Why the USA Keeps Losing Wars.

[longknife]

A very good article dissecting Gates' book where he really makes that point – something missed by the media to date. And yes, it DOES come from Canada Free Press, which does NOT mean anti-American or anything similar. In fact, the author is an American living in New Jersey. For those who can set their prejudice aside, read the commentary @ Why the U.S. Has Been Losing Wars

 

[TemplarKormac]

We shouldn't always be fighting them either.

 

[healthmyths]

A very good article dissecting Gates' book where he really makes that point – something missed by the media to date. And yes, it DOES come from Canada Free Press, which does NOT mean anti-American or anything similar. In fact, the author is an American living in New Jersey. For those who can set their prejudice aside, read the commentary @ Why the U.S. Has Been Losing Wars

It is very hard to battle the enemy when your OWN politicians make statements like these that even if taken out of context are still used to encourage the killing of US troops.
And there are academic studies that prove these types of comments are a tremendous benefit to the enemy.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

and when these statements are made most normal intelligent people would say..."geez doesn't this just help the terrorists in killing more troops"?
FACT:LOOK at this Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So when Reid, et.al. made statements that were NEGATIVE about our military... you don't think the terrorists USED that crap??
It is obvious these US politicians were either extremely STUPID in not realizing their comments would be adaily encourage the terrorists to put bombs on kids that blew up when US troops handed out candy OR WORSE...i.e. they KNEW these comments would help the enemy kill more US troops!

Either way... total ignorance or traitors... NOT one valid rational statement can justify these statements!
YOU don't help the bad guys by bad mouthing your own troops!

 

[Mojo2]

A very good article dissecting Gates' book where he really makes that point – something missed by the media to date. And yes, it DOES come from Canada Free Press, which does NOT mean anti-American or anything similar. In fact, the author is an American living in New Jersey. For those who can set their prejudice aside, read the commentary @ Why the U.S. Has Been Losing Wars

I wonder how many Americans are still laboring under the outdated belief that Canada had been taken over by radical Islam from the shit they allowed to happen to Mark Steyn.

 

[Sallow]

A very good article dissecting Gates' book where he really makes that point – something missed by the media to date. And yes, it DOES come from Canada Free Press, which does NOT mean anti-American or anything similar. In fact, the author is an American living in New Jersey. For those who can set their prejudice aside, read the commentary @ Why the U.S. Has Been Losing Wars

It makes some fairly good points but would have been a better article if it wasn't so biased.

 

[healthmyths]

"Throughout the two years of the Obama administration there were no formal budgets and, as a result, “The world’s largest and most complex organization was being funded hand to mouth, living paycheck to paycheck to paycheck.”

Incompetence starting at the top. Obama not once in his prior career ever HAD to meet a budget and suffer the consequences!
Hence budgets smudgets.... don't mean a thing to Obama!

 

[Dante]

"an American living in New Jersey" cannot be anti-American?

A very good article dissecting Gates' book where he really makes that point – something missed by the media to date. And yes, it DOES come from Canada Free Press, which does NOT mean anti-American or anything similar. In fact, the author is an American living in New Jersey. For those who can set their prejudice aside, read the commentary @ Why the U.S. Has Been Losing Wars

"an American living in New Jersey" cannot be anti-American? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/60714/AlanCaruba/5

 

[Freewill]

What exact war have we lost?

We didn't lose in Iraq all objectives were met and we negotiated the withdrawal we were not forced out as the article states.

Which leaves Afghanistan. We won that war we ain't doing very well with the aftermath and should have left long ago. Personally I would have voted no for both wars.

That said, I will agree on two wars we have clearly lost, the war on drugs and the war on poverty.

 

[1776]

We don't lose the war, we lose focus and end up playing neighborhood babysitter for the locals too long. Afghanistan is a prime example. The Taliban lost the war, they just do random terrorist acts to "look relevant."

We should pull out our training force and only leave a killing force there with a smaller footprint and less cost. The objective is not to train goat herders who are really thieves, the objective is the kill terrorists.

 

[Unkotare]

A very good article dissecting Gates' book where he really makes that point – something missed by the media to date. And yes, it DOES come from Canada Free Press, which does NOT mean anti-American or anything similar. In fact, the author is an American living in New Jersey. For those who can set their prejudice aside, read the commentary @ Why the U.S. Has Been Losing Wars

Which ones have we been "losing"?

 

[HenryBHough]

The last president of any party who understood that wars are for winning was Harry S Truman. Nominally a Democrat but today's party would label him a right-wing extremist and try him for war crimes.

Think about it - if Truman had not nuked Japan when it needed nuking then hundreds of thousands more Americans would have died in a land battle. With any luck most of those would have been people who went on to sire today's liberals so maybe Truman fucked up after all.

 

[ScienceRocks]

War isn't about making population of the otherside like you. Quite the opposite as they must fear and respect you much like Japan and Germany did after wwII. This is the only way to win.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A very good article dissecting Gates' book where he really makes that point – something missed by the media to date. And yes, it DOES come from Canada Free Press, which does NOT mean anti-American or anything similar. In fact, the author is an American living in New Jersey. For those who can set their prejudice aside, read the commentary @ Why the U.S. Has Been Losing Wars

At a guess I'd say it's because every war nowadays is being covered by the Press. To win a war decisively you must go all-out. Doing that on-air would have cries of greatly outclassing our opponents and basicly slaughtering them. So we pull our punches and try to make wars seem evenly matched for the benefit of the tv audience. Result's we lose against opponents we greatly outclass.

Another reason's most wars now are waged at the behest of non-governmental corporate entities who're providing all the materials used in a war. And not for free, Thus war is business, and the longer it goes on, the more money's being made (and then donated to weak politicians who go on to support future wars.)

 

[Freewill]

The last president of any party who understood that wars are for winning was Harry S Truman. Nominally a Democrat but today's party would label him a right-wing extremist and try him for war crimes.

Think about it - if Truman had not nuked Japan when it needed nuking then hundreds of thousands more Americans would have died in a land battle. With any luck most of those would have been people who went on to sire today's liberals so maybe Truman fucked up after all.

I am not judging anything that was done back then but I think dropping the nukes on Japan was like kicking a boxer in the privates after they were going down for the count. We killed more with the fire bombing to Tokyo. I think we did it more to see what would happen then it needed to be done. Yes, we can conjecture that the without dropping the bombs the Japanese would have held out longer but they were pretty much finish by that time, again just my opinion.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The only way to win a war is to go in to win it. That means innocent people are going to die and you can't care. If you aren't willing to accept that then don't engage in the first place because these politically correct wars only endanger our own soldiers and get them killed.

 

[HenryBHough]

The only way to win a war is to go in to win it. That means innocent people are going to die and you can't care. If you aren't willing to accept that then don't engage in the first place because these politically correct wars only endanger our own soldiers and get them killed.

Which, I must admit, has helped Obozo keep the unemployment figgers from being even worse......

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The last president of any party who understood that wars are for winning was Harry S Truman. Nominally a Democrat but today's party would label him a right-wing extremist and try him for war crimes.

Think about it - if Truman had not nuked Japan when it needed nuking then hundreds of thousands more Americans would have died in a land battle. With any luck most of those would have been people who went on to sire today's liberals so maybe Truman fucked up after all.

I am not judging anything that was done back then but I think dropping the nukes on Japan was like kicking a boxer in the privates after they were going down for the count. We killed more with the fire bombing to Tokyo. I think we did it more to see what would happen then it needed to be done. Yes, we can conjecture that the without dropping the bombs the Japanese would have held out longer but they were pretty much finish by that time, again just my opinion.

Anywhere we dropped the nuke would have ended the war. Our enemies now knew we could wipe out entire cities in a matter of seconds.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We shouldn't always be fighting them either.

Just so.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The last president of any party who understood that wars are for winning was Harry S Truman. Nominally a Democrat but today's party would label him a right-wing extremist and try him for war crimes.

Think about it - if Truman had not nuked Japan when it needed nuking then hundreds of thousands more Americans would have died in a land battle. With any luck most of those would have been people who went on to sire today's liberals so maybe Truman fucked up after all.

I am not judging anything that was done back then but I think dropping the nukes on Japan was like kicking a boxer in the privates after they were going down for the count. We killed more with the fire bombing to Tokyo. I think we did it more to see what would happen then it needed to be done. Yes, we can conjecture that the without dropping the bombs the Japanese would have held out longer but they were pretty much finish by that time, again just my opinion.

After spending as much as we did to develop the atom bomb, not then using it would have resulted in many people loosing their political heads. Japan was already defeated and trying to find a way to surrender with some dignity. Using the bombs wasn't necessary but expediant.

After WW2, most wars were proxy conflicts between the US and forces aligned with us, versus the USSR and forces aligned with them. We didn't go all-out in Korea or Vietname using nuclear weapons because then the USSR was responded in kind on their allies' side. And that'd likely have resulted in a more direct US vs USSR nuclear exchange. And since Vietnam the proxy war thing has continued as we align with friendly governments waging limited wars on their side against whoever's supporting them. But neither 'parent-state' can afford to fight such conflicts ine arnest without bringing in the opposing parent in a more direct and overt way.

US and USSR knew all along any direct conflict between our countries would become nuclear and then no one'd win. So instead of wars being decisive slaughters one way or the other, they're half-assed lest the other side's backer gets more involved.

 

[Mojo2]

A very good article dissecting Gates' book where he really makes that point – something missed by the media to date. And yes, it DOES come from Canada Free Press, which does NOT mean anti-American or anything similar. In fact, the author is an American living in New Jersey. For those who can set their prejudice aside, read the commentary @ Why the U.S. Has Been Losing Wars

Progressives and Liberals and Leftists.

Oh my!

No, really.

A decent case can be made laying blame for our wars on our more fuzzy brained citizens.