Does USA know how to fight a war?

Question

We did great in WWI and WWII but Korea and Veitnam and now Iraq (why has everyone forgotten about Afghanistan?) have been shabbilly run with no apparent aim or goal other than to fight.

Answer 1

We are still making the same mistakes we made after the WWII. After the second "great" war we were elated at our tactical abilities and our logistical prowers. We were thumping our chest and rightfully so. However as Mort Künstler pointed out in the guns of Autum, when you go to war focusing on your last victory and only that, you fail to see the reality in front of you. This is the problem our military leaders face today. We are much too superior in strength, man power, and technical weaponry for our own good. We cannot think like the desperate "I have nothing to lose" foes we face today. Desperation is the mother of innovation - if I dare to call the underhanded tactics of our enemies innovative. Objectively they are. They fight our psyche by taking hostages and brutalizing them. We are not used to that type of warfare.

The idea of guerilla tactics is not new. They were used against many mighty armies throughout history. The barbarians against Rome. The resistance in Poland and France against the German occupants.

The mark of a great general is to be able to think like your enemy and our military leaders today seem to lack that ability. They think throwing more troops and machinery will get the task done. They are trained to think in conventional terms. We have to begin to think outside of the box in order to be able to face the threats in the future. Our enemies often know us better than we know ourselves. They know our weaknesses and where to really hurt us. I just pray we are not giving in to the Goliath syndrom and ignoring the little boy with the slingshot.

Answer 2

Since WW II, we have fought wars as though the opposition was a signatory to the Geneva Convention. That document set limits on what armies are allowed to do to each other, how civilians are to be treated, what to do with a prisoner of war, who is a spy, etc. The opposition has not been a signatory and has not bound itself as such. Therefore, they fire weapons from schools, mosques and hospitals, knowing that we will not hit such buildings. According to the Geneva Convention, if such buildings were used in this manner, they lose their sacred status and may be destroyed. Opposition terrorists hide among the civilian population in direct violation of the Convention. A combatant out of uniform is, according to the Convention, to be treated as a spy. There are no rules in interrogating a spy and a spy may be executed on the spot. The terrorists do not wear anything other than civilian garb, putting them all in the status of spy. Therefore, we can do what we want to the prisoners at Guantanamo and we would still be within the Convention. Prisoners in uniform fall under a very strict set of rules designed to protect the POW.

We could be a lot more effective if we announced that since the terrorists are not bound by the Convention, then we are taking advantage of the clause that says if one side does not sign, then the other side is not bound by any previous signing with respect to the conflict in question. However, and it is a big "However" the press and Hollywood would have to go along. They did much to focus the country during WW II but so severely undermined the government during Vietnam that we were unable to properly conduct the war.

Answer 3

WWI and WWII were easy since the USA and it Allies were fighting against enemy governments, whose militaries were organized.

The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is that centralized governments and their militaries were quickly defeated, but insurgencies are waging guerilla warfare which is very difficult to counter. How do you kill the enemy, if he wears no uniform, and looks like any other citizen? If you do in fact find the enemy, how do you kill him without killing the dozens of ordinary citizens around him? If you do kill him, what will prevent his brother, cousin, neighbor, or friend from taking up arms and taking his place in the insurgency to take revenge on the infidels?

Basically, the US government is correct that it has to win he hearts and minds of the people, but it does not realize that this is nearly impossible. It was possible in Europe after both of the two world wars since there were little cultural differences between the conquerors and the conquered. The US is incorrect in assuming that the things we value most, will also be highly valued by a people half way around the world in a completely different culture. The cancerous bureaucracy that is the US government is completely blind to this idea.

Answer 4

I would point out that Vietnam and Iraq (the current conflict) are different than previous wars we have faced. They have been more guerilla based, something the U.S. army has not had real success dealing with. In Afghanistan, the 2 World Wars, Grenada and the 1st Persian Gulf War, have been much more stand up, klnock down fights with clearly defined objectives, which is why we have won it. Our army is the best in the world for that kind of fight.

A similar thing happend, and is happening now in Afghanistan, first with the Soviets and now with us. Our modern army (who fights according to the rules of war) does not know how to deal with a enemy who conducts hit and run raids. This is precisely the reason I say we should withdraw the majority of our troops and try another approach, say like diplomacy.

Cheers!!

Answer 5

It is a real question whether we can be cruel enough to win this war. When you read about our soldiers ceasing fire when terrorists pick up children as shields, it makes me think that we don't have what it takes. This is not a difficult war to win if we were willing to simply win it at all costs. That's precisely what we did in WWII. Firebombed Tokyo and Dresden and then nuked Japan. These terrorists hide among the people and the only way to kill them is to kill their hiding place too. And I don't think we're willing to do it. The defeat-now coalition has been screaming about civilian casualties since before there were any, but the care and precision of our military is really beyond historical example. Who ever heard of such NICE soldiers?

They're the best that have ever been, but that might not be the recipe needed for this fight. I still hope it is, I would REALLY like to win this without having to blow up Qum or Damascus.

Answer 6

I believe we do know how to fight a war. The problem is when the brass (Generals) aren't heard and the war becomes a political battle. Bush loves money - and war is money. Not only has the media allowed Afghanistan to become a hidden thought, but the same has happened to the fallen soldiers. Bush (in my opinion) is a dictator.

Robert F. Kennedy speech on April 5, 1968 - Mindless Menace of Violence

Answer 7

We need a better cause to rally around rather than fighting Communism and terrorism. WW II was about fighting Fascism and Imperialism, but the bombing of Pearl Harbor helped Americans rally around their President. I agree that Communism and terrorism need to be fought, but we just do not know how to do it. We rallied around our President after 9/11, but once it was shown how inept he really was, then he lost a lot of support and nobody rallied around him anymore. I also do not think that it helped, that when Bush was elected, that the Presidential Race of 2000 was contested as it was. The country was already divided just as in Vietnam, so fighting a war with only part of the population in support is very hard to do. Also, not understanding the opponent does not help either. Nobody understood the psyche of either the Vietnamese or Iraqis. It is tough to fight that kind of war too. Until someone gets smart enough to realize that fighting a war means going in to win, then the U.S. is going to fight stupidly, at least at the upper levels of government.

Answer 8

"AMERICA" is a country the likes to HIDE it's history.
This nation was WON by guerilla warfare. Since the revolution, those tactics have been BURIED and reserved for only "Special Operations". They are fighting basically an "Indian War". We all know how that turned out for Custer. Ever since the US has fallen victim to the guerilla fighter.

One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Until we start playing by THEIR rules in THEIR arena, we're going to get handed EACH AND EVERY TIME.

We need to resume the "Search and Destroy" tactics we once employed. Otherwise this will NEVER end.

Cut the head of the snake, and the body will die.

Answer 9

It is the populace. WWI and WWII were wars where morals, values and ethics demanded we enter the theaters and fight the evil. Nowdays, there is so much evil around that we cannot get mired into useless wars such as Iraq and Vietnam. It is the people who are not political and who do not read and who do not listen to talk radio. It is people who are only focussed on their family and on their own kind who permit this.

Answer 10

because in korea ,vietnam and iraq it wasn't straight out warfare(except before we ousted hussien). they use guerrilla tactics. and since they don't care who they hurt but we do it's hard to be effective. how can u kill the enemy without knowing who the enemy is until its too late and they're gone back into the shadows? and we do have a goal in iraq. to support the new government until it can support itself. and in afghanistan we are trying to rid the country of the taliban. i agree with u it could have been ran much better but our troops are doing the best they can with the limited support in the government that they have. not saying i support bush or anything because i don't, but you asked and there is your answer.