First don’t get me wrong I admire the US military and have actually defended it on other forums, I am talking here of high level strategic leadership.
The reason I started this thread, is that I like rigorous debate. now that may be troll like to some, but i think not. debate is good even if it gets heated.
I anticipated this reply, it gives me greater understanding of you Americans by reading your replies.
Now I don’t claim to be a perfect my any measure, another reason is to discuss this matter and in the process learn more on history and how it can be interpreted.
I may be wrong on some issues and my knowledge is further improved my reading different viewpoints.
I am pragmatic individual when it comes to knowledge, and if someone offers a better argument I will accept it.
Now back to your points, point one, the first point you made:
"And you point you so blindingly missed is that you can't fight them in the same ways. Not sure why you would want to discuss them in the same thread, that being the same case, or think that they involved the same types of strategies."
That is beside the issue, one could equally say the same from the insurgent point of view, because the Americans fight these days so unfairly( correct way to do it but there is no chivalry whatsoever in having technology so far superior that if they did engage Americans by similar conventional means, they would be destroyed from afar by GPS bombs dropped from 30,000 feet without the ability to hit back etc. etc.,).
Don’t get me wrong, I hate extreme Muslims and terrorists, I would wipe them out totally if I had my way. But the democracy of the US would not allow me to do this. And that is the point I am making, the US leadership consistently engage in wars, forgetting this restriction.
The simple fact is that the American high level leadership should have known that this war was going to deteriorate into a insurgency war. They were short sighted and miscalculated (I knew and so did my father). An the point is still valid if you blunder into a insurgency war, it is still a war. High level leadership failed to appreciate the high probably of this, and due to the nature of American democracy how difficult it would be to fight such a war.
So they stuffed up in high level strategic and calculation as far as I am concerned, not only this they aggravated the war on terror , by attacking a country that held those Muslim fanatics in check and where the CIA stated themselves that the terrorist threat from Sadden was minimal, plus on a geopolitical level they have damaged American alliance and respect throughout the world. And it in the end it status, if it losses, which according to the constrains of a US democracy, is highly probable.
So my point is still valid in my opinion ( and remember interpretation of war like with everything is subjective in nature, but very fact that US public is turning against the war and in my own country which has always be pro US ( bush is disliked and most Australians want out) seem to support by viewpoint. A general at the highest level should be aware of all the complexities of war, economic, political, cultural and scientific, because it is an holistic enterprise, narrow mitary only tunnel vision can lead to trouble, as shown by the German general staff actions WW1.
GEN. ODOM: IRAQ INVASION ‘GREATEST STRATEGIC DISASTER IN U.S. HISTORY’
By EVAN LEHMANN
The Lowell Sun
Oct. 4, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The invasion of Iraq was the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history," a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.
The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.
"The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history," said Odom, now a scholar with the Hudson Institute.
Homeward Bound, a bipartisan resolution with 60 House co-sponsors, including Lowell Rep. Marty Meehan, requests President Bush to announce plans for a draw-down by December, and begin withdrawing troops by October 2006.
The measure has not been voted on, nor has the House Republican leadership scheduled hearings. But supporters were encouraged yesterday, pointing to growing support among moderate conservatives and the public's rising dissatisfaction with the war.
Meehan, one of the first to propose a tiered exit strategy in January, when few of his Democratic colleagues dared wade into the controversial debate, pointed to "enormous progress."
YOU MENTIONED THE following
I don't think your sarcsasm serves you well here; you missed the larger point that Korea was a UNITED NATIONS OPERATION, not an extension of US foreign policy.
But it was still a war lead by American leadership, l Douglas MacArthur .and Truman were making the big decisions. Thus if there were failures in that war, they were still heavily influenced by American decision making. And it was an extension of policy because the US was heavily bent on inhibiting the growth of communism, the United Nations which were involved were American allies, utilized by the states to give legitimacy to their overall goal of repression of communism and it’s spread. Do you think that America would have devoted so many troops there and resources if it was not in it’s ( PERCEIVED) strategic interest to do so? There are many UN resolutions broken in Africa but the US does nothing like everyone else because it is seen as strategically insignificant .
So a rather naive statement I suggest. NEARLY ALL US MIlITARY ACTION WHETHER IT IS UNDER THE UN OR NOT IS AN EXTENSION OF US FOREIGN POLICY, FOR BETTER OR WORSE.
To say the communism would have collapsed anyway "is tenuous to say the least, there is no hard core empirical evidence to suggest" it. :) Neat turn of a phrase, huh?"
Oh but there is far more justification on inherent weakness of the USSR and its probable collapse than was your contention which is very questionable.
As this following article indicates.
"The army of the nation of Iraq was militarily defeated, and soundly, in 2003. There's nothing illusory about that. What followed will be a matter of controversy.
An illusion, if you are making a big thing out of it, they chose not to fight with you tech superiority you would have won easily, but hardly do to brilliance of personnel just due to tech superiority.
According to some Franks stuffed up as pointed out below. A good general should be prepared for counterinsurgency WAR, and if the following information is correct, he was not, in fact he probably aided it’s development."
" Because if its simply a means to have us bow down to your expert knowledge of all things mortal and beyond, you'll have to demonstrate some"
I will have to say the same about you.
All wars are unique, I would be the first to agree with you on this matter, it is still valid to appraise a countries general military and geopolitical competence by examining how it has fared in a number of wars. Because there are some similarities between the errors made in Vietnam and Iraq, in my opinion. And while WW2 and Korea are different , they still share the basic fundamentals which you can make comparisons on. It is like AI in a computer game, true all games are different, navy games differ from air strategy games. But there are basic fundamentals you can compare the AI on, is it aggressive, is it flexible, does it adapt to the player etc,etc, and finally is it challengingly
I thing the statement is very good
But the war AIM was to prevent the spread of communism throughout the region and this obviously failed with the invasions of Cambodia and Laos."
The ultimate aim of war policy is the strategic element your military efforts fail in this final determinate ,then, they should be considered a failure.
I am not disputing America’s tactical and operational competence, they are generally pretty good there, it is the grand strategic incompetence I am critiquing.
Here is part of post I put at a history sight showing I respect the US solder of WW2 AND WW1:
The American soldier (GENERAL TERM OFFICERS AND MEN, NAVY AIR FORCE ETC) consider to be superior to the Japanese, why?, because he was tactically superior, more innovative and most all far more flexible. He was able to learn from his mistakes and adapt quickly, far better than his Japanese counterpart.
The kill ratio that the Americans inflicted on the Japanese was very favorable. And this was not simply due to their overwhelming firepower advantage. It was also due to the superior skill and flexibility of the American soldier. Instead of attacking machine guns head on, they had the brains to use suppressing fire and outflank them from behind etc. The American soldier was quick to improvise, developing new tactics to handle the bocage country in France for instance.
The Japanese did not have this type of flexibility, imagination and adaptability and looking at their economy today, still don’t have. To give one telling example the Japanese had a viable submarine fleet, a fleet that could have been used to attack American naval logistical supply . Yet the Japanese stayed rigid with their doctrine that submarines were only to attack naval targets. They stayed with this policy even when the Germans and the Americans demonstrated to them the effectiveness of using submarines against merchants.
It is also demonstrated in their approach to war, while the Germans, British and Americans developed teams who devised better tactics to make their war effort more effective, such as the British scientific analysis on how to reduce U-boat sinkings by modifying convoys and their formations etc.
The Japaneses showed considerable lack of improvisation, sinking Japanese merchants was easy as infanticide, due to Japanese slack anti submarine measures. Kamikazes attacks could have been far more effective if the Japanese had the tactical sense to focus attacking one specific carrier, instead of diverting attacks to many targets.
Would Americans make similar fundamental tactical errors so late in the war. I think not. Because as Rommel said, I have never seen an allied soldier learn so much so quickly, the Americans are fast learners and improvise well. They organize and focus well. Something the Japs did not do.
Was Korea a draw or a victory, there are some who even argue that it was a defeat.
But it is generally seen as a draw, since MacArthur aims at least were initially far greater than keeping the status quo.
he American Revolution was un-winnable
Maybe the farmers at Lexington green should have weighed out their risk to profit ratio and cut a run"
The American revolution was not unwinnable, because you won it. Where Vietnam and Iraq are not do to the constraints of US democracy . You fail to see this
What a comparison, since that war was on home turff and had very great significance to America’s future, compared this type of situation to a very distant war where the strategic significance and threat to the US is highly questionable. The US of today is not the US of the 50’s, it has major fundamental problems at home that should be addressed, in war of choice where the threat factors are questionable, and where your countries has major financial problems of the future, social security for instance, it wise and prudent to do a cost benefit analysis, not to do so is stupid and amateurish.
Now that I have succeeded in alienating a number of individuals here I will leave. I love heated debate especially with decent controlled people, but have learnt from experience when arguing with an Christian fundamentalist you have to be very careful with some.
< Message edited by tomcat666 -- 9/2/2007 5:49:51 AM >