Why has America stopped winning wars?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because dragging out wars where you're bogged down in an endless cycle of guerilla warfare and reprisals is a great move for any country..

That's a decision that gets made before you engage, not after. I think it's funny that liberals are ok with war so long as they can cut and run whenever.

[C0ckney]

korn, that's one way of looking at it, but it just seems absurd to me.

the US went into vietnam with the objective of propping the south vietnamese government and stopped a communist take over of the south by the north; it expended a vast amount of blood and treasure to do so. the result of the war was that the south vietnamese government fell and the communist north united vietnam. it's all very well saying that if the US had continued to prop up the south's government it could have held out, but the fact is that this didn't happen; it's just coulda, woulda, shoulda.

[kentonio]

That's a decision that gets made before you engage, not after. I think it's funny that liberals are ok with war so long as they can cut and run whenever.

Your history degree apparently didn't cover much military history. If you find yourself in a conflict where the opportunity for victory has passed, and where the cost of maintaining operations has no comparable benefits then continuing that conflict is idiotic.

You have two strategies for defeating a guerilla army:

1) Win over the hearts and minds of the local people, so they see your victory as offering them a more palatable future than your enemies.

- America is unfortunately very bad at this strategy. American troops generally enter these conflicts with little or no understanding of local language and culture, adopt a policy of heavy handed reaction and treat the local people as practically subhuman. When you're regularly kicking in peoples doors, treating them like animals, and arresting and sometimes killing their friends and family members, you don't generally win over either their hearts or their minds.

2) Destroy the enemy utterly and without mercy. To achieve this in a guerilla war, you have to be willing and able to carry out acts which are now completely in breach of the Geneva Convention and numerous other standards of international law. You must be willing to kill non-combatants, practice collective punishment where necessary and treat the lives of local people as completely expendable.

- Thankfully America cannot fight wars in this way due to a complete refusal of the America public to countenance it. Although some horrible things have happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan, if the US public were being faced with footage of My Lai's happening every day, they would overthrow any president, and world reaction would have terrible repercussions for the US. No country has this option open to them anymore unless we end up in another world war at some point or unless they're willing to make themselves into complete international pariahs.

There really isn't any third option. You can either win over the locals or you can crush them underfoot until they comply. Since WW2 the US has erroneously believed that it can win over the locals by doing little more than turning up, shooting the bad guys and telling the locals that they can be like America too. The problem is that when your first hand experience of America is a US soldier ransacking your home while holding your family at gunpoint, dropping bombs that kill your friends by mistake and completely disregarding every aspect of your culture and expected standards of behaviour, that really isn't something they're likely to want to copy.

By this point option one is gone. Too much has happened in Iraq now to ever win over the locals hearts and minds. Option two was never on the table. Withdrawl was the only reasonable action left (although as someone already pointed out to you, the withdrawl had been agreed before Obama even came into office).

When it comes to war, phrases like 'cutting and running' are just childish. You're not talking about a fight on a playground, you're talking about hundreds or thousands of American men and women coming home in bodybags, or having their eyes blinded, their limbs blown off or their mental health irreperably destroyed. If you're going to spend human lives and blood you had better have a damn good reason for that, and hubris is not a damn good reason.

[korn469]

korn, that's one way of looking at it, but it just seems absurd to me.

the US went into vietnam with the objective of propping the south vietnamese government and stopped a communist take over of the south by the north; it expended a vast amount of blood and treasure to do so. the result of the war was that the south vietnamese government fell and the communist north united vietnam. it's all very well saying that if the US had continued to prop up the south's government it could have held out, but the fact is that this didn't happen; it's just coulda, woulda, shoulda.

C0ckney,

The Vietnam War was about more than simply propping only the South Vietnamese government, it was part of efforts to contain communism throughout Southeast Asia. Yes U.S. efforts failed in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, but the communists didn't spread to Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia.

Going back to your colonial war point a few posts back, which seems to strongly correlate with your above point, I disagree with your assessment that only the final/most recent results matter in victories. It's not like the Irish Civil War in the 1920's invalidated the original victories in the Battle of Kinsale and others as the Tudors subjugated the Irish.

[korn469]

double post. They seem to be happening quite regularly.

[C0ckney]

C0ckney,

The Vietnam War was about more than simply propping only the South Vietnamese government, it was part of efforts to contain communism throughout Southeast Asia. Yes U.S. efforts failed in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, but the communists didn't spread to Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia.

the malaysian conflict had petered out by the time of independence in 1960; moreover, the campaign against them was fought by british and commonwealth troops. in the mid 60s the mayalan communist party had something like 500-1000 fighters. thailand's communist guerrillas were a thorn in the side, but never a real threat to the thai government; they continued their fight until 1987 in any case. the communists in indonesia were defeated by home-grown political manoeuvring, although the US became an enthusiastic supporter of suharto after his rise to power, overlooking over 500,000 dead in an 'anti-communist' purge.

Going back to your colonial war point a few posts back, which seems to strongly correlate with your above point, I disagree with your assessment that only the final/most recent results matter in victories. It's not like the Irish Civil War in the 1920's invalidated the original victories in the Battle of Kinsale and others as the Tudors subjugated the Irish.

i'm sorry, but i don't see your point here.

my point was that in many conflicts in africa and asia the european powers would win military victories against the insurgents, but end up granting independence because the cost was too high or the political situation made the wars' continuance impossible.

[Berzerker]

I think it's funny that liberals are ok with war so long as they can cut and run whenever.

Vietnam wasn't started by liberals

[Berzerker]

The reason we dont win wars is because we dont need to, whats to win? Bailing out the losers like a modern version of the mouse that roared?

[Ben Kenobi]

Vietnam wasn't started by liberals

LBJ wasn't liberal? News to me.

[Berzerker]

he didn't start it and he wasn't liberal

[Ben Kenobi]

he wasn't liberal

Well that explains it all. Obviously liberals weren't responsible. LBJ was responsible.

[Berzerker]

Ike got us into Vietnam followed by Kennedy and then LBJ, but I shouldn't have to tell you that since you're a historian

[Berzerker]

and no, LBJ was not a liberal...

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, LBJ was a liberal.

[kentonio]

If you take the word liberal, and apply it to anyone you like regardless of what they actually believed and did..