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

[steeliniraq]

Yeah, numbnuts keeps calling for the draft while he's primo draft age. With a mouth like his can you hear "Hey you, shetard ... you got point ... again."

LMFAO! Yea hey shetard you got point......and my next guy would be a nice, safe 500M back, lol!

 

[Mr. President]

Yeah the media is pro republican

 

[Odd1_Out]

Yeah the media is pro republican

The media is pro higher ratings... and that's it.

 

[dilloduck]

Its not the military, its their leader. I've heard 2 stories in two months of us doing stuff to piss off the sunni's.

watch, the surge success is over. I told people it was a lot more than the surge but people are playing politics so its hard to convince people of anything.

People playing politics with the WAR ?? say it aint so .

 

[BrianH]

Its not the military, its their leader. I've heard 2 stories in two months of us doing stuff to piss off the sunni's.

watch, the surge success is over. I told people it was a lot more than the surge but people are playing politics so its hard to convince people of anything.

The smartest thing I've ever heard you say.

 

[pegwinn]

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. Man I am glad to hear it. Since today's military is better trained, better educated, better led, and far more lethal than at any time in the past. Good call dude.

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. Of course. Only a biased, subjective twit would conclude otherwise. Pot, meet Kettle. So, tell me, are you always this stupid or was this post a special occasion?

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.

Actually, if the military is that bad, then you civilians are worse. Face it dude, the standards are set so that generally speaking you have to be really really good to get in.

So, hmmmmm, what are we good at?

Let's see, we are not obese like about 26% of the population.
We didn't drop out of high school like about 30% of the population.
We are not as out of shape as you are.
We have a higher percentage of population carrying a college degree as well.

Essentially, we are simply better than you by measurable standards. When you take stupid pills, you need to learn to spit instead of swallow.

This has been a public service announcement.

 

[MrJim]

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.

Doesn't that about sum up the situation in Nazi Germany? Destroy the opposition and be cheered on by the citizenry?

 

[MrJim]

Au contraire simple one. Education is merely a recruiting tool. If the mlitary did not pay for college. We would still have an all volunteer army. Spend time around soldiers and most will tell you that education is in the back of their mind, but service to country is first. Nobody in their right mind would risk dying for a college degree.

If you were ever in the service you know that not a single man believes anything other than the fact that he is impervious to death or destruction.
And if they enlist for service to the country, why is the education and 40k bonus offer even necessary? The majority of those Negro troops would never see forty thousand dollars in their lifetime otherwise. And you'll never convince me that service to the country which places them in the lower part of society is uppermost in their minds.

 

[editec]

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

I once had to remove a screw.

I hammer and hammered and hammered at that screw, but still it would not come out.

Obviously, my hammer was defective.

 

[strollingbones]

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.

i think you mean northern ireland luv...and the troubles are not nearly what they use to be. compared to 20 years ago they are living in relative peace now.

politicans control wars not the military...and i think this is flame bait.

 

[mightypeon]

I would still claim that the US leadership commited significant blunders in Iraks beginning, and that the US army as it is is not the best tool for counter insurgency. They were not meant to be counterinsurgents in the first place either.
Not much that the US army could do about either of this problems.

 

[Lycurgus]

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.

Gunny, you are exactly correct.

Our Armed Forces are required to and do operate within the mandates of politicians, not totally on military strategic interests.

I suppose arm chair generals could sit back and try to correct what they perceive to be wrong with our men and women in uniform, but they might consider trying to be proactive.

I do not agree with some of the political decisions made as we prepared to move into Iraq, in fact, I think the politicians behind it really blundered it. However, though not perfect, we have a military of volunteers, who yes, make mistakes each day, as all humans do. But, also men and women who strap it on each day and give their best to perform to their best, the duties handed down to them. If each American took responsibility, responsibility in general to the level these men and women do, think of the nation we would be!

So to the arm chair perfectionist warrior, get up and do something to support these men and women who do more in a day, than many do in a month. No, you do not have to agree with the politics, but at the very least show enough self respect, to respect those, who if need be, would die for you!

 

[mightypeon]

Gunny, you are exactly correct.

Our Armed Forces are required to and do operate within the mandates of politicians, not totally on military strategic interests.

I suppose arm chair generals could sit back and try to correct what they perceive to be wrong with our men and women in uniform, but they might consider trying to be proactive.

I do not agree with some of the political decisions made as we prepared to move into Iraq, in fact, I think the politicians behind it really blundered it. However, though not perfect, we have a military of volunteers, who yes, make mistakes each day, as all humans do. But, also men and women who strap it on each day and give their best to perform to their best, the duties handed down to them. If each American took responsibility, responsibility in general to the level these men and women do, think of the nation we would be!

So to the arm chair perfectionist warrior, get up and do something to support these men and women who do more in a day, than many do in a month. No, you do not have to agree with the politics, but at the very least show enough self respect, to respect those, who if need be, would die for you!

I agree with the majority of what you said, in addition, while there was no shortage of brainfarts in the Irak invasion (well, there are a big number of absolute brainfarts in any serious military operation), the most severe blunders came from the politicians in supreme command.

 

[Gunny]

I agree with the majority of what you said, in addition, while there was no shortage of brainfarts in the Irak invasion (well, there are a big number of absolute brainfarts in any serious military operation), the most severe blunders came from the politicians in supreme command.

Let's look at the invasion of Iraq from a tactical standpoint. What brainfarts? As a military operation, it was pretty flawless.

Now let's address the politics involved in the operation. The months-long buildup of forces, telegraphing our punch. Saddam could have moved a complete nuclear reactor and facility out of Iraq in that time.

Not keeping the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds isolated where they already were. They should have been kept isolated until the Iraqi government could deal with them and we were gone.

Allowing Iraqi military people to take their weapons and go home.

Forcing our military to observe a bunch of arbitrary rules the insurgents/terrorists weren't in trying to flush them out.

All of those were decisions made by politicians. Add to that the relentless onslaught of negative media perpetrated on the American public by the MSMand the left and you can easily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[mightypeon]

No military operation is ever flawless, Abu Ghraib was a PR disaster that was to be expected, put insufficiently trained people in a stress situation without clear orders and you invite disaster. In addition, sending troops to do actual counter insurgency who were insufficiently trained for it was bad too (propably toss up between politicians and military leadership).
I am unsure who got the brilliant idea of not guarding museums and hospitals after the takeover (instead the Oil ministery was guarded) but that could potentially be attributed to politicians too.

But I agree that the biggest mistakes were political, in that order:
-Not having enough troops to begin with, according to both Nato and Soviet doctrine you need about 10 soldiers per partisan/insurgent, well maybe Rumsfeld assumed there would not be insurgents -.- .
-Disbanding the Iraki army, largely disbanding the police force. (Wehrmacht units were working for the British until early 1946, until Stalin got a complete fit because of it)
-Not seperating the different religious groups (although this would have been difficult to do)
-Having went in with a Casus Belli now commonly seen as faked.

 

[Gunny]

No military operation is ever flawless, Abu Ghraib was a PR disaster that was to be expected, put insufficiently trained people in a stress situation without clear orders and you invite disaster. In addition, sending troops to do actual counter insurgency who were insufficiently trained for it was bad too (propably toss up between politicians and military leadership).
I am unsure who got the brilliant idea of not guarding museums and hospitals after the takeover (instead the Oil ministery was guarded) but that could potentially be attributed to politicians too.

But I agree that the biggest mistakes were political, in that order:
-Not having enough troops to begin with, according to both Nato and Soviet doctrine you need about 10 soldiers per partisan/insurgent, well maybe Rumsfeld assumed there would not be insurgents -.- .
-Disbanding the Iraki army, largely disbanding the police force. (Wehrmacht units were working for the British until early 1946, until Stalin got a complete fit because of it)
-Not seperating the different religious groups (although this would have been difficult to do)
-Having went in with a Casus Belli now commonly seen as faked.

Abu Ghraib was part of the occupation, not the invasion.

We had more than enough troops to invade. We did not have enough to occupy. Two completely different missions from a military standpoint.

I don't think it was just Rumsfeld that assumed there wouldn't be insurgents. I think that one started at the top and is the fault of being an idealistic American. We think everyone in the world is going to welcome us with open arms.

The religious groups WERE seperated. We were protecting them in the NoFly Zones throughout the 90s. All we really had to do was cordon them off and keep them isolated.

That said, Iran being Shia and Saudi Arabia being Sunni and Iraq being the land in between them, it was inevitable the latter would and still will be the battleground for those two once we're gone. The only thing that kept them seperated before was Saddam's willingness to do so by force of arms.

We did not go in with a Casus Belli. We had the legal right to resume hostilities the very second Saddam violated the ceasefire agreement the first time, and every time thereafter.

If you are referring to WMDs ... we KNOW he had them. We sold some of them to him as dual-use materiel, and our chemists taught his how to refine mustard gas. We blew up a huge, unmarked ammo dump in the First Gulf War that turned out to be chemicals.

Then there's the fact the dumbass kept acting like he had them, playing games with UN inspectors. The circumstantial evidence was more than enough to come to the conclusion that he still had, and would use without hestiation, biological or chemical weapons. That part's his own damned fault.

And I beg to differ. There ARE pretty-much flawless military operations. The pincers movement we pulled on the Republican Guard in 91 did everything it was supposed to without a hitch.

 

[Sunni Man]

Gunny you remind me of when the Vietnamese Genreral and the American General meet after the Vietnam War at a conference.

The American General said "you know we never lost a major engagement during the whole war"

And the Vietnam General retorted, "that's totally Irrelevant, because we won the war"!

 

[Gunny]

Gunny you remind me of when the Vietnamese Genreral and the American General meet after the Vietnam War at a conference.

The American General said "you know we never lost a major engagement during the whole war"

And the Vietnam General retorted, "that's totally Irrelevant, because we won the war"!

I suppose you think you have a point? You remind me a lot of people who try to make points and can't.

 

[Sunni Man]

I suppose you think you have a point? You remind me a lot of people who try to make points and can't.

The point isn't any less clear, just because you can't see or admitt it.

 

[Gunny]

The point isn't any less clear, just because you can't see or admitt it.

Nor is it any more clear because you are trying to make some apples to oranges comparison. Probably laugh at your own jokes while no one else does too.

Obviously, seperating the ability of the US military and politics is above and beyond your ability to grasp.