| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| WHY THE WORLD’S BIGGEST MILITARY KEEPS LOSING WARS |
| 2015-02-20 |
| h/t Jerry Pournelle Before Korea, America never lost a war. Ever since, other than the first Gulf War, it hasn't won any. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan America spent trillions of dollars, exploded countless tons of munitions, killed hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants along with innocent civilians and accomplished hardly any of the goals its leaders proclaimed when they sent their soldiers into battle. America's inability to translate its immense firepower into meaningful political effect suggests the $500 billion it spends annually on defence is wasted. In a recent article in the Atlantic Magazine, James Fallows asked the previously unmentionable question: how can America spend more on its military than all the other great powers combined and still be unable to impose its will on even moderately sized enemies? I think the media generally ignores this question because the answers skewers shibboleths revered by both left and right. I spent much of the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, as a news cameraman embedded with the American military. I like American soldiers, enjoy their company, respect their bravery, their loyalty, their ethos: but hanging out on their Forward Operating Bases, I could see why the world's most expensive military doesn't win wars. Here are four factors worth considering, in descending order of importance. I don't necessarily agree, but interesting |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #5 "how can America spend more on its military than all the other great powers combined and still be unable to impose its will on even moderately sized enemies?" That's because a political decision was made that imposing Western will on the enemy was not the objective. The will to win is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for winning. 21st century Western political leadership does not fulfill that condition. "America lost in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan primarily because it had no real reason to go to war in the first place, no compelling national interest." 9/11 has profoundly and permanently changed the West, and not for the better. There's more police state, more surveillance, more fear and, curiously enough, more Sharia in the West because of it. Yet 9/11 isn't even mentioned when the rationale for "Infinite Justice/Enduring Freedom" is discussed. Suppose the president in office in 2001, whether he was called Bush or Gore, had chosen not to respond to an attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor. Could any president have survived politically after making such a decision? |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2015-02-20 23:39 |
| #4 First, what do you mean by 'victory'? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2015-02-20 23:26 |
| #3 Before Korea, America never lost a war. Anyone who see the night sky image of the peninsula knows who won. Anyone miss all those Kia and Samsung products floating around. How about those Hanjin container on railroad flatbeds. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2015-02-20 22:38 |
| #2 OS, same thing happened in VietNam. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2015-02-20 21:17 |
| #1 Laughable. He seems to have confused our military with our political leadership. Name one lost battle. With the possible exception of "Black Hawk Down", the Army (And the rest of the armed forces) have won every engagement they have been directed to win. Its not the military that bailed out too soon - that was a decision by politicians to give back all the gains from the surge. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2015-02-20 20:05 |