When did the US stop being good at war?

[Two Thumbs]

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 stopped trying to win when leftist pols started running the wars

we could easily win any war, but leftist want to bog us down with idiotic rules and bean counting.

the saying; "War is hell" comes to mind, so making war hellish for your enemy is key, not making snipers call their boss and ask permission to shoot someone, not letting someone shoot at you from a mosque and not shoot back b/c it's a mosque. Those are insanely bad ideas

 

[longknife]

I just thought of something. Looking back on the history of Mankind, can anyone name a single group that was continually "good at war"?

Seems to me every single one sooner or later reached a point where they lost due to ineptitude or political barriers set on commanders.

 

[Abishai100]

Virtual Vanities


In the days of Teddy Roosevelt, the whole world saw the USA as an emerging super-power and a new age empire that could potentially outshine the Roman Empire and the British Empire.

After the unimpressive reports coming out of the Korean War (a mediocre war) and the Vietnam War, people were wondering if the 1960s anti-federalist counter-culture movement in America reflected a deteriorating structure in USA might.

Everyone likes a good contest. When American grand chess-master Bobby Fischer defeated Soviet rival Boris Spassky, everyone took notice. In the days of Britain and Camelot and King Arthur, people were moved by the rivalry between Mordred (the daredevil who defied Camelot) and Lancelot (Arthur's first knight who could challenge Mordred).

How do Hollywood (USA) movies such as "WarGames" (1983) reveal a modern age focus on 'American initiative?'







WarGames

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country. Talking about "war", as if it was some kind of "team sport".

 

[there4eyeM]

If by 'good at war', one means proficient militarily, then the Wehmacht would have to be rated as the 'best' in modern times. Leadership may have been a problem, but in the field it was awesome. They had the highest casualty-infliction rates against foes (read in histories of WWII, but time not taken for 'links'; d.i.y.).

Napoleon was amazingly 'good' at war, excelling in tactics, failing in strategy.

By that measure, the US has rarely been 'good at war'. Rather ham-handedly successful on occasion. Highly effective in the Mexican War (but the enemy general was so poor that it hardly counts), disastrously wasteful in the Civil War.

WWII was a story of masses of weapons and masses of fair to good soldiers combined with a competent leadership (not inspired) and plenty of freedom of projection of power.

Of course, Korea and Vietnam (not declared wars) were totally mishandled. Iraq was mere force against an almost defenseless opposition. The outcome was never in doubt. Losing would have required tremendous effort.

Arguably, the US has never been 'good at war'. It's just as well. The American people have usually been opposed to war anyway (rightly so).

 

[Liminal]

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.

I suppose that would be the logical conclusion for people who don't actually know anything about military operations, or geopolitics, or history, or....

 

[dadsgm]

We started to be bad at war when we started to reduce the force, cut spending on equipment, R&D, resupply, and increased deployment. That all came about starting with Bush, Clinton and continuing today. We do not have any warriors in Congress with the guts to yell enough is enough. They continue to cut but still increase the deployment of individuals and units. The Pentagon has no strategy for fighting in this current type of war; we have too many people who raise hell when ever a civilian is killed/wounded and cities decimated. I do not like the collateral damage but war is war and is fought to seek out and kill the enemy wherever he may be. Under Obama we have become what China once referred to the US as - A paper tiger- and we will continue to be so until a warrior emerges.

 

[there4eyeM]

Perhaps if Congress had the courage to declare war instead of *****-foot. But, since they don't have conviction or courage for anything else, we can't expect much.
And if it isn't a declared war, perhaps the US should not be involved.

 

[longknife]

I don't think the USA has EVER been that good at war! As long as we've had civilians in charge, the military has restraints which make it almost impossible to ever win.

Think about it.

The Revolution - Washington faced a congress the refused to come up with the money to feed and clothe his soldiers. We won - because of the stupidity and arrogance of the British.

The Civil War - The Confederacy had some of the greatest generals of all time yet lacked the resources to feed, clothe, arm, and generally support its military on land and sea.

WWI - Allied forced got stuck in the trenches forever because the civilian leadership continued to let ineffective and inept generals run things. Patton could have ended things quickly without the restraints placed upon him by the president and Congress. And then, when the war was "won" the civilians came up with the dumbest of demands upon the defeated.

WWII- even though FDR did everything he could to get around Congress to support the French and British, is was only because of the Japanese attack - provoked by Congressional embargoes - that we got involved. And then, when we again had the war in Europe won - our civilians screwed us with the way they divided the spoils - giving us the Cold War.

I could go on and on but, every time politics stepped in, the professionals had to fight to do what they were trained to do.

Now - we have civilians in charge who hate the military and are doing everything possible to gut it of true professionals.

 

[germanguy]

I can not see why the US has ever been "bad at war". If this threat is only about shedding tears over the "good old time", then it is senseless.
The last war the US won was WWII and this IMHO, because it was against an enemy who had similar ideas about how wars are fought.

In general western armies tend to fight wars along the ideas of von Clausewitz, but not every military power in the world shares these ideas.

In Vietnam the war was lsot, because the VC fought guerilla war and therefore only had not to lose.
Same in Iraq. It took some days to flatten the regular army, but it was impossible to suppress some thousand people armed with light weapons.

So, as a USN Carrier Group is an impressive show of military force, it does not impress any figther with an IED behind a bush.

The solution: I have none, but it impresses me all the time, how easy some hundred irregulars keep tens of thousands heavily armed high tech soldiers with unimaginable firepower at bay.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[quorthon]

The American people have usually been opposed to war anyway (rightly so).

People have never turned thumbs up on war, people always need peace. Not only American people.

 

[longknife]

I've been thinking a lot about this thread and think the question is wrong. The USA is not BAD at war - it's bad at establishing the peace afterward!

Think about it. How many years have we had troops in Europe and Asia after WWII?

We were never able to create a true "peace" in Korea.

We won every battle in Vietnam and turned it over to end up as if we'd never been there.

We get engaged. We beat the poop our of our adversaries. And our politicians and diplomats screw up the peace process.

 

[Autodidact_33]

Historically, when a nation or an alliance of nations committed itself and its people to the cause of war, more often then not the hostilities often did not last for a reasonably significant period of time. Though wars such as the Hundred Years War lasted for decades; many wars seemed to be fought and won with the time to claim victory in such conflicts measured in years and not decades. War is a waste of men, material and resources; due to the nature of war since it inherently means the death of men and women it seems that those who may be of a ethical persuasion may only support war when unavoidable and would want such conflicts to be short in duration. No one who actually participates in the actual war; yet sometimes those who sit on the sidelines and will never be anywhere near where these wars take place and profit from conflict both in terms of finance and political power. For most war is not in their interest, that is why moral people usually only support war if it is forced on them; but for some war means either vast amounts of profit or the ability to gain political power. Some financial concerns who produce the weaponry of human slaughter accumulate untold wealth during such conflicts, and it seems if this is true then the longer the hostilities continue the more profit such institutions amount; making wealth from the death of men and women. Should not those who see the value in human life want war to be as brief as possible; though it seems in the War on Terror there is no time table as to when conflict will subside. During World War 2 the Allies where able to claim victory in less then ten years, Axis composed of an alliance of three industrial nations; yet to win a war on poorly equipped insurgents and criminal organizations which use a strategy of senseless attacks on civilians which realistically do not compose a significant number of people, a Coalition of the World's most powerful nations as of yet not achieved one decisive victory. In most wars, one can easily identify what assets your opponent needs to project military aggression thus after destroyed will be unable to fight; yet in the War on Terror there is no clear infrastructure which is necessary to continue to wage conflict; in such a war all the West's opponents here need is to inspire men to carry on its destructive cause; perhaps in such a war victory can never be achieved since there will always be those inspired to fight continually or attack people senseless; if this war became indefinite then certain institutions will accumulate vast wealth. Does not profiting from destruction and human death seem to be inherently immoral. Perhaps War is something to be avoided at all costs and when forced on a people, made to be kept as brief as possible.

 

[HenryBHough]

I have never been able to figure out why there are "rules for war".

Wars are for winning. By any means available.

Wars properly done are "winner take all". Leave not a blade of grass, let along a single person, standing.

If it's tried to do it any other way it only ensures another war in the fullness of time.

 

[Teddy Pollins]

War is a part of our culture. We earn money and make politics by war. We are spending for military so much that there is no sense not to wage a war. Who care about losses? Who cares about blood and destruction? War is a mean for living and surviving.

 

[longknife]

So-called "rules of war" were nothing more than agreements between countries or rulers to try and put some form of civility into effect. Basically to protect innocent civilians.

In reality, they were and are a farce and have never been worth spit.

 

[shadow355]

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.

To paraphrase George C Scott in the movie "Patton" - "The Politicians never let us finish".

George Bush would not let US Forces go in and get Saddam when Schwarzkopf wanted to.

The Invasion of Iraq needed more troops as per General Shinseki's advice, but Shinseki became a civilian soon after giving that advice.

Politicians need to listen and heed those in the loop, those Commanders on the ground, and those whom know. THOSE WHOM have experience. Politicians don't listen. They need to heed the education and talent of the leaders..........those on the ground that are experienced.

We gain ground in the current conflict - only to have ISIS take it back over after we leave. What was the benefit in that.

The United States has the manpower and equipment to win a conflict.....or war. But the politicians need to heed the advice ( manpower and strategy ) of battlefield leaders. No sense in going to the front lines, if you will not be successful. No sense on going to the front lines.......if a military does not have what they need.

"Balls to the wall" as is said. Begin the conflict and finish it in the shortest time possible. This save time, money, effort, and ensures the troops that all was done correctly. Prolonging any conflict or war looks political and decreases the confidence that the troops has with military and political leaders, as well as dampens morale.

You can't trade punches.....YOU HAVE TO strike fast and strike hard. Win early. Some people do not want to.....or more importantly.....they do not know how. In some countries......war is a money maker. The longer the war is prolonged, the more money ( Food - Munitions - Weapons - Fuel - Equipment ) that is made, so ending a war or conflict early......undermines income and other benefits. In order to help maintaining an income......under the table payoffs are made, nice gifts come Christmas time......and/or political favors. War is still.....in some circles.....the greatest business. Prolonging a war or conflict means that more body bags get filled, more wear and tear on equipment, more expense for supplies and logistics.

I come to work and I get told we are upgrading this and upgrading that, that we are going to do this to make our jobs easier and we are going to make these changes to simplify everything. It never happens - so at work in my department we are continuously and routinely getting manipulated and lied to. No confidence in part of our leadership. It was the same way when I was in the Gulf - the same manipulating and false information.......so we tuned into the BBC to get the real scoop on the conflict. The BBC in my observations.....was never wrong, especially when it came to the highway of death. The AFRN ( Armed Forces Radio Network ) was less accurate and informing......the BBC was spot on every time.


Shadow 355

 

[Picaro]

I don't think the USA has EVER been that good at war! As long as we've had civilians in charge, the military has restraints which make it almost impossible to ever win.

Think about it.

The Revolution - Washington faced a congress the refused to come up with the money to feed and clothe his soldiers. We won - because of the stupidity and arrogance of the British.

The Civil War - The Confederacy had some of the greatest generals of all time yet lacked the resources to feed, clothe, arm, and generally support its military on land and sea.

WWI - Allied forced got stuck in the trenches forever because the civilian leadership continued to let ineffective and inept generals run things. Patton could have ended things quickly without the restraints placed upon him by the president and Congress. And then, when the war was "won" the civilians came up with the dumbest of demands upon the defeated.

WWII- even though FDR did everything he could to get around Congress to support the French and British, is was only because of the Japanese attack - provoked by Congressional embargoes - that we got involved. And then, when we again had the war in Europe won - our civilians screwed us with the way they divided the spoils - giving us the Cold War.

I could go on and on but, every time politics stepped in, the professionals had to fight to do what they were trained to do.

Now - we have civilians in charge who hate the military and are doing everything possible to gut it of true professionals.

Well, the COC is a civilian, the President, and if we're so bad at war how is it that we're still here, and not only still here, we're pretty much dominant? If people believe the press, a bunch of basically ignorant hacks, we should have been overrun and conquered by now. We're dealing with the fallout of a post-colonial world, and keeping trade routes across the globe open. I would hardly call that 'bad'; I would call it successful. Europe and Japan got to rebuild in peace, the two largest economies besides our own for decades, and of course China would still be having to deal with famines if it weren't for our opening up trade, at our expense no less. If you want to see a bunch of failed states and another major war, just get the U.S. back into an isolationist mindset and watch the world go up in flames yet again, and have to do what we did in WW II all over again, i.e. learn absolutely nothing from history.

 

[longly]

Don’t get excited people am I just doing some objective thinking here:

I have a hypothetical question related to our ability to wage war. I don’t have the time for a long explanation, so don’t hesitate to ask for explanation: What would happen if the Puten decided to cross the Bering straits in the dead of winter and seize a portion of Western Alaska. Could we deal with the incurring with anything less than battle field nukes? I don’t think so even though we have the best army in the world; it is not big enough to handle a major war. I believe the Russian would defeat us in a total war if we did not use nukes. We out number them about 2 to 1 or better, but they have a much tougher and stronger people and a leader that is smart, tough and ruthless. I know that sounds pessimistic, but look on the bright side they are honkeys so our children could learn Russian and assimilate, they are Christian so we would not have not have to change our religion and they are not Communist any more so perhaps we would have some freedom.

And yes I know that we have superior weapons, but so did the Nazi but their superior weapons didn’t save them.

 

[Picaro]

Don’t get excited people am I just doing some objective thinking here:

I have a hypothetical question related to our ability to wage war. I don’t have the time for a long explanation, so don’t hesitate to ask for explanation: What would happen if the Puten decided to cross the Bering straits in the dead of winter and seize a portion of Western Alaska. Could we deal with the incurring with anything less than battle field nukes? I don’t think so even though we have the best army in the world; it is not big enough to handle a major war. I believe the Russian would defeat us in a total war if we did not use nukes. We out number them about 2 to 1 or better, but they have a much tougher and stronger people and a leader that is smart, tough and ruthless. I know that sounds pessimistic, but look on the bright side they are honkeys so our children could learn Russian and assimilate, they are Christian so we would not have not have to change our religion and they are not Communist any more so perhaps we would have some freedom.

And yes I know that we have superior weapons, but so did the Nazi but their superior weapons didn’t save them.

What's objective about this?

People vastly overrate modern Russia's military and capabilities; many still grossly overrate their WW II 'achievements' as well. McCain was right about Russia; it really is just a gas station pretending to be a super power.