If america has such military strenght why cant we win a war?

Question

Notice i say we, im not being anti-patriotic, im just wondering is there some type of disconnect that allows for us to go into 3rd world countries with brute force and be defeated? not counting crap like granadia we havent won a war since 1945, thats longer then its taken cleveland to win a world series! (i am against war, but im still curious why we have so much trouble winning one)

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WINNING A WAR:
id say we won world war 2, along with the rest of the allies, but perhaps we dont fight wars like that any more. but i think vietnam and kosovo, and maybe iraq look like defeats

Answer 1

Because we don't actually fight, we try to stop everyone else from fighting. That will never work!

Oh, and the UN would not be happy with is if we did what it would take to actually win a war.

Answer 2

Because this war is different from any other war we have fought in. The enemy is not clearly marked. No uniforms. The enemy has no central bases for their operations. There is no front line. The enemy is free to operate within the civilian population. The enemy has no rules of engagement, and does not clearly target military personnel.
The one thing that I see as a familiarity between this war and the others that we have not clearly won is this simple fact.
Americans are not United with the troops, not United with the cause. Not behaving like The United States. WW's 1 & 2 had the entire country's support. Citizens got involved during those wars.
Vietnam civilians demonstrated against, We won the cold war, but probably would not have if The Soviet Union had not collapsed on itself. Grenada was more of a rescue operation than a war. Somolia was lost by Clinton. THe two wars going on now could go either way, depending on the civilian population here. If the people don't want to win, we will not win. If everybody got behind Bush in the next two years, we could probably have things done and all cleaned up. It's really up to us. I think Bush's statements that "we will stand down, when the Iraqis stand up" should have been stated, We will stand down when the Iraqi and American people stand up.
Have a nice day.

Answer 3

The USA has a huge army and is well able to win a conventional war, fought against an opposing army.

However, when faced with a situation like Iraq, where there is no enemy soldier wearing a uniform, they tend to have problems.

Is the man standing on the street corner hiding a gun under his clothes, or merely out shopping ?

Does the trashcan on the sidewalk contain a bomb, or only trash ?

This is the problem that the USA faces. After defeating an enemy army how do you tell a friend from a foe ?

This is why many US soldiers are dying - the army can't tell the difference and so the terrorists carry out an attack and then disappear into the crowd.

The British army faced a similar situation in Northern Ireland, and are much better than the US at working out friends from enemies, as well as taking effective counter measures.

Most British soldiers are flown in and out of bases, whilst their US counterparts drive in trucks, leaving them more vulnerable to roadside bombs.

If it was merely a matter of "numbers" then the USA could throw their entire military force into Iraq and crush their enemy easily.

Sadly, this is not the case, hence the limited numbers of US troops in the country.

Until some one comes up with an effective way of telling friend from enemy then military might alone will not win a war.

Answer 4

The short answer: Politics. For us to win the Iraq War, we would have to have a draft and put a lot more money into it than anyone is willing to do. We are doing a half-hearted war which we have hardly any chance to win. The only way Iraq will not turn into a civil war is if Iraqis themselves pressure the insurgents to stop. Our current troop level there has no control of the situation.

Also, when we go to other people's countries and try to tell them how to govern, that strums up their nationalism. They are fighting for what they believe in. They look at our army as invaders. (This was especially true in Vietnam.) Our soldiers are just there because they are in the army. The cause doesn't mean very much to them.

Answer 5

There are a few fundamental and major differences in wars of the past and todays war. During the Cold War era (with the exception of Vietnam) battlelines were clearly drawn and we fought uniformed soldiers of other standing armies. This is called symetrical battle.
What we are engaged in is asymetrical battle.... there is no defined front line and no uniformed force to fight. We are fighting a war on terrorism. Terrorist and insurgents don't generally get up at 5 am, ... put on a uniform that distinguishes them as being a terrorist, do physical fitness training then train for battle the rest of day. They aren't housed as a cohesive unit.
If you noticed when there was an Iraqi military... during the Gulf War and during OIF I... it didn't take us... the US Military .... very long at all to disassemble them.
Go to the nearest beach and look for one particular grain of sand.... it isn't impossible to find... it just takes time and effort. Here is some news for you... check it out... you'll find out its true.... we are slowing reducing the military ground strength in Iraq.... we are bringing soldiers home and not replacing them... except with Iraqi units.
I don't think that you or I will ever see the day when we can say that we have "won" the war on terrorist. But when you weigh the aprts against the sum.... we are winning.

Answer 6

America has only had three wars since World War: NAM, Gulf War One and Gulf War Two. The other wars you are talking about were just conflicts and met the objectives of the United States. Gulf War One was won without the loose of the American lives seen in previous wars largely due to the technology used by the American military. Unlike the leadership we have today in this country, Previous presidents studied the history of World War Two and decided not to make the reconstruction of rouge countries such as Iraq, Granada, and other 3rd world countries that practice human rights violations a burden on the American tax payers. F.D.R. was a great president who did a wonderful job of leading America to victory in World War II, he didn't create the war or the battle field that the war was fought on. I don't think this Gulf war is winnable due to like of objectives. (Meaning, Ben Laden is not in Iraq and never was.) Why are we there? The American military deserves better.

Answer 7

Our overseas enemies join forces with our enemies actually living in the U.S. (America-hating liberals and the mainstream media). They know there's no way to win fighting our troops, so they focus on influencing American public opinion. If they can convince the U.S. population the war is unwinable, then perception becomes reality.

Back in the 1940s, the U.S. media didn't leak national secrets during World War II, but they do it now. The opposition party didn't call our President a Nazi. They didn't say our troops were no better than the S.S. The mothers of soldiers killed in Germany didn't call the Nazis "freedom fighters" and demand multiple meetings with President Eizenhower. You didn't hear Presidential candidates accuse our fighting men of being "war criminals".

The liberal Democrats and the media seem to be doing their absolute BEST to help the terrorists. If the Democrats had instead of hating Bush, hated the terrorists, this war would have been over within the first year. But the more they oppose the President, the longer this war goes on

Answer 8

We won the war in about 4 days. Even though the warriors warned them this could happen, the politicians never made plans on the enemy just melting away with all their weapons. What we are losing is the occupation. Everyone in Iraq hates us except for the Kurdish people in the North. The reason for this is that they have their own well equiped army and there is no need for us to occupy their land. THe only "friends" that we really have, we get the old fashioned way: we pay them.

Winning the war was easy, everything else has gone terribly wrong

Answer 9

There is a difference between winning a war and totally destroying a country in the process. America and it's allies are walking a very fine line between trying to defeat terrorists without destroying the country in which they reside. There is an argument to be made that it might be more humane in the long-run to be more aggressive against the enemy...regardless of the short-term toll such aggression might take on innocent civilians...because we could subdue the enemy quicker and have less total civilian losses over time.

I wouldn't want to be the one making such a decision, and I can understand the hesitancy that the powers-that-be might have...especially in today's politically correct environment, but there is logic in the more aggressive approach.

Answer 10

For one, our soldiers cannot do a proper job. They have to look over there shoulders or question every action they take. This is thanks to our media grilling them for every death. There is death in wars, it's going to happen. Now, if your talking about Iraq, we defeated the Iraqi army within weeks. Now, if your talking about terrorism, that is a different story. We cannot win that war with bullets, battleships, and airplanes. It can only be won by winning over the people with the skewed idealogy. In other words, we must win their hearts. We are not liked in the world becuase everyone thinks we are aurgent...and rightfully so. Maybe if our own media did not focus on every aspect of the negatives in our life and started focusing on more the positives, it would help. Just watch the news during the day, they rarely report heart warming stories. The rest of the world see's us through TV. If you were a foreigner and only new America through TV, how would you view us?

Answer 11

Well technically your wrong.What about the first desert storm?
When Bush senior was the President.The US won that war.
And actually other areas of US army intervention was for peace full purposes and for maintaining law/order.As a world power the US has that obligation to lend a helping hand.And that's not wrong.
War depends on many factors,you simply cant over run an enemy with technologically advanced weaponry and hope to gain victory.
Take Vietnam for example.The US military shelled out all of its technology except nuclear power and they lost.
However the people of Vietnam did not care for their losses.If you look at it in terms of numbers,they lost far more men and women than the US.
So even in war their are different fields were victory can be achieved.Don't underestimate US military power.
But then again the US military underestimates their enemies all too often.