Does anyone begin to doubt the American ability to win at war?

Question

Last victory was WW2 from there its fair to say a stand still in Korea, then failure in Vietnam, and failure in Iraq. Just a downhill progression.

Answer 1

I do not doubt the ability of the U.S. military to win a war in any situation, with anyone and at any time in the world at this time.
I do have a lot of doubts about the political will of the United States to do this and beginning to think that applies at any time and with anyone. The "draw" in Korea and "loss" in Vietnam both were failures of the political will not the military capability; the current situation is also caused by lack political will and courage and not military capability. Winning a war requires courage and a willingness to sacrifice and the politicians, and many people in this country, seem willing to lose just to gain a vote or prove themselves "right" and more then willing to sacrifice some one else to do it. The military has a mission of fighting wars-not being "police" and restricting then to acting like police instead of fighting an enemy within the rules of the Geneva Convention is forcing the to fight with both arms tied behind their back while blindfolded.
The ability to win is and has always been there-the guts to do so has been sadly lacking.

Answer 2

Come come my boy, you forgot about our stunning victories in Granada and Panama.

1) Iraq and Vietnam share some characteristics. Both are being fought against an invisable army. It is not possible to distinguish between enemy combatants and ordinary citizens. So the normal type of military engagement isn't going to work.

2) Both are / were fought in conditions that are very alien to Americans and American equipment.

3) In neither case is there a clear definition of what "Victory" means. This is becasue of #1 above. Military and political leadership seems to see victory as the old fahioned 19th century definition, where "vanquishing the enemy equals victory. If you can't identify the enemy you can't very well vanuish him.

4) Vietnam and Iraq are both wars of Idology more than pervious wars which may be looked at as political wars.

There are probably dozens of other similarities. But my fear is that everyday a dozen great American kids are going to die over there, with no clear objective in mind.

I think General Patreous (sp?) was exactly right when he was asked if the action in Iraq today was making America safer, he said he honestly didnt know. That response took guts.

Pulling out now means economic collapse for the entire region. Stayng means the danger of widening the war, by having Iran join forces with al Quida, overtly or covertly. This appeas to be a very real possiblity.

Its too late to point fingers at bush and company. We need to figure out how to get out of that place as soon as possible with the least possible damage to our troops.

Answer 3

WW2 was pretty much the last time we fought an actual organized army too. Vietnam wasn't lost, politicians gave it up. It's pretty easy for everyone to say we're failing just because we still have people dying over there but, the last time I checked the Iraqi insurgent casualties were upwards of 10-11,000 and america only had about 4,500. How is that a loss? Try fighting an enemy that dresses in civilian clothes, hides among groups of people and shoots at you when your back is turned: Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. Yet we are the war criminals and bad guys..... This question is pure ignorance on your part. Maybe the rest of the country needs to get a spine and support us for once instead of faulting us.
Bring on the thumbs down......

Answer 4

America is not so much unable to win at war as it has plenty of military resources, but is unwilling to accept long time frames, uncertainty and large troop losses.

Also soldiers generally aren't willing to die to protect American economic interests? People are prepared to die when their own homes, families and communities are in immediate danger.

In Vietnam, two small countries went to war and America tried to tip the balance of power with technology and scale of firepower, but they lacked the motivation to make sacrifices on the scale needed to win the war. Ho Chi Min on the other hand, believed he could defeat the south backed by the US as his people (rightly or wrongly) regarded the Americans as oppressors trying to subjugate the country and prop up a puppet western controlled government.

From the point of view of many Vietnamese, WW2 ended with the fall of Saigon in 1975, the conflict with the Japanese, French then the Americans were just more chapters in an ongoing war that they would eventually win because they were prepared to pay the price of victory.

Answer 5

The conflict misplaced the help of the american people in 1968 with the Tet Offensive finished via Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in maximum important cities in South Vietnam. It confirmed the individuals have been knocked back on their heels. the television in simple terms confirmed one element on an identical time as the american commanders and the Pentagon have been asserting some thing diverse. initially the conflict grow to be supported, however the glaring disconnect between the persons and the Johnson administration spelled doom for u . s . of america's probability of triumphing the conflict. Then whilst Walter Cronkite mentioned u . s . of america ought to no longer win the conflict, any who initially supported the conflict, stopped helping it.

Answer 6

There was no military failure in any of the examples you quoted. There was in fact, political failure. Following the Tet offensive, the North Vietnamese Army became a non-factor. However, the politicians threw in the towel anyway, not the military. In Korea, a lack of NATO support in fighting the Chinese lead to the stalemate, not the inability of the American Soldier/Marine to kick the #*$*% out of the enemy.

Answer 7

I think if the politicians who sit up in DC who have never fought in a war before or even served, let us fight like we can, this war would have been over a long time ago and America would own a lot of dessert property right now

Answer 8

Do you work for the media?

Because from all indications, the war in Iraq isin't a failure & given patience within 3-4 years could be one of the greatest success stories in the history of war.

Answer 9

What does a person "win" as you put it?

I doubt there are any winners... really...

The guy above me thinks that it's a really good deal to only lose 4,500 people.... wow - why didn't I see that way before?
That just makes everything great, doesn't it...

I'm sure there are 4,500 mothers somewhere who would disagree.

Answer 10

IN MY OPINION - IF THE MILITARY THERE WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO THEIR JOBS AND HAVE ENOUGH "GOOD" SUPPLYS, TOOLS, ECT.... INSTEAD OF HAVEING ALL THE BS RULES FROM THE GOV. AND A GOOD BIT OF THE MONEY FUNDING THE WAR WOULD ACTUALLY GO TO THE TROOPS INSTEAD OF THE IRAQI'S THEN THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT WE WILL WIN. UNTILL THAT HAPPENS - IF IT DOES - I THINK THIS WAR WILL GO UNRESOLVED LIKE KOREA.