Will the US ever win another war?

[Albany Rifles]

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.

Not to mention that whole Civil War and Mexican War thingy!

[Kernow]

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.

I am not trying to come up with figures like 2 - 0 for instance very child like. I never said that Britain won the first or second world war or Gulf Wars 1 & 2 or Korea, they were all Joint efforts. As for little wars I could mention a few, but we classified them as insurgencies, Aden, Oman, Malaya Borneo etc.

[Kernow]

Seven Years War, American Revelutionary War, Napoleonic Wars, First & Second Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion, New Zealand Land Wars, Indian Rebellion, First &Second Boer Wars, Fennian Raids, Irish War of Idependance, Afghanistan, Crimea War. Pontiacs War, English Civil War, War of the Grand Alliance, Korean War, Suez Crisis, Aden, Cyprus, Kenya, Malaya, Oman, Borneo, Falklands, Northern Ireland, Gulf War 1, Yuogoslav Wars, Afghanistan, Gulf War 2, Sierra Leonne.

[Kernow]

Some you win some you loose.

[Shek]

I am not trying to come up with figures like 2 - 0 for instance very child like. I never said that Britain won the first or second world war or Gulf Wars 1 & 2 or Korea, they were all Joint efforts. As for little wars I could mention a few, but we classified them as insurgencies, Aden, Oman, Malaya Borneo etc.

By definition, Iraq and Afghanistan are CI/COIN, yet you included them. Your inconsistency begs the question.

[Kernow]

By definition, Iraq and Afghanistan are CI/COIN, yet you included them. Your inconsistency begs the question.

The term insurgent broadly refers to all types of unconventional forces and
operations (insurgent forces, insurgent activities, and COIN operations) and
includes guerrilla; partisan; insurgent; subversive; resistance; terrorist;
revolutionary; and similar personnel, organizations, and methods. Insurgent
activities include acts of a military, political, psychological, and economic nature conducted predominantly by inhabitants of a nation for the purpose of eliminating or weakening the authority of the local government or an occupying power and using primarily insurgent and informal groupings and measures.

There I will agree on Afghanistan, but not Gulf Wars 1 & 2 we were fighting the Armed Forces of Iraq and not insurgents, both Wars were won, it was just the total Mess Up afterwards. That is COIN.

[Shek]

The term insurgent broadly refers to all types of unconventional forces and
operations (insurgent forces, insurgent activities, and COIN operations) and
includes guerrilla; partisan; insurgent; subversive; resistance; terrorist;
revolutionary; and similar personnel, organizations, and methods. Insurgent
activities include acts of a military, political, psychological, and economic nature conducted predominantly by inhabitants of a nation for the purpose of eliminating or weakening the authority of the local government or an occupying power and using primarily insurgent and informal groupings and measures.

There I will agree on Afghanistan, but not Gulf Wars 1 & 2 we were fighting the Armed Forces of Iraq and not insurgents, both Wars were won, it was just the total Mess Up afterwards. That is COIN.

GW yes. OIF/Telic, no. My apologies for not being clear on what I was referring to with Iraq. Fedayeen were a major component in 2003 and it is still an ongoing operation, so if anything, a weak argument could be made for hybrid war based on the intital initial phase of the war. Also, Vietnam was primarily COIN, despite best efforts to fight it conventionally.

Anyways, this discussion is distracting from the initial thrust of the thread, which was the role of the media in the success/non-success of US military interventions.

[Kernow]

Right Roger that, I degress. I'm off for my weekend, have a good un.

[Shek]

Right Roger that, I degress. I'm off for my weekend, have a good un.

You too. Cheers :)

[Bigred]

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.

I think the problem with this post is that you really don't know me very well since I am new here.

I KNOW there were mistakes in the Iraq war. I KNOW that changes have been made and progress is being made.

However, I ask myself if I can name any war (more than something like Panama or Grenada) where mistakes didn't happen? Sure, there should have been fewer mistakes in this one. They happened. They sucked. But, that doesn't mean the mission and the accomplishments of our armed forces shouldn't be supported.

In other words, I am not talking about turning a blind eye and waving the flag. Sure, if there should have been more troops in the beginning, there should have been more troops.

However, what I am talking about is the sad fact (my opinion) that the American public can not stomach a conflict that is prolonged and Americans die. And, I lump into this conflicts that 90% of Americans would say is a justified cause.

AND, my reasoning is because of the media coverage 24/7 streaming into American's homes and drilled into them constantly.

[GC13]

I don't think anyone can argue against the media's powerful ability to set an agenda. Look at the price of gasoline: sheesh, I know that $4/gallon for gasoline is very expensive in the United States here, especially when our population distribution assumes a much lower energy cost, but it's not nearly so big a deal as they made it out to be.

Ditto the occupation of Iraq, especially circa election season 2006. Things were certainly dire then, a new strategy sorely needed, but the immense 24/7 negativity...

And the focus on the American bodycount when it was objectively rather low. It makes me very much question the ability of our nation to stomach another WW2-style industrial war.

Of course... There is a reason why such large-scale wars are not entered into lightly. If such a war comes, you know it will be one that the public is massively behind. Media will largely censor themselves because while negativity largely sells, people still want to be told what they want to hear. If the public still believes in a war, they won't want to be told it's hopeless.

[Shek]

However, what I am talking about is the sad fact (my opinion) that the American public can not stomach a conflict that is prolonged and Americans die. And, I lump into this conflicts that 90% of Americans would say is a justified cause.

AND, my reasoning is because of the media coverage 24/7 streaming into American's homes and drilled into them constantly.

People tend to watch programming that aligns with their worldview. In other words, it's preaching to the choir. Futhermore, the media is a follower, not a leader when it comes to war positions. This argument has been made convincingly about Vietnam (in other words, your thesis has been proven wrong for that conflict).

In fact, now that progress has been made in Iraq and things are going well, public opinion has shifted in support of Iraq. The American public is fickle about progress and losing strategies, not about death or delay. This is a trait of democracy as old as Athens.

[Shek]

BR,
Here's a thread that will lay out some of what I just spoke about: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=37070.

[Bigfella]

Don't know how I missed this thread - right up my alley.

Most of the good points have already been made, I'll try not to repeat myself too much.

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????

Big Red,

I think you have linked two issues here that are not necesarily cause & effect. I'll do them in 2 posts.

The issue of America's ability to undertake long, costly wars is an interesting one. I think you have started from the same premise as many - using WW2 as a point of comparison for subsequent conflicts. This immediately places WW2 in the position of being 'normal', and other conflicts deviate from this.

What if WW2 is the unusual conflict? America's wars have rarely been especially popular. WW2 is unusual because it began with a clear & devastating attack on US soil and had enemy protagonists who were badder than bad. Look at the War of 1812, War in the Phillippines, WW1 & especially the Civil War. Unpopularity & opposition to varying degrees.

The Korean War, despite an utterly submissive media & virulent anti-Communism was almost as unpopular as the Vietnam War later became. Indeed, Eisenhower, kennedy & LBJ all had this firmly in mind in their decision making about Vietnam.

It is hard to keep support for wars in Democracies. They cost lives, they cost money, they involve acts of questionable morality committed in the name of everyone. I actually think this is a good idea. Wars should be hard to start & their conduct should be scrutinized & discussed. Government & military leaders who mislead or are incompetent know that they will be held to account. This doesn't produce better outcomes in every case, but I think it helps overall. Indeed, I would argue that had public pressure NOT forced a change of policy in Iraq that war might now be lost.

I firmly believe that a democratic society properly motivated & led is damned near unbeatable. They key here is picking your fights & fighting them well. America (with a little help) fought the largest nation on earth (backed by the Communist Bloc) to a standstill in Korea; twice utterly destroyed the large & experienced Iraqi army & successfully fought a large number of smaller engagements. And in case staying power is an issue, the Western powers, mostly democracies, outlasted the dictatorships of the Communist Bloc in a very long & costly war. Their democracy may have been a liability in some battles, but it won them a war where the other side had some useful advantages (such as European colonialism).

The real issue here is Vietnam. If you'll pardon an outsider for saying it, I think the assumption that the war was America's to win or lose says more about American arrogance & ignorance than it does about what happened in Vietnam (I'm not aiming this at you personally, more a general comment). Sensibly conducted American intervention in Vietnam MIGHT have changed the eventual outcome of the war, but local factors were the main driver of events from beginning to end.

I don't have time to go into media issues now, but follow Shek's link & then read up the articles there, they are informative.

[Oscar]

Against Arab and Iranian armies equipped with forty year old tanks and AK 47 yes they can still win with awesome facility. With the modernisation of the Chinese and Russian armies in the longer term it may be more challenging.

The stab in the back is a favored myth the militaries maintain to explain why they didn't win in the first place.