Will the US ever win another war?

[Shek]

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.

So how do you explain the Judith Miller stories that the NYT ran in 2002/early 2003?

[Bigred]

Afghanistan???

First of all, the media has been very busy trashing our efforts in Iraq. Let's just say they have been diverted away from Afghanistan.

Also, there has been a lot of negative stuff about Afghanistan also. Remember all of the negative press about why Bush couldn't capture Bin Laden in the mountains? You know what? There is a good chance that he was really never there when our military was supposedly at his door step. But, I have never really heard that side of the story from the media.

I will guarantee you one thing. IF Obama pulls all troops out of Iraq and there really isn't much news there, the negative reporting will spill over to Afghanistan and the public support will go in the tank.

[Bigred]

Shek,

Of coarse you are going to be able to find exceptions to my point. BUT, as a general rule, I feel my point is still valid.

The American public as a whole can't stomach seeing the war on TV every day for 24 hours with the type of reporting on these confilcts that is being done.

There is absolutely no way mass support for these wars can be sustained.

This is the ONLY reason why I have said to others before that I will have an extremely hard time supporting any other military conflict anywhere else in the world no matter what the reason (Iran). Because I refuse to support the government only to have the mass support quickly fade away while our soldiers are in harms way with no really good way to get out.

[Albany Rifles]

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.

Just curious, how old are you?

I certainly remember the press speaking well of Grenada, Panama & ODS.

I also recall the press speaking well about both Afghanistan and the beginning of OIF.

As for press treatment of Dems durign war...well, let me point you towards the press and LBJ in 1967 - 1968, Jimmie Carter after Desert One and Bill Clinton over Somalia.

[Bigred]

I'm 41 years old.

Again, the three military operations that you mentioned were all fairly short situations that didn't lead to long drawn out battles with many dead.

My main comment was based on hard fought situations where it tests are strength.

Let me ask this from a different direction.

If there was press embedded in with the troops storming the beaches at Normandy with literally THOUSANDS of dead soldiers body parts all over the battle field, troops going into battle KNOWING they were going to die, immediate reporting of every single little thing that actually went not according to plan and every past General going on every talk show discussing how wrong the plan was, do you think the American public would have kept their support as strong for the liberation of Europe?

I think the President would have been hung in the National mall and half of our politicians in Washington would have been back peddling acting like they had nothing to do with it and if THEY had more power, they would fix it.

[astralis]

BR,

Afghanistan???

First of all, the media has been very busy trashing our efforts in Iraq. Let's just say they have been diverted away from Afghanistan.

so, for all their efforts, what part of US policy has changed as a result? is US policy and the US military fighting less smartly with fewer resources now than it was in 2003?

ditto for afghanistan.

Remember all of the negative press about why Bush couldn't capture Bin Laden in the mountains? You know what? There is a good chance that he was really never there when our military was supposedly at his door step. But, I have never really heard that side of the story from the media.

yes, because that story was a crock of BS. unclas intel reporting states that bin ladin was at tora bora.

[Bigred]

so, for all their efforts, what part of US policy has changed as a result? is US policy and the US military fighting less smartly with fewer resources now than it was in 2003?

ditto for afghanistan.

I guess I am not understanding your question.

What policy has changed in Iraq or Afghanistan??? Well, I believe, thankfully in Iraq it hasn't. But, there has been a huge price paid because of it. Thankfully we had a President that realized once we were in there, the job had to be finished no matter what the political cost to him personally was.

And no, the military isn't fighting less smartly. Our military does an amazing job in spite of lagging support state side. THEY are the reason Iraq is finally turning around. They believed in their mission and carried it out to the best of their ability. It would have been easier though if the enemy hadn't been emboldened by knowing the American public wasn't behind the fight.

[Shek]

THEY are the reason Iraq is finally turning around. They believed in their mission and carried it out to the best of their ability. It would have been easier though if the enemy hadn't been emboldened by knowing the American public wasn't behind the fight.

We're also a major cause for why Iraq went downhill in the first place.

[Shek]

Shek,

Of coarse you are going to be able to find exceptions to my point. BUT, as a general rule, I feel my point is still valid.

The American public as a whole can't stomach seeing the war on TV every day for 24 hours with the type of reporting on these confilcts that is being done.

There is absolutely no way mass support for these wars can be sustained.

This is the ONLY reason why I have said to others before that I will have an extremely hard time supporting any other military conflict anywhere else in the world no matter what the reason (Iran). Because I refuse to support the government only to have the mass support quickly fade away while our soldiers are in harms way with no really good way to get out.

Actually, press coverage of Vietnam was very positive in the beginning. It wasn't until the press identified that they were being fed a bunch of BS during the five o'clock follies that they began to report the truth about the lack of progress. Instead of embracing the outside assessment as a signal to do a strong internal assessment, the military brass instead failed to take advantage of the opportunity.

So, far from being the exception, US media support of US conflicts has always been strong from the start.

[Albany Rifles]

Actually, press coverage of Vietnam was very positive in the beginning. It wasn't until the press identified that they were being fed a bunch of BS during the five o'clock follies that they began to report the truth about the lack of progress. Instead of embracing the outside assessment as a signal to do a strong internal assessment, the military brass instead failed to take advantage of the opportunity.

So, far from being the exception, US media support of US conflicts has always been strong from the start.

Hence my comments abotu LBJ in 67-68.

Go back an look on how the Ia Drang fight was reported in 1965. Dewey Canyon in 66, etc.

Very positive coverage.

And the reason I asked your age is you may not have remembered watching the Viet Nam war every single night on the National news like I did as a kid. And it was very positive until post Tet 68.

ODS reporting was positive for over a year...from when Saddam first went in in AUG 90 through the cease fire operations in 91.

Heck, even the coverage of US forces going into the Balkans was good (see BG Pat O'Neal leading the first element of the 1 AD across the SAva River on foot.

[Kernow]

Have they ever won a war? I can't think of one.

[Shek]

Have they ever won a war? I can't think of one.

You need more than one finger :))

[Kernow]

WW1 was a joint effort WW2 was a joint effort (you guys only came in after Pearl Harbour), Korea was a joint effort and was a stale mate, Vietnam was a joint effort and ended in a loss, GW 1 was a joint effort, GW 2 is a joint effort, Afghanistan is a joint effort and we won't win there either!!! All the other little fights you have had were mear skirmishes i.e. Insurgencies.

[HistoricalDavid]

It would have been easier though if the enemy hadn't been emboldened by knowing the American public wasn't behind the fight.

You do realise you have at least one veteran officer of your own military - one who was a Stryker chap and thus often in the thick of things IIRC - saying here, in as many words, that there have been mistakes?

As I understand it for myself the Army (especially) and Marine Corps are, in-theatre, philosophically completely different beasts between 2003-2004 and 2007--. There's no shame in admitting there were mistakes because come 2007 and Petraeus there was a major shakeup and soul-searching, and things were done differently.

But in any case, do you really think an Iraqi insurgent, who's spent his life in a less economically developed, less comfortable lifestyle under a brutal regime, or a Talibani who's seen constant warfare and deprivation for the past thirty years in a hellhole, is going to lay down his weapons because NYT polls say 80%+ of Americans support the war against him?

PS It's one thing to praise soldiers and wrap yourself in the Stars and Stripes, it's another to do it unconditionally. No-one's gonna question your support of the troops if you don't sling in praise every other sentence.

...wankwankwank...beat anyone there is.

Russian nukes.

[Shek]

WW1 was a joint effort WW2 was a joint effort (you guys only came in after Pearl Harbour), Korea was a joint effort and was a stale mate, Vietnam was a joint effort and ended in a loss, GW 1 was a joint effort, GW 2 is a joint effort, Afghanistan is a joint effort and we won't win there either!!! All the other little fights you have had were mear skirmishes i.e. Insurgencies.

So this is the definition you come up with to avoid the US 2, UK 0 score :) At least try to maintain consistency and don't mention any small wars.