America Destroyed The Great Military Forces Of Japan & Germany. What Is Keeping Them From Winning Now?

Question

Roadside bombs (ieds), are the number one killer of American troops today. A sad number but minuscule in relation to WWII deaths.......What force is keeping the world`s most awesome military force in history from an expedient victory in Iraq ? All points of view welcome. Thanks !

Answer 1

the running of the war by politicians and media.
let our military leaders run the war and see how fast it ends

Answer 2

WWII was a total war. Bombing whole cities to rubble was a top priority by all sides. 42 million people died even though it was three countries against "the world." It's more or less a security vacuum in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no mass national unity. It's all tribal and tribes rule through force as much as diplomacy. That requires training whole nations on everything. It takes 13 years to get an American from grades K through 12 and then another 2-6 years of education after that to handle big jobs. That's where the U.S. stands. About 20,000 U.S. lumberjacks have died cutting wood since the fighting started. One third of the soldiers that were killed died from accidents that could have happened in the U.S. It's more about time and training that shooting people. Even in Afghanistan, it's about killing 2 or three at a time because there isn't that many Taliban (in December they bragged about having 10,000 and in April of this year the Taliban bragged they had 4,000 men so 6,000 had died or left during that period). In comparison there are about 100,000 gang member is Los Angeles,California.

Answer 3

The military was Not micro managed by Politicians and the Entertainment Industry that don't know which end is up. Mac Authur, Eisenhower and Patton, did what was best in the field. That's what's keeping them down and keeping Americans from winning. The media used to uplift the military efforts. Now they are the new propoganda machine and the New Tokyo Rose! They tell every move Americans are about to make, to boost their ratings. Our troops are worth way more than that. Our security and closing the borders should be #1.

Will someone please deport Jane Fonda, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and Rosie O'Donnell? Thank you. Flap u cap cap, flap u rap!

Answer 4

There is a big difference between defeating an army and dealing with an insurgency in what is essentially an occupied country. No occupying power, whether Germany occupying France, or Israel in the West Bank, or the US in Vietnam, has ever been able to prevent all acts of insurgency. The reason is that you cannot find your enemy because they are constantly springing up from the civilian population. And the more you fight them, the more new recruits you gain for the other side. So "winning" is more a matter of winning hearts and minds in the civilian population than defeating an enemy army. We aren't winning in Iraq because most Iraqis want us to leave, and elements in that society will continue to use guerrilla tactics against us until we leave. Another way of looking at Iraq is that we have assumed the role of police force keeping apart opposing forces in a civil war. So the only way you can win in that scenario is to take one side against the other, or stay there indefinitely to keep the warring parties apart from each other. Look at Korea. We are still there in force more than 50 years later.

Answer 5

Personally I believe that our military is not prepared for the police action that they are currently undertaking. Don't get me wrong I do not believe this to be the fault of the troops themselves, but rather the differences in fighting a traditional war as opposed to a guerrilla conflict.
For instance, remember how quick we took down Saddam's military infrastructure in the opening stages of the war? Through the use of our highly technological advantage, as well as our experience in these type of conflicts, we were able to render his entire military completely useless in a matter of days. In fact, if we were more aggressive at the time with less concern for collateral damage, we could have probably done this more quickly than we did.
In this respect our military is the most powerful in the world. When facing a clearly defined opponent and using traditional military tactics, we are unmatched.
The problem however comes after the military battle has been won. Instead of behaving like soldiers, our troops must now take on the mindset of a policeman, which is much different. A soldiers primary objective during combat is to kill, while a policeman must take many more things into consideration. Rather than responding with force, he must assess the situation different.
I personally do not believe that our troops are adequatly trained to do this, and thus we are doing them a disservice to expect them accomplish this phase of the war.
Ideally the best police action would be carried out by a multi-cultural force, like one comprised of UN soldiers. I think this would take the "American" face off the percieved "occupyers" and help ease at least some of the tension; to have fellow Muslim / Middle Eastern troops would also help the situation, in that the Iraqis would be able to relate to them more.
Another thing that goes even deeper than the current situation we are in is the entire concept of guerrila warfare, or resistance fighting. I cannot think of an instance in which a a modern day occupier has been able to complely overcome such tactics. For instance the US in Vietnam, and the USSR in Afganistan. This is because it goes against everything the military is built upon. You cannot stop there industrial or economic infrastructure because there usually isn't one, you cannot engage them in direct combat because they know it is futile, and many superior weapons (ie aircraft, tanks, bombs) are useless for fear of civilian injury.
The only way to win a guerrilla war is to win over the hearts of the people. Sorry if that sounds corny, but its true. For every civillian that is killed, there are two more recruits that will fight against us out of hatred. They also know that, like in Vietnam, if they inflict enough casualites on us, we will, out of public outcry and political pressure, eventually leave.
I personally pray for our troops, and believe that we can win the war, however it is a large task to go into another country with a completly different culture, and expect to transform them into a democracy. Democracy must be wanted, and even so it is still a long process to achieve (it took the US almost 150 years for all of its citizens to have complete rights)

Answer 6

How would you suggest we win? Nuke the people we are tying to liberate?

We WON against Saddam, remember? THAT was the EASY part.

This is the MARSHALL PLAN phase of the war. Only unlike Truman, GW and friends never made a plan for it.

They STILL don't have a plan other than to wait out his presidency and hand the whole pile of crap over the the next president.

Simple question -- How can a force of 145,000 adequately impose security upon a religiously divided nation of 25 million?

There were NO -- I repeat -- NO ethnic divisions in Japan OR germany following WWII and the populations of BOTH nations were extremely war weary

Answer 7

Wow tough question it could go either way. Take out the question of air superiority and I think Nazi Germany would have rolled right over Japan. However, with the Luftwaffe and the Imperial Air Force in the picture, the answer isn't so clear......

Answer 8

We won the Iraq war as far as military against military. Iraq is basically a police state now. So, the future will determine. This is a very different kind of conflict than what you are talking about with WWII. We will prevail, but it won't be easy.

Answer 9

When the USA fought Japan and Germany it was total war and we did not have liberals whining about the casualty rate. All anyone was worried about was winning the war. German and Japanese cities were primary targets as an example.

Now we use smart bombs and try to keep the collateral damage to a minimum and can only shoot if someone shoots at us first. We are fighting under "nice" war rules and as long as we are more concerned about the enemy than we are about winning, we will not win...

Answer 10

The liberal bleeding hearts in Washington won't let our people fight a war anymore. Not since WWII have they allowed our fighting forces to actually go all out fighting a war. In Korean we couldn't do it because the Chinese might get involved. In Vietnam we couldn't do it because the Russians might join in. In Gulf I we had to stop short because we didn't "really need" to go to Baghdad. In Gulf II we have to watch out for collateral damage. You're not allowed to hurt the wife of a terrorist who is standing beside her terrorist husband during a bombing run. Also, the moment by moment broadcasting from our media, which focuses on the poor "freedom fighters" gives the home crowd a distorted view of what is really going on. We need to relearn how to fight a war. Like the old saying goes "War is hell". Let's get back to making that a true statement. The only way to have peace is to make war so unpalatable that no one wants it.

Answer 11

We are trying to win a war on defense, much like what we did in Vietnam, and logic will tell you that doesn't work. If we were to free up our military to do what they really need to do to end this, all the dems and liberals would say we are evil, so those in power are trying to appease them by not fighting the war the way it should be fought. What we would need to do is go in full force and occupy the country until it got on its feet and could defend itself, but the libs won't have any part of that.