, no vision, no well defined goal. The US declared "war on terrorism". Whoopie, how do troops on the ground identify a terrorist, how do we prevent new terrorists from popping up, how long of a time without terrorist activity (bombings and such) do we wait to see if we've won, etc. etc. etc. The goal raises more questions than it answers.

As stated above, the US entered WWII with a goal of the Axis' unconditional surrender. How to you achieve that? Easy, keep killing people and breaking stuff until they can't or won't fight any more. Why should we invade that city, see our stated goal. Why should we take out that tank, see our stated goal. Why should we cut this rail line, see our stated goal.

Politics pure and simple.

That's the problem, there is no clear definition, no vision, no well defined goal. The US declared "war on terrorism". Whoopie, how do troops on the ground identify a terrorist, how do we prevent new terrorists from popping up, how long of a time without terrorist activity (bombings and such) do we wait to see if we've won, etc. etc. etc. The goal raises more questions than it answers.

That's about the size of it yes. Go in all shock and awe and yes you'll kill a few bad guys, but all you are really doing is perpetuating the problem, proving the religious leaders right and giving another generation of terrorists a justification for continuing the fight.

"War is politics by other means." You can be 100% successful in the military realm and still not accomplish your political aims. This is like having the best race car and driving faster than anyone else, but not following the route.

And it's actually pretty common. Think of Germany in Russia during the first half of WW2 – they could go where they liked, but they didn't do the things that would have made Russia capitulate. Hannibal stomped all over Italy, but didn't or couldn't do anything that would make Rome give up. Britain in the American War of Independence – won all the battles, but GW kept the army from disintegrating.

Robert Leonhard in his excellent "Art of Maneuver" describes defeat and destruction as two completely different things. The first is moral, the second material. You can destroy your enemy and they can remain undefeated. Or you can defeat them without destroying them.

OR, You could infiltrate their entire education system and social groups that feel cheated or disenfranchised.
Use the "lobby" of the capital to influence elected officials with money. Pervert the media, downplay religious orginazations until they become marginal so their moral teachings become ignored or hated -- ??

However-- this would take 50 or 60 years and no one would do that ?

Russ Dunaway

It only will to do it

Russ +1. You can't win if you are unwilling to play the long game.

I have it on Good Authority (I read it in the internet somewhere) that Cheney and Rummy would tear a new one out of anyone who dared ask what we would do "after" we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan.
"That's not you problem!"
The problem was that nobody in authority bothered to consider it.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Lacking the will is one issue.

The left-wing media is also a problem, and has worked with and allied itself with many groups (actual communists and pacifists – some funded by our overseas opponents like the Soviet Union/Russia, Cuba, and China, etc.) and individuals since the Vietnam War, acting as a virtual 5th column against stated aims of our government in that war and all since then (invoking the 10+ year rule here for those that will bleat on about me posting a political commentary – it is actually political fact, which even the leftists frequently admit).

@ Thresher01

That's the problem with being a free country, you have to allow for free speech or free expression, otherwise your regime becomes authoritarian, like China or the former Soviet Union.

Warfare rarely results in a long term favourable outcome, peace talks and compromise are a much safer bet, look at Northern Ireland after the Good Friday Agreement or Israel's current moves towards conciliation with other countries in the Near and Middle East.

Warfare rarely results in a long term favourable outcome

Yeah, but with some people, you can't negotiate from a position of weakness. And if the random "other side" starts making "bold moves", it's probably because they think they can get away with it, diplomacy be damned. Negotiating that mine-field is tricky and if not done right leads to diplomacy by other means (aka. a shooting war). And you better be prepared to win that one.

A dear friend, a Marine, said when he was in Iraq, they didn't start taking casualties until the lawyers got involved. Between politics and the lawyers, that is why we cannot win a war.

If you don't want to treat a war as a War, then don't go to war.

Raynman, i believe that is called lawfare

A part of the problem may be miss/over use of the word "war".
We declared a "War on poverty". Poverty is winning.
We fought a "war on drugs". The drugs won.
We are fighting a "war on hunger". Hunger is gaining.
We are currently fighting the "war on Christmas". 'Thank God' for Santa, 'cause the birthday boy couldn't do it without Kris induced greed.

War has a mission statement :

The mission of war is to destroy your enemies so they cannot make war on you again.

To fight with any other goal is to lose. Worked in WW2. This is why the U.S. can't win. Not allowed too with the rules, restrictions imposed on the military.

One ,now thankfully struck off, Human Rights Lawyer said his plan was " to mak war impossible" His aim, apart from getting wealthy, was to tie government up is so many cases that in the end it would be impossible to fight. Unfortunately he forgot to tell the other side about his plan.