Right off the bat, I want to state I'm not talking about the entire history of the US armed forces. I'm talking about the modern US military.

The surge proved one thing - the US military transformed itself, by sheer stupidity, into the underdog. The surge's very existence remains an explicit admission of failure. If events in Iraq proceeded in a better way, one wouldn't reccommend a surge in the first place. If things were going better, one wouldn't argue a need to maintain a surge.

Obviously the military is not doing a good job. Only a biased, subjective twit would conclude otherwise.

Five years and no Bin Laden. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq rage on. Nearing a trillion dollars in treasure spent and no end to the wars in sight. Iran, of all nations, has exploited the situation. In a cruel twist of fate to the Americans, Iran finds herself in a strengthened position then the mullah heads ever dreamed possible in 2003.

And some think the US military has done a good job?

My question is what the hell are they good at? With all seriousness, what the hell are they good at? Again, what is it Americans think the US military is good at?

Firing $25 million dollar missles to kill two, maybe three low level insurgents and their infant children? Losing millions of dollars in Humvees to one dollar pipe bombs?

The poor souls even failed to complete their main mission (catching Osama) before purposefully agreeing to, or going along with, creating another problem (the Iraq war).

With all honestly, the current US military is really and I mean really capable of following the orders of people who don't know what they're doing. That much is certainly clear.

I do really want to know, what the hell are these guys good at?

Don't give me that patriotic garbage either. I want hard real world answers.

Answers to WHAT? You have proven in one thread you don't have clue about the topic you have chosen to grace this board with your little rant about.

The simple fact is, you are attempting to dishonestly or ignorantly correlate military capability with political will. Politicians decide what the military does, and in a lot of cases, how it's done based on political reasons. The military merely tries to take the shittiest of deals and make them work.

Try discussing politics. You might be better than completely ignorant at THAT.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

Say this schpil to the military's face and they'll do a damn good job of making you sorry that you said it.

The military doesn't just run a muck and do what they want to do. Unfortunately, they have to follow orders from retarded politicians who have political agendas and think that they know what's going on. They make poltical decisions and not military ones. LIke Gunny said, the military takes what's given to them and tries to make the best of it. You're military does the same thing. Maybe you've got better politicians(that may make the difference).
Our military does a great job of doing the job that's given to them...whether the politics of of the job are right or wrong doesn't matter. It's not the military doing a bad job, it's the decision makers. If that decision maker says to clear a town of insurgents, it's done. If that decision maker says to wage an all-out offensive on a terrorist and insurgent stronghold, they get the job done. They can't help it if they get retarded orders from a higher power... If it were a democracy in the military, then nobody would do what they were told.

Word up!


People have no concept how much good the military provides EVEN in their daily lives. Many medical breakthoughs have been made on battlefields BECAUSE of the military.

Engineers practice and hone their skills BEFORE using it in the civilian world.


The list could go on and on yet people blame the hard working stiffs for all that ails them.

bingo!

__________________
"In a rich society, no one should be allowed to suffer from deprivation such as homelessness, starvation and illness. This ideal is essential, not simply as a matter of human good, but as the price we pay for a measure of domestic tranquility. "

John Kenneth Galbraith

I think you've already said the answer you want to hear:

And personally, I'd much prefer a military that follows even poorly-thought-out orders from its government over a military that doesn't follow orders from its government. I mean, I guess military juntas aren't quite the worst kind of government to be stuck with, but I've grown rather fond of our current system, however prone to schizophrenia it may be.

Huh. Catching bin Laden sounds more suited to a CIA-type outfit to me, but what do I know?

As for "going along with" their orders to go to Iraq, see my response to the previous quote.

__________________
The pedigree of honey
Does not concern the bee;
A clover, any time, to him
Is aristocracy. ~Emily Dickinson

Is this flame bait or is it serious?

__________________
Blowhards-R-Us

I would concur with "Flame bait", however, if it is not, than God save that man's brain.

What is the US Military good at? The military is good at taking stupid orders from commanders in chief who have never served and doing the best they possibly can in any given situation. The military is good at learning from its mistakes (something a lot of other people aren't that good at) and applying past lessons to current situations.

For your information, Shepard, the British have spent decades in Ireland and still not completely pacified the place. It took ten years of fighting in Malaysia before that conflict was resolved. It took the US military 10 years of hard fighting in the Phillipines to resolve that problem. Counterinsurgency warfare is not clean, quick or easy. Maybe if all of the arm chair generals had shut up, we would have dealt with this problem in 1991, like we should have, and we wouldn't have to be having this debate.

__________________
The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.

Genghis Khan

Leroy Green: The truth will be revealed only to eyes unclouded by desire.
Sho'nuff: It's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinkin' they the Last Dragon that gives kung-fu a bad name.

here here

A couple of minor corrections:

One, the military is good at taking stupid orders from CinC's who may have or have not served. Without foreknowledge, no one in their right mind would have guessed Jimmy Carter was actually a Naval Officer at one point.

Two, we accomplished in 91 EXACTLY what we set out to do, and what Bush I agreed to. In exchange for an airfield in Saudi Arabia and unrestricted use of Arab airspace, he had to agree only to the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Had we invaded Iraq and taken Saddam out in 91, we would STILL be having this debate because the basic result would have been the same. It's just be a 17 years old debate instead of a 5 years old one.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

I have to disagree. Saddam stated he prepared for the insurgency war after we kicked his ass in 1991. He would not have been prepared in 1991 to conduct the war in the manner in which it has been conducted and therefore would be easier to defeat. Plus we would have had over a half a million troops in the region to deal with the problem.

__________________
The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.

Genghis Khan

Leroy Green: The truth will be revealed only to eyes unclouded by desire.
Sho'nuff: It's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinkin' they the Last Dragon that gives kung-fu a bad name.

The military minds that "were", and the Bush Administration predicted that ousting Saddam in 1991 would achieve exactly what it has achieved today. The factions existed. We spent 12 years protecting them in the No Fly Zones.

The Islamic factions, Kurds, and territorial tribes would have divided up roughly the same as they have, and they'd have commenced to killing each other then as they do now, and anyone in their way, which is us. It's their cultural history. Saddam and his predecessor brought to a halt with sheer force, much the same as Yugoslavia was held together in Tito's iron fist. Once the iron fist was gone, they went back to what they knew.

The Islamic factions -- Sunni and Shia -- would be backed by Saudi Arabia and Iran, respectively in a bid for religious domination of the Mesopotamian Plain.

GWB should have listened to his daddy. While I believe the legal and moral justification existed to oust Saddam, I have thought since 91 and still think he was the lesser of two evils.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

I still have to disagree. I think it would ahve gone a lot better if we had done it in 1991. Not that it would have been easy, but more things would have been in our favor during that time frame then there are now.

__________________
The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.

Genghis Khan

Leroy Green: The truth will be revealed only to eyes unclouded by desire.
Sho'nuff: It's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinkin' they the Last Dragon that gives kung-fu a bad name.

Had we done it in 91, there would have been no air force base in Riyadh, Navy base in Bahrain, and whatever little bit of trust Middle Eastern/Arab nations had for us would have been killed.

It would have been easier militarily, for sure. I'll give you that. We chased their asses with their tails between their legs way further up Highway 1 than we were supposed to.

However, from a strategic POV, Saddam was a joker in the deck. A secular force -- ruthless, murdering bastard or no -- sitting right dead in between Sunni Arabs and Shia Persians. Whether or not we invaded in 91 or 2003, maintaining THAT status quo should have been a priority in the planning.

That would be the only way the factional infighting could have been stopped, and if we were going to do that, why not let Saddam do it and take all the heat for it?

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke