President John F. Kennedy meets with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara at the White House on Oct. 2, 1963. Abbie Rowe, National Park Service, in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum.
Harlan Ullman, Defense One: Why America Loses Every War It Starts
There’s no school for presidents, JFK said — but there needs to be a way to bring knowledge and understanding to bear on presidents’ decisions.
Most Americans believe that their military is the finest in the world, a belief well-founded by several measures. Yet if the U.S. military were a sports team, based on its record in war and when called upon to defend the nation since World War II, it would be ranked in the lowest divisions.
Consider history. The United States won the “big one”: the Cold War. But every time Americans were sent to wars that it started or into combat for reasons that lacked just cause, we lost or failed. Korea was at best a draw, ended not by a peace treaty but a “temporary” truce. Our record in subsequent conflicts was too often no better, and too often worse. Vietnam was an outright and ignominious defeat in which over 58,000 Americans died. George H.W. Bush’s administration deserves great credit in the first Iraq War and in handling the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the Afghanistan intervention begun in 2001 is still going with no end in sight. The Second Iraq War, launched in 2003, was rightly termed a fiasco. Even far smaller interventions — Beirut and Grenada in 1983, Libya in 2011 — failed.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The U.S. has won the wars that count.
5 comments:
Very respectfully all wars count. There is no such thing as a war that does not count.
In all wars people die, treasure is spent, and infrasteucture is lost. To suggest that some wars don't count, seems at best strategic short-sightedness. At worst, it seems callous.
As to whether or not most Americans believe our military is the best, generally no. In this case, the author of this article is out of touch with what most Americans believe.
When he analyzes the results, he is generally spot on. Our military is at best in the lower division. Given how depleted it is, how substandard the training is, the incompetence of the leadership, the aging and poorly maintained equipment, and the low morale he may even be a bit Pollyannish when he rates the US military at the lower division. It may even be worse. In fact, it seems unlikely that the world's top powers would take America seriously if not for the nuclear arsenal.
He does point out that Russia has no intention of attacking NATO. This was the case until US and 'Western" leaders went out of their way to provoke Russia in areas like Ukraine, Georgia, and a number of other areas. Additional "fuel has been thrown on the fire" by perpetuation of the myth of Russian interference in our presidential election. In the face of such provocations, Russian intentions may have changed. I would be interested to know what diplomatic strategies the author of this article would employ to diffuse this situation.
Also, he takes shots at POTUS yet no examples are cited. If we are going to critique, generally examples would need to be cited as to specific policy failures.
Truth be told America lacked the high command and the elite combat troops, they only succeeded in WW2 by throwing its unlimited and untouched industrial production and manpower at an already defeated Germany. Fact is America was just the reservists of WW2, untrained undisciplined but rich in supplies and intel. They lost every following war for the simple reason that the people who could of won it for them didn't want an unchallenged America.
Lol bposter is in full Russia propaganda mode again haha it's so cute.
Wars and why they were won or lost
Cold war: the US didn't actively win it. The Russians lost by going broke. This wasn't an intended outcome or a strategy by the US.
WW2: the World together defeated the Nazis. Everyone wants to take credit, but reality is it took Russia, the US, England, several other countries and even Germans helping those countries from within and outside of Germany. Ww2 Germany was so ruthless and advanced, much of the US's missile and space program was entirely run by Germans in the end. Sure, they became American citizens, but von Braun and the others in the Manhattan project largely stemmed from Germany. Just look at the former directors at NASA...you'll see many, many Germans. The bomb, combined with America's resources and financial model then allowed the US to become the first super power, Russia was second and they had great scientists too - but they had the wrong economical system.
Vietnam: it's inherently difficult to win against a determined enemy - especially if your own team doesn't believe in the war. This was very much true during Vietnam with the US almost splitting in half. On top, they underestimated the ingenuity and resilience of Vietnamese people. They bombed a bridge in the morning only by Vietnamese to rebuild it over night with make shift equipment. They bombed entire supply roads from Cambodia to Vietnam..took out all the trucks. ..the Vietnamese just used bikes. You cannot underrate the importance of resilience.
Japan: I think America would have lost tbh if it were not for the bomb and Americans determination/ruthlessness to drop them. Yes they won every major battle and yes they managed to push Japan back to its homeland, but knowing Japanese they would have dragged this out for years and years, at which point it would have depleted American funds and willingness to fight. As it was connected to ww2 and pearl harbour, however, people in the US were passionate and they felt they were attacked first by Japan, which put them on moral high ground and increased their determination and resilience.
That's why I think resilience, determination, home advantage are some of the most important factors. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, it is always about that...and if you're people are not determined to win, any coach, business manager or politician will have difficulties achieving victory.
Anonymous,
There is nothing inherently false in what I have posted here. The notions of poor training, poor equipment maintenance, poor leadership, and the depleted hollowed out nature of the US military are well documented. As such, to point these things out cannot accurately be considered Russian propaganda. In fact, the opposite is the case. To point these things out are acts of patriotism and love for America in wanting the best interests of our citizens to be represented rather than have them killed and maimed in fruitless military operations around the world that not only do not advance our interests but actually undermine them.
Perhaps pointing out that NATO has been expanded needlessly to Russia's borders could conceivably be construed as a pro-Russian position. I very respectfully disagree and such should become apparent when reading my posts here in their entirety and examining the context. There was/is no upside in expanding NATO to Russia's borders coupled with huge downside risks. Furthermore the Russians believe we had an agreement that this would not be done. I think a mistake was made in not getting this in writing. Of course the Reagan Administration needed to save face after the heated rhetoric and neither side believed future American leadership/Western leadership would actually be crazy enough to actually do this. As such, nothing was put in writing. In the face of continued provocations, it would not be reasonable to expect Russia to respond forcefully at some point.
As the author of the piece linked to by the editor points out, Russia has no intention of invading NATO. This was true but may not be now. Unfortunately the author offered no credible diplomatic approach to resolve these issues. To point these acts out is not an act of spreading Russian propaganda but is an effort by a concerned American to approach these issues in a sober minded and sensible way to try and resolve them in such a way that advances American security and economic interests.
In accusing me of spreading Russian propaganda, you either deliberately misrepresent me or you have not read my posts in their entirety. There is nothing at all "cute" about any of this. To suggest such indicates a non serious mind at work.
Post a Comment