Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will the US ever win another war?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will the US ever win another war?

    I have had this question on my mind for a long time now.

    Obviously, the quick answer is YES. Our military is incredible. Our people can be anywhere, do anything, beat anyone there is.

    However, my question comes from a different angle. The last war we really "WON" was WWII. In this war, the majority of Americans were behind the war effort, were willing to sacrifice what ever it takes to win. This included loss of tens of thousands of soldier's lives along with weathering some hard times back home with rationing and the expense of war. During this war, the most people were able to learn about the war was from either reading the paper, listening to the radio or watching a little news clip at the beginning of a movie.

    Every war since then, the media has become more and more involved. Vietnam was really the first war that was on TV with reports on the battle field streaming news clips back to the states. The American public answered by not having the stomach to win the war.

    Then, fast forward to the Iraq war and the public REALLY didn't have the stomach even though the body count is MUCH less than any war of it's size in history.

    The fact is, in my eyes, the American public can't stomach what it takes to win a war when they see it every day on TV 24 hours a day.

    The media isn't going to go away. It is only going to get worse. And, therefore, I don't believe that any war is winnable when factoring in the American sentiment and support to the end.

    Thoughts????

  • #2
    The Kuwait War, the Tanker War, and Grenada.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      The Kuwait War, the Tanker War, and Grenada.
      Domincan Republic. Panama.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for the reply. And, I whole heartedly respect what was accomplished in those situations and the men and women that carried them out.

        However, I am talking about a war that is drawn out, where thousands of our men and women are on the battle field for long periods of time and loss of life happens. These are the situations where support from back home is the most important and where the lack of support can lose the war.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bigred View Post
          I have had this question on my mind for a long time now.

          Obviously, the quick answer is YES. Our military is incredible. Our people can be anywhere, do anything, beat anyone there is.

          However, my question comes from a different angle. The last war we really "WON" was WWII. In this war, the majority of Americans were behind the war effort, were willing to sacrifice what ever it takes to win. This included loss of tens of thousands of soldier's lives along with weathering some hard times back home with rationing and the expense of war. During this war, the most people were able to learn about the war was from either reading the paper, listening to the radio or watching a little news clip at the beginning of a movie.

          Every war since then, the media has become more and more involved. Vietnam was really the first war that was on TV with reports on the battle field streaming news clips back to the states. The American public answered by not having the stomach to win the war.

          Then, fast forward to the Iraq war and the public REALLY didn't have the stomach even though the body count is MUCH less than any war of it's size in history.

          The fact is, in my eyes, the American public can't stomach what it takes to win a war when they see it every day on TV 24 hours a day.

          The media isn't going to go away. It is only going to get worse. And, therefore, I don't believe that any war is winnable when factoring in the American sentiment and support to the end.

          Thoughts????
          Let me address a couple of different points.

          First, "the media" was all over World War 2, but they acted as part of the US military. Censorship was amazingly tight and complete. Yes, the US public was willing to pay a heavy price for victory, but they were largely ignorant of the exact details of what that price would entail, outside their own tiny invididual slice. Remember that the first released photos of US war dead, at Buna, shocked the nation.

          Second, its not really difficult for the military and government to control the media in a war zone. The US did it at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, by "embedding" media in military units. Israel has always done it quite effectively, recently blocking, for example, most media from travelling into Gaza. The Serbs also did it very well, by having snipers specifically target media.

          In earlier times, such blocking is all that was needed. Problem is, in this most modern age, that blocking of media is only one half of the equation.

          You have to remember that most people in media are contradictory creatures. Both highly competitive and incredibly lazy, they also tend to be both curious, and intellectually shallow. For the most part, they only want to carry a veneer of living in hardship and danger; they don't want to actually do it. Sure, there will always be a couple of hard cases, truly tough reporters who can hump along with a patrol all day, carrying their own gear and staying focused, then back a General into a corner with tough questions at dinner that night, but those people are rare, and -- if necessary -- they are easily handled in the Serbian manner.

          So how do you wrangle this type of new media? Simple. Physically control their persons as much as possible. This includes holding wars, where possible, in difficult terrain and weather conditions. The harder it is to get there, the less media you will have to deal with. Schedule few briefings and, when you do give one, limit the time for questions. The US doesn't do this very well right now. Where possible, have troops use simple variations on local languages in front of the media. Your troops may not know more than a few words, but its almost a given that they will be way ahead of the lazy media pukes. If necessary, jam media comm, including uplinks. This jamming should be completely black and plausibly deniable.

          Finally -- and this is the crucial, so-far-missing other half of the equation -- give them something worthwhile that they can publish instead. I don't mean the usual "rockets' red glare" propaganda that anyone over age 10 can smell a mile away, I mean something both a lot smarter, and more subtle. News that sounds as if the reporters actually did some work, but that they can craft in the safety of the air conditioned hotel bar where its "Sir, the Colonel says your money is no good today, so file your story and drink up."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bigred View Post
            Thanks for the reply. And, I whole heartedly respect what was accomplished in those situations and the men and women that carried them out.

            However, I am talking about a war that is drawn out, where thousands of our men and women are on the battle field for long periods of time and loss of life happens. These are the situations where support from back home is the most important and where the lack of support can lose the war.
            Iraq has pretty much settled down now. The initial invasion was an astouding success. There have also been 100,000+ military over there for 5+ years. How long do you want a war to be? Most wars are short. The US was only in WWII for 3.5 years, WWI for 1.5 years, etc. Aside from Vietnam, Ops in Afghanistan and Iraq have been the longest continual wars the US has fought.

            Comment


            • #7
              GF,

              So how do you wrangle this type of new media? Simple. Physically control their persons as much as possible. This includes holding wars, where possible, in difficult terrain and weather conditions. The harder it is to get there, the less media you will have to deal with. Schedule few briefings and, when you do give one, limit the time for questions. The US doesn't do this very well right now. Where possible, have troops use simple variations on local languages in front of the media. Your troops may not know more than a few words, but its almost a given that they will be way ahead of the lazy media pukes. If necessary, jam media comm, including uplinks. This jamming should be completely black and plausibly deniable.
              then when the troops start coming home and posting on blogs...what then?

              the solution is not more secrecy but more openness within reason. media and public perception is just another part of the modern day operating environment- trying to close it out is fruitless, particularly as technology shrinks things down. replace information or even your side of the story and it gets filled for you.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #8
                bigred,

                Every war since then, the media has become more and more involved. Vietnam was really the first war that was on TV with reports on the battle field streaming news clips back to the states. The American public answered by not having the stomach to win the war.

                Then, fast forward to the Iraq war and the public REALLY didn't have the stomach even though the body count is MUCH less than any war of it's size in history.

                The fact is, in my eyes, the American public can't stomach what it takes to win a war when they see it every day on TV 24 hours a day.
                that's untrue, both in your description of WWII media/populace and today. obviously there was plenty of government pressure on news media to distort things (a massive hush-up of the botched Exercise Tiger, practice for Normandy, leading to hundreds dead), yet the news media still had plenty of room to criticize eisenhower, particularly during operation torch.

                by late 1944 and 1945, war support was flagging in the US, despite an enormous propaganda machine and the absolute seriousness of the fight, which everyone recognized.

                fast forward to today. we've been in iraq and afghanistan longer than our involvement in WWII- pretty soon longer than our involvement in both WWI and WWII. despite falls in popular support for both wars, we're still fighting in both theaters.

                the point is, if you get in any war, you need to illustrate its necessity to the american people. there's a good reason why afghanistan has more popular support than iraq.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • #9
                  Definatively YES. Media/Politically NO. Throw the media out of the war zone and let them come back after the fighting is complete. This media attention is what drives the politics that ties hands behind your back and blindfolds you as well in any war zone. Gloom and Doom sells not victory. Like the adage states "Peace sells but who is buying".;)
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The problem is two fold in my mind:

                    1) A media that is more willing to blow out of proportion negative things about the US and our military during a war.

                    2) The news is constantly on multiple channels 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

                    There will always be a certain amount of the American population that is against any certain war. And, that is good. But, these two items make it virtually impossible for the government and military to sustain popular support for a war over a long period of time.

                    And, when that happens, it gives energy to the enemy and makes it even harder for our military to succeed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The issue is not the media.

                      The issue is can the government perform its role of getting the backing of the populace in order to prsecute the war? War is a political act, and as such, it is the responsibility of the government to craft the attitudes of the populace.

                      Part of the reason the populace was so behind WW II was everyone bought into it. Why? Well, part of the work was done by the Office of War Information

                      http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ar_Information

                      They got the government's message to the people. Further people were asked to take part in the "war effort" by rationing, Victory Gardens, Bond drives, etc. Shared sacrifice is a powerful tool. So if you want to get Mrs. Soccer Mom to give up her Suburban for RAV 4, you have to convince her it is part of her role in the fight.

                      A government which fails to make that case has failed as a government. The war can be won....but are you willing to pay the political price which goes with it.

                      For example, if President Bush had called in the Big 3 from Detroit on 20 SEP, 2001 and told them you have to get a production vehicle which gets 35 mpg in the mass market by 2007...and then he pulled in all of the oil companies on 21 SEP 01 and told them, gents, you have 10 years. Adjust your business model but you need to get us to energy self reliance using renewables and othe methods by 2012. And then he called a press conference extolling the patriotism and virtues of both industries, and that they were conducting a Manhattan Project like effort in these areas so we could not be threatened by reliance on Mid Eastern and Venezualan oil. And you, Mr & Mrs America, we need you to do X, Y & Z to assist us in this effort. We need you to buy Energy Bonds, etc.

                      If he had done that then he would have had all of the political power he needed to fight any war he felt was neccessary.

                      And the press would have reported the story he wanted told.
                      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                      Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I can't disagree with you. Another part of the problem is the people on the other side that said the same scary things before the war and then after it started (for political power reasons) backed away and acted like they had nothing to do with it. The media then latched on to them.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bigred View Post
                          I can't disagree with you. Another part of the problem is the people on the other side that said the same scary things before the war and then after it started (for political power reasons) backed away and acted like they had nothing to do with it. The media then latched on to them.
                          Once again, it is the government's responisibility to drive the message. The media will go where the government and people go. Why? Because I won't buy your newspaper/listen to your show/read you magazine/check you website if I don't like your message.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This will only happen if a Democrat is in office. The US media would never trumpet a Republican's reasons to go to war and sustain it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              bigred,

                              so how do you explain afghanistan?
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X