How Can Anyone Think The US Military Is Doing a Good Job?

[TheGoodShepherd]

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[BrianH]

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.

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.

 

[dread]

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.

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.

 

[maineman]

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.

bingo!

 

[Abelian Sea]

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

[Diuretic]

Is this flame bait or is it serious?

 

[BrianH]

Is this flame bait or is it serious?

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

 

[Swamp Fox]

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.

 

[BrianH]

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.

here here

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[Swamp Fox]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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 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.

 

[Swamp Fox]

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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?

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Then again, you could have not done anything in 1991 and let it to the ME to sort itself out..

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I think you all missed the point. Considering the shitty hand they've been delt in Iraq...how is whether or not the US military turned lemons into lemonade not a credible topic of discussion?

How do you know the US military, from grunts to commanders, and as a whole is doing a good job or not in Iraq?

I've yet to see any concrete answers. Not even a mention of the measurements the military would us to gauge how well they're performing.

And to the poster who said I would get punched in the face, I say get bent scumbag. If you can't discuss a serious topic without your roid rage, I suggest you log off the internet and chill out.

 

[BrianH]

Then again, you could have not done anything in 1991 and let it to the ME to sort itself out..

Where I agree that maybe the U.S. should be a little more isolationist and not stick our noses in other peoples business....the fact is, if we had left it alone, Iraq would have complete control of Kuwait--our ally. If not, there would have been mass war between the Middle Eastern nations, causing a huge disruption in our oil needs, jacking up the prices then. We felt obliged to help because the Saudis (our oil ally) offered our services to the Kuwaitis. Our problem is that we are allied based on our needs and we don't want to piss the Saudis off or get on their bad side. Like the embargo in the 70s.

This is the same reason we're not helping the Tibetan people right now....we think it's bad that it's happening, and while we would help other allies, such as Kuwait, Israelis, etc...we're not going to help the Tibetan people because we have over half of our stuff made by China.

 

[Gunny]

I think you all missed the point. Considering the shitty hand they've been delt in Iraq...how is whether or not the US military turned lemons into lemonade not a credible topic of discussion?

How do you know the US military, from grunts to commanders, and as a whole is doing a good job or not in Iraq?

I've yet to see any concrete answers. Not even a mention of the measurements the military would us to gauge how well they're performing.

And to the poster who said I would get punched in the face, I say get bent scumbag. If you can't discuss a serious topic without your roid rage, I suggest you log off the internet and chill out.

How about YOU chill? Had that poster threatened to punch you himself, I would have said something. His statement was in no way a personal threat; rather, an opinion of what he believed the result of you making your statement in the wrong place would be.

I most certainly would not suggest you walk into a place known to be frequented by Marines and express such an ignorant and insulting opinion. Don't like it? Tough shit. Deal with the reality of it.

It has nothing to do with roid rage and everything to do with holding you accountable for what spews out of your suck.

No one has missed the point but YOU. You question the military's capability based on zero actual knowledge, and attempt to base your questioning of capability by comparing it to how you perceive it to be.

Again, the mission being carried out has nothing to do with capability. Let's take this down to ABC stuff just for you.

What is the primary mission of the US military? To fight and win wars. Is the US military fighting a war? No. It is occupying a country as a police force based on the political agenda of the current administration.

Whether or not the US military is doing a good job in Iraq is irrelevant to your initial accusation regarding the military's capability.

If you want answers to how the military is doing in Iraq, I would suggest you find as many different sources as possible, extract the common denominators, and base it on that. Coming onto a message board that has more than a few military veterans as members and bashing the military is not a way I would suggest.

 

[dread]

I think you all missed the point. Considering the shitty hand they've been delt in Iraq...how is whether or not the US military turned lemons into lemonade not a credible topic of discussion?

How do you know the US military, from grunts to commanders, and as a whole is doing a good job or not in Iraq?

I've yet to see any concrete answers. Not even a mention of the measurements the military would us to gauge how well they're performing.

And to the poster who said I would get punched in the face, I say get bent scumbag. If you can't discuss a serious topic without your roid rage, I suggest you log off the internet and chill out.

You are a liar. No one said you would get punched in the face. I have read everyone of the posts in this thread and NOT one person threatened you.


In fact there HAS been some good debate on this thread and it is YOU who needs to grow a pair of balls!