Is it fatal to enter any war without the will to win it?

Question

A profound statement from an old Soldier from the past that still holds true.
Agree or disagree, we are in a war. Shouldn't our leaders in Congress provide us with the leadership,the means to win , and the will to win?

I am very aware that the President is the Commander in Chief. It is my belief that he has shown leadership from day one. It is Congress that keeps trying to cut the funding and calls our bad mouths our Soldiers fighting in conditions that most people could not even immagine.
Both sides have good points though.

And if you think Bush's leadership is lacking, why is his approval rate double that of the Democrat majority Congress?

Answer 1

I THINK he means the 'war on drugs'...

I would say this old man who used to be a soldier once says, "It is a fatal mistake to lie to the American people and the US Congress to justify invading a country and then to keep shifting the goals of that invasion and to pamper ignorant Iraqi "leaders" who take month-long vacations after achieving NONE of the benchmarks THEY THEMSELVES AGREED TO.
"It is further a fatal mistake to try to tell the American people the US Army can take a drooling teenager and in 70 days, turn him or her into a lean, mean, killing machine, but the Iraqis can't do it in FOUR YEARS?
"It was a HUGE mistake to give the American people an estimate of time and money cost of the invasion would be '6 months, and no more than $87 Billion total, IF it costs the US anything at all' when we are now looking at 'Supplemental Expenditure Requests' for MORE than the original cost of the war was supposed to be TOTAL.

(If a contractor gives you an estimate of 6 hours and $87.00 to fix your sink, but take 4 months and charges you $550,000 for it, do you believe you are obligated to pay the new amount? if so, may I introduce you to some contractor friends of mine?)

Answer 2

Yes. Which means that the leadership of the country (eg: the Commander in Chief) needs to do a great job of selling the war to the country.

In WWII, this was no problem for FDR since Japan attacked us in Pearl Harbor and Hilter's subs were torpedoing our supply ships.

However, with Iraq, the sell job was terrible. Powell was completely unbelievable in his UN address (he looked about as excited as Fred Thompson giving a Presidential stump speech) and a lot of people didn't believe the propaganda leading up to the war. Thus 5 years later and the public majority no longer supported it. At that point, we lost Iraq. Time to pull out and go home.

Oh, and this isn't a 'congressional' problem. Congress isn't the Commander in Chief. That position belongs to Bush and he should be providing the leadership.

Answer 3

It's infinite times more fatal to enter a war without any real objective.

Still to this day, not one person, and this includes every single member of the Bush Administration, has been able to define victory in Iraq.

I believe Bush will declare victory just before leaving office that way the Reps can claim the war was a success, even though they don't even know what winning means.

So is it fatal to enter a war by mistake, then after realizing it's a mistake you continue the war because your pride won't allow you to do the right thing?

Answer 4

I'd say it's fatal to go into war, waving the flag, guns blazing, call anybody unpatriotic that doesn't agree with you...then have absolutely no clue about what life would be like after the war or what it would take to set up a government and then get out.

The Republicans want it both ways--they wanted the war to be continuing through the 2004 elections so that the people would re-elect Bush under the guise of being patriotic and "supporting the troops", and yet we're supposed to buy into the fact that our troops are over there to give cover to the private companies making untold billions off the oil in Iraq. We're not supposed to see that--we're supposed to see it as "Fighting *THEM* over *there* instead of over here."

Answer 5

It's fatal to enter into an occupation with the hope of making it popular with the occupied population. The US of A showed the world 230 years ago that it was a losing proposition, and it hasn't been done successfully since.
The "war" was over in two days; it's the occupation that isn't working.

Edit: Are you completely unaware that the same 78% of Americans who disaprove of Bush, also disapprove of Congress for not putting him on a leash? This absurdity keeps being repeated by Fox-holes on here as if those who were polled had to choose EITHER Bush or Congress. That's NOT the way it works.

Answer 6

There's more to wisdom than fighting. Wisdom would be knowing when you have to fight.. and when not to... the truly wise would be able to avoid almost all conflict. Also, more important than having the will to win is having a plan to win.. something the President has not had, though both may prove fatal in the end. And on a final note. The Congress is the voice of the people, not the Military. The President is the voice of the Military.

Answer 7

Is it fatal to enter any war without the will to win it?
Of course it is, and consider the fact that military strategy is not to kill all the enemy, but to destroy their will to fight.
In the last major World War the European enemy lost the will to fight when their country's economy was destroyed and Japan when the bomb was dropped. Without the nuclear bomb, the war with Japan could have lasted for years and even ended in a stalemate.
The majority party in our Legislative branch has last the will to fight, they have committed themselves to defeat. We the citizens are the ones that vote them into office, so we must accept the responsibility. I contend the problem in Congress is that we have to many of them, we need to reduce the size of the Congress to no more than 150. It would make it easier for them to reach agreements, reduce the cost in salaries and benefits to taxpayers, and their actions would be less regional.

Answer 8

The U.S. Military has done it's part. They have accomplished every goal and performed every mission put before them. The American soldier does not dictate policy or pass laws, he or she goes to where ever they are told to go and fight who ever they are told to fight.

Right after 9:11 was the most together I have ever seen this country in my life time. Our aray of different races, creeds, religions, etc. all united in a common goal. It has been a failure of this administration and congress that has let this country down. Both parties have failed us! They lost that momentum the American people had. Our military did not do it. They have performed outstandingly and I'm proud of each and every one of them.

Right now we are in a situation like someone in a deep pool of water. It doesn't matter anymore how he got there. He could have been pushed in, fell in, thrown in, or jumped in. What matters is that he is there! If he doesn't start swimming, he's gonna die. If we don't stop all this partisan BS, we are gonna die. These people want to kill us and they won't stop until they do.

Answer 9

there's a simple reason why it's much harder to win a war like vietnam, iraq etc, our soldiers are fighting because they are ordered to be there, but the opposing forces are fighting because their entire culture (in their mind) is at stake, this is why it's almost impossible to win a war like this, the other guy is MUCH more motivated to win


"Shouldn't our leaders in Congress provide us with the leadership,the means to win , and the will to win?"

how could they possibly?? are you aware that it's the president who is the commander in chief??

Answer 10

Absolutely
Can you imagine how people were treated during and right after WW 1 & 2 Then Korea.
If you spoke out against the effort you were ostrized by the entire community. Yes there were dissenters but they had limits and no one ever considered calling our own troops murdering rapists in the halls of congress.

Answer 11

It's a fatal error to enter a war you CAN'T WIN! The President should've known Iraq would be a quagmire. Why didn't he listen to the Army War College and the State Department? They tried to tell him that building the peace would be near impossible in that country.

[ In October 2002, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, in coordination with the Office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff/G-3, initiated a study to analyze how American and coalition forces can best address the requirements that will necessarily follow operational victory in a war with Iraq. ]