When did the US stop being good at war?

[ralfy]

Related:

War Is a Racket - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[regent]

War is difficult in a democracy, if the people are not behind the war, votes could be lost, if a draft exists the war is even more difficult. Maybe there is an art to taking a democracy to war?

 

[Disir]

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.

So, if that's a rule, then you just let our enemies know that they can attack our interests without any fear.

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

And you just told him that he should die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head.

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.

So, if that's a rule, then you just let our enemies know that they can attack our interests without any fear.

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

And you just told him that he should die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head.

No, I pointed out that if his stance was national policy, then every enemy of the US would know that they could attack our national interests as much as they wanted as long as they did not directly threaten US soil.

No. You clearly told him that he should up and die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head. That's your stance as national policy.

 

[APACHERAT]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.
.

Lets see, what did Truman do in 1947 ? That's right the National Security Act of 1947.
What else did Truman do ?

But lets go back to the NSA of 1947, it gave civilians to much control over the military. You had McNamara and Rumsfeld micromanaging the military. You had LBJ micromanaging the Vietnam War that could have been won in 1965. Again when victory was in sight after Tet of 68, the war was politicized by the left on the streets of America.

Any time a war has been politicized, your not going to achieve total victory.

The first Gulf war (Desert Storm) G.H. Bush and Secretary of Defense Cheney didn't micromanage the war but allowed Gen. Schwarzkopf to do his job and win the war.

There have only been two Presidents since 1947 as CnC who have been able to work with the JCOS, Esienhower and Reagan. Obama doesn't even listen to the JCOS.

Today it's Valerie Jarrett who calling the shots. Today's Obama's PC military isn't about fighting and winning wars but social engineering of the military.

Don't forget with the ethnic make up of America is drastically changing in America today, we are no longer a nation of warriors.

 

[Politico]

When did the US stop being good at war?

When the majority if out soldiers were Millennials who only signed up for the college benefits.

 

[Correll]

So, if that's a rule, then you just let our enemies know that they can attack our interests without any fear.

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

And you just told him that he should die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head.

So, if that's a rule, then you just let our enemies know that they can attack our interests without any fear.

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

And you just told him that he should die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head.

No, I pointed out that if his stance was national policy, then every enemy of the US would know that they could attack our national interests as much as they wanted as long as they did not directly threaten US soil.

No. You clearly told him that he should up and die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head. That's your stance as national policy.

National interest does NOT equal "my financial interests".

Here. Learn.

National interest - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The national interest, often referred to by the French expression raison d'État ("reason of State"), is a country's goals and ambitions whether economic, military, or cultural. The concept is an important one in international relations where pursuit of the national interest is the foundation of the realist school."


It is one thing to disagree with me. It is another to misrepresent what I am saying.

 

[longknife]

A secondary question: throughout history, is there any nation that actually WON a war?

 

[regent]

Do nation's populations change at different rates? Do many Americans now question giving their lives so that others can profit. Does the flag waving thing no longer inspire us to risk lives to police the world? In short, has life become too valuable to use on some passing fracas that means little and will be forgotten in twenty years?

 

[Disir]

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

And you just told him that he should die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head.

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

And you just told him that he should die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head.

No, I pointed out that if his stance was national policy, then every enemy of the US would know that they could attack our national interests as much as they wanted as long as they did not directly threaten US soil.

No. You clearly told him that he should up and die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head. That's your stance as national policy.

National interest does NOT equal "my financial interests".

Here. Learn.

National interest - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The national interest, often referred to by the French expression raison d'État ("reason of State"), is a country's goals and ambitions whether economic, military, or cultural. The concept is an important one in international relations where pursuit of the national interest is the foundation of the realist school."


It is one thing to disagree with me. It is another to misrepresent what I am saying.

There was nothing to misrepresent. You thought that you would guilt trip this guy---because he is viewed as expendable by attempting to attach some unidentified national interest (read as idealism political theory ). Hence, anything that pops into your head to justify furthering financial interests. He said, me and my buds don't fight corporate wars.

Here, learn:
Today, the concept of "the national interest" is often associated with political Realists who don't differentiate their policies from "idealistic" policies to seek either to inject morality into foreign policy or promote solutions that rely on multilateral institutions which might weaken the independence of the state.

As considerable disagreement exists in every country over what is or is not in "the national interest," the term is as often invoked to justify isolationist and pacifistic policies as to justify interventionist or warlike policies. It has been posited that the term is a euphemism used by powerful countries for geopolitical aims such as non-renewable natural resources for energy independency, territorial expansionism and precious metals in smaller countries.[2] In this case, euphemism usage is necessary in order to stifle voices that are oppose
^^^from your own link

anything that pops into your head

There is no firm definition or list of national interests. The United States has no list of national interests. This is extremely convenient in international relations because it can be used broadly. So what is used as a cover? Idealism. Spreading democracy, equality, humanitarian assistance.

The DoS and USAid.
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...m-for-political-purposes/stories/201408060058

The IRI
International Republican Institute - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The NDI
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The name of the game is to fund and incite any smaller group that will be more receptive to US financial interests: Free market.

There is theory and there is application.

 

[2aguy]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.

US seems to be very good at inventing technology to kill people, training people to kill people, but absolutely sucks at winning wars. Or, we're just not interested in winning.

But why would we not be interested in actually winning and going home? Well, look at who provides all the material used in wars. The corporations and defense contractors. Could they have something to do with things? Like maybe the longer a war goes on, the more money they make?

In World War 2 this was called war profiteering and I think we took people for a walk in the woods for it. When did that change? Can we change it back? Are corporations more powerful than the actual military? Scene from "Taps" comes to mind when faced with losing their school, students seized weapons from the armory and told the developers what to go do with themselves in no uncertain terms.

Until it becomes the policy of the USA to resume winning wars and kicking ass the military and American public shoudl simply refuse en masse' to support wars we're not even trying to win any more at the expense of peoples' lives so rich people can be a little richer.

We aren't trying to win.....we easily defeated the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan.....the democrats didn't want to do what was necessary to keep a lid on things...now we have isis and iran taking over the area.....we didn't lose a single battle in Vietnam...democrats wanted us to leave......

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.

It's a combination of b) we're not trying to win and c) the public's war weariness. I've seen civilians bitch faaar more about Iraq than the people who actually went out there. The public doesn't want to fight our enemies. They want our enemies to go away and leave us alone, if they even believe those enemies exist to begin with. 9/11 stole the future we thought we were going to have by now. A lot of people still can't accept that.

 

[ralfy]

Ultimately, there is no "we" or "enemy" in this issue, only realpolitik driving military intervention or support. That's why Saddam was supported for years, together with the mujahideen. That's also why as the U.S. was embroiled in Vietnam it was seeking peace with Red China.

In all cases, multinational corporations profit, military forces get their armaments, and the public which has no say gets saddled with military spending or face collateral damage.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Ultimately, there is no "we" or "enemy" in this issue, only realpolitik driving military intervention or support. That's why Saddam was supported for years, together with the mujahideen. That's also why as the U.S. was embroiled in Vietnam it was seeking peace with Red China.

In all cases, multinational corporations profit, military forces get their armaments, and the public which has no say gets saddled with military spending or face collateral damage.

I'ma just reply to what I underlined. You do realize that a huge chunk of the military budget doesn't actually go to armaments, right? It goes to paying people's pensions and doctor bills, keeping the chow halls open for four meals per day (midnight meal for the late shift), paying for child care and the schools... The military is almost like this authoritarian yet meritocratic socialistic country within a country with its own cities spread throughout America and colonies all over the world. That's probably the most accurate way I can describe how it works. And the annual military budget goes towards funding its every function, from bombing the shit out of ISIS scum to keeping the commissary open so military widows can get their prune fix on the cheap.

 

[Agit8r]

If a war is won decisively, that's less money for the Haliburtons, Lockheed Martins, etc.

Like the old saying goes, follow the money.

 

[Correll]

Ultimately, there is no "we" or "enemy" in this issue, only realpolitik driving military intervention or support. That's why Saddam was supported for years, together with the mujahideen. That's also why as the U.S. was embroiled in Vietnam it was seeking peace with Red China.

In all cases, multinational corporations profit, military forces get their armaments, and the public which has no say gets saddled with military spending or face collateral damage.

REalpolitik states that interests, not principles or morals drive policy.

You are claiming that it is driven by internal corrupt politics.


We gave minor support to Saddam, for a while, because it was in our interests for him to NOT be overrun by our enemy Iran.

We gave major support to the Mujahideen, because they were fighting our enemy the Soviet Union.

We were in Vietnam, as part of the strategy of Containment, because it was in our national interest to NOT have the world become more and more communist.

 

[longknife]

to keeping the commissary open so military widows can get their prune fix on the cheap

This is probably the most ignorant post I've ever read on USMB. I hope the poster rots in the hell he deserves!

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

to keeping the commissary open so military widows can get their prune fix on the cheap

This is probably the most ignorant post I've ever read on USMB. I hope the poster rots in the hell he deserves!

You realize I was making a joke to illustrate a point, right? It's still based in reality. When you retire, you retain base access. Your wife retains it after you die. I'm pretty sure it's part of her compensation.

 

[whitehall]

"Not good at war"? Pretty insulting to the heroes and Veterans of the greatest Military in the history of the world. FDR appointed an old WW1 Vet, who had done his duty and retired, to be commander of the area most likely to be attacked by the Japanese and sure enough MacArthur was rescued in March 1942 and his entire Army surrendered on Bataan on April 9, 1942. You could have said the U.S. wasn't very good at war at the time but you would probably have been locked up as a subversive. The U.S. beat the North Korean invaders back in less than a year but the administration managed to lose 50,000 in three years. Once again the U.S. Military was pretty good at war but the administration wasn't. LBJ set the rules so that the U.S. would win every battle but lose Vietnam. The Troops were pretty good at war but another stupid democrat administration screwed it up. Under George Bush's leadership the U.S. Military went further, faster and took less casualties in Iraq than any other U.S. expedition of it's type in history but the media hated it and democrats hated it so they made low information lefties think we weren't too good at war. What can you say about Barry Hussein's leadership except to pity the greatest Military in the world that has to work for him.

 

[ralfy]

Ultimately, there is no "we" or "enemy" in this issue, only realpolitik driving military intervention or support. That's why Saddam was supported for years, together with the mujahideen. That's also why as the U.S. was embroiled in Vietnam it was seeking peace with Red China.

In all cases, multinational corporations profit, military forces get their armaments, and the public which has no say gets saddled with military spending or face collateral damage.

REalpolitik states that interests, not principles or morals drive policy.

You are claiming that it is driven by internal corrupt politics.


We gave minor support to Saddam, for a while, because it was in our interests for him to NOT be overrun by our enemy Iran.

We gave major support to the Mujahideen, because they were fighting our enemy the Soviet Union.

We were in Vietnam, as part of the strategy of Containment, because it was in our national interest to NOT have the world become more and more communist.

Thanks for supporting my arguments. Also, don't forget to mention what took place in Iraq after, what happened to the mujahideen, and what happened to that "containment" strategy.

Also, there's no "our" in this issue.

 

[ralfy]

"Not good at war"? Pretty insulting to the heroes and Veterans of the greatest Military in the history of the world. FDR appointed an old WW1 Vet, who had done his duty and retired, to be commander of the area most likely to be attacked by the Japanese and sure enough MacArthur was rescued in March 1942 and his entire Army surrendered on Bataan on April 9, 1942. You could have said the U.S. wasn't very good at war at the time but you would probably have been locked up as a subversive. The U.S. beat the North Korean invaders back in less than a year but the administration managed to lose 50,000 in three years. Once again the U.S. Military was pretty good at war but the administration wasn't. LBJ set the rules so that the U.S. would win every battle but lose Vietnam. The Troops were pretty good at war but another stupid democrat administration screwed it up. Under George Bush's leadership the U.S. Military went further, faster and took less casualties in Iraq than any other U.S. expedition of it's type in history but the media hated it and democrats hated it so they made low information lefties think we weren't too good at war. What can you say about Barry Hussein's leadership except to pity the greatest Military in the world that has to work for him.

Reminds me of

When did the US stop being good at war Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum