Why the USA Keeps Losing Wars.

[JakeStarkey]

Wars lost? Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We won the battles but lost the aftermath and peace. That Vietnam trades favorably with us today disturbs me no end. Iraq is continuing to cozy up with Iran. Afghanistan's politicians have played the US for fools since late 2002.

We were unable to force our "allied" native leadership to bring comfort and aid to their own people, but ended up stealing it.

Unless we are willing to make the on ground and boots-on-the-ground commitment as we did Korea with a allied leadership willing to not knife us in the back when convenient, we will continue to waste our lives and treasure for the enrichment of the corrupt leadership "on our side" in those lands.

 

[HenryBHough]

Afghanistan won't truly be over until Obama apologizes.

Now His "State of The Union" soap box might just be the opportunity for that so maybe it's worth watching - especially if you're AQ.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Because of media scrutiny today, future wars will be more covert. Not in the sense that no one knows they're going on, but in more subtle ways as with cyber warfare. The ultimate goal is WMD whose effects aren't as obvious and overt as nuclear ones. A mushroom cloud is pretty obvious, but there are weapons and weapons being researched that could result in the same devastation but much more discretely. A WMD no one knows is being used is the holy grail of weaponry. And better still, is a weapon that manipulates nature causing mass destruction but where Nature gets the blame instead of some nation's use of a weapons system. At a glance, setting off a volcano, or destabilizing a fault causing an earthquake come readily to mind. Do it against an undersea fault and you get a tsunami to boot. Earthquakes that don't follow the usual natural pattern of pre-quakes and occur out of nowhere always make me wonder if such a weapon already exists and is being tested or used. A more tried-and-true system of manipulating atmosphereic weather is already possible via cloud seeding. Cause it to rain or not rain and you can bring flood or drought and famine to an enemy's country. And on a larger scale the tin-foil hat people will love is what if climate change is deliberate and an attempt to make the middle eastern countries unihabitably hot? Could roll on in and seize oil fields unchallenged if everyone's dead or moved out. And if sea levels rise flooding coastal areas, since most of the world's population lives close to the sea, you could greatly reduce global population, most of whom aren't 1st world nations anyway. Why control populations not already under your control if wiping them out is even easier?

 

[deltex1]

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.

You have to command fear and respect BEFORE war...otherwise you have war. As I have said 1000 times...we are the most powerful nation on earth...but we are not feared because we have not had the will to USE our power...we fight as equals...how stupid.

 

[alan1]

Winners of wars never declare the end of a war. That is an historical fact.
The end of a war is decided by those that have lost. It comes at the point that the losing side either no longer has the means to wage war or the will to wage war.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Exactamundo... Sherman had it right... beat them into submission, at any cost... end it... everyone will be all the better for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

The British 'Won' in Ireland for 400 years. That kind of winning is pretty damned hard on everybody.

 

[Dante]

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.

Exactamundo... Sherman had it right... beat them into submission, at any cost... end it... everyone will be all the better for it.

except when we're there to force democracy on them.

 

[alan1]

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.

Exactamundo... Sherman had it right... beat them into submission, at any cost... end it... everyone will be all the better for it.

In war, the bottom line is to kill people and destroy things. If you want to win a war, that is exactly what you have to do. I know it is harsh, but that is how wars are won.
Had the US not dropped troops on the ground in Afghanistan, but instead, started dropping nukes, the war could have been over in a year, maybe less. And a lot fewer American lives lost or Americans maimed.

 

[Clementine]

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.

ITA.

There are solid rules we need to follow.

Don't go to war unless there is no other choice.

When you go, intend to kick butt and get the hell out as fast as possible.

Accept that collateral damage is inevitable, especially when radicals use civilians as human shields.

Remember, war is hell. Our military doesn't consist of a bunch of heartless war mongers. They hate war more than anyone because they put their lives on the line. Support them even if you disagree with the current president because they have no choice and deserve our support.

The press is irresponsible at times when covering things. During the first Gulf War, the press reported on things before they happened because they thought reporting our intentions on the air was acceptable. They didn't care about American lives when they did that. There was a lot of bias in reporting. I recall one report that showed what was supposedly a bombed out school. Only problem was that the only indication is was a school was a cardboard sign, written in English. Weeds had grown up through the debris and there was no smoke. The reporter had claimed it just happened, which was clearly a lie.

Liberals never agree with war and they tend to help drag things out by arguing over whether we should be there and whether we should send more troops or equipment. When we do engage, we need to send as many people as we need, not just a few because they will be helpless and unable to carry out the mission. We need to insure that no one talks to the media about our strategy because the enemies listen to CNN, too.

I hate it when things get dragged out for political reasons. Even when I disagree that we should even be involved, I still support the troops and still want them to do whatever they need to do in order to win and come home.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the US has lost a war, it is because we did not prosecute it with the full power of our nation.

If we do that, we cannot lose, as no nation has the potential to prosecute war as we do.

 

[deltex1]

I guess the libs agree with us.

 

[deltex1]

Gates also said this.....


http://o.dailycaller.com/all/2014-0...ting-next-war-weve-never-once-gotten-it-right



Maybe this is another indicator that our strength is not feared?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Winners of wars never declare the end of a war. That is an historical fact.
The end of a war is decided by those that have lost. It comes at the point that the losing side either no longer has the means to wage war or the will to wage war.

Makes sense. "Haha we win the war!" BANGBANGBANG "whoops!"

 

[Steven_R]

Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires for a reason. The ONLY way to have won in Afghanistan was to simply kill every man, woman, and child there and recolonize it. Our Hearts and Minds programs don't work. The Soviet's "Kill the important ones and the rest fall in line" policy didn't work. The British's "Let's make them just like England" program didn't work.

Neither Bush nor Obama cracked open a history book, so neither of them know how to deal with the Afghanis.

 

[blackhawk]

This quote says a lot about why the USA keeps losing wars and we do it far to often.

“It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it” — General Douglas MacArthur

 

[orogenicman]

There are no winners in war. Everyone loses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are no winners in war. Everyone loses.

How deep.

Deeply wrong, that is.

 

[1776]

War...liberals support it when they feel they can gain political points for it.

They were "for" Iraq and Afghanistan until public opinion went sour, then the liberal scum acted like they never supported the wars.

 

[alan1]

Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires for a reason. The ONLY way to have won in Afghanistan was to simply kill every man, woman, and child there and recolonize it. Our Hearts and Minds programs don't work. The Soviet's "Kill the important ones and the rest fall in line" policy didn't work. The British's "Let's make them just like England" program didn't work.

Neither Bush nor Obama cracked open a history book, so neither of them know how to deal with the Afghanis.

That's what happens when people with law degrees are CIC.