For sheer stupidity and naivete I assume the overconfidence of trying to occupy a fair-sized country halfway around the world without making a serious commitment of military resources to secure law and order from the outset takes the cake, but I'm not a student of history so....
Please limit nominees to examples of specific, more-or-less single decisions where "they should have known better, obviously", i.e. any basic considerations of probable outcomes/problems seems to have been missing...no minor battlefield decisions or long-term strategic mistakes please...to give an example or two of what I have in mind, the Vietnam War isn't a good choice since a reasonable person might have underestimated Vietcong resilience and superiority in a jungle environment; Hitler opening a second front with the USSR might be closer to outright stupid. And sorry Bushlovers but Iraq is obviously a contender.
2007-04-22 13:52:43 · 12 answers · asked by Steven F 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Probably Bill's intrusion into Bosnia to save the Peace loving Muslims!! boldtruth you are so right..he should have been tried for treason
2007-04-22 13:56:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Napoleon's invasion of Russia, 1812.
The Russians were allies of the French at the time; the Russians, having been trashed repeatedly fighting Napoleon in years prior, had no aggressive intentions. The only reason France invaded was because Russia left a mindless French-imposed economic pact, not because Russia was an imminent security threat.
And then Napoleon compounded this by taking a force FAR too large to be supplied out in the field, or to move rapidly enough on Moscow before winter set in.
Hitler's invasion of Russia is more or less an equivalent blunder, but it can be argued that an eventual showdown between Fascism and Communism was imminent. For sheer "What the hell did you do that for?" factor, Napoleon takes honors. That invasion of Russia led directly to the fall of his Empire.
2007-04-22 14:16:59 · answer #2 · answered by Nat 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The weak attack on Pearl Harbor. After several days of attacks, the damage to Pearl Harbor was 10% according to the U.S. military assesment. That ment that 90% of Pearl Harbor was fully operational after the attack and was the reason why Pearl Harbor was 100% operational in 3 months. All that firepower and the best Japanese minds never even bothered attacking the Island's venerable oil reserves.
Russia selling Alaska to the U.S. Not only would they have even more oil and gold, but as the Soviet Union, they would have the ability to have a major foot hold in the North American and the resources right there to launch a war in the Americas. Sure nobody had vehicals when Alaska was sold, but it was still a major area for future resources which the U.S. bought with that in mind.
2007-04-22 14:47:26 · answer #3 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Probably Saddam Hussein's decision to ignore united nations security council resolutions and play games with the inspectors trying to confirm the status of his weapons of mass destruction. Also the attempted assassination of a former president of the united states and prime minister of great Brittan. Maybe attacking Israel during the first gulf war although they were a non-combative third party. Also a nod to France, China and Russia for sabotaging the process for monetary gain. At least the Russians were straight forward enough to fly commercial aircraft into Baghdad airport in plain sight of everyone. The world is not a simple question of how did the us screw it up or do you think Iran is blameless for the conditions in Iraq?
2007-04-22 14:06:41 · answer #4 · answered by claymore 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Nazi Germany's ending attacks on RAF during Battle of Britian allowing them to rebuild and ending Hitlers hopes to control the British Isle days before the RAF would have been unable to defend the small island country.
2007-04-22 14:02:18 · answer #5 · answered by Athrun Z 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
When Poland decided to sign the treaty with Germany. I'm sorry, but how could they have thought that after they were awarded German provinces after WWI that Germany was just going to let bygones be bygones. It's like stealing some guy's girl and going out with him for beers the next night and asking "But we're cool right?"
2007-04-23 08:11:02 · answer #6 · answered by Fal 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Egypt's Nasser closing off the suez canal igniting the 6 day war where All the Arab nations lost to tiny Israel.
2007-04-22 14:10:24 · answer #7 · answered by joe z 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The EERAK sitiation is the worst ever. The Panama canal? No. It's being rebuilt for larger ships. Can you imagine the US undertaking that again? We can't even rebuild a city right here on our own coast....
2007-04-22 14:10:17 · answer #8 · answered by conx-the-dots 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simple...... the United States joining the United Nations council
2007-04-23 02:40:09 · answer #9 · answered by Soli 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I ASSUME that by Foriegn Policy you mean non military and American Foriegn Policy. That said........
The winner is.......
Funding the Wahabis to educate, train and arm islamic militants to fight the godless communist in Afghanistan.
The birth of Al Quieda, the Taliban and most Islamic Militants.
2007-04-22 14:18:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋