Can the US ever win a war again?

[usm2b]

Ok...a couple days agot this thread showed up, http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=61378.


Ishihara said while China would begin a war without hesitation at the cost of massive human casualties, the United States has found that the deaths of only 2,000 troops in Iraq has created major domestic problems.
"I believe we are placed in a high degree of tension that poses greater danger than the Cold War structure between the United States and Russia posed," he said.

That is a powerful statement. If you think about it, public opinion is at it's lowest ever for a president. We have lost 2000 soldiers over 2 years which is way too many considering there our boys and girls... but for a war that is not a bad casualty rate considering most have been from IED's. However if the American public is having such a bitchfit with our casualties now how would they get in a war with china or north korea? Is it just that Iraq isn't persay a war...but just a far off distant conflict that the American people don't understand/ or care for? Would a full-blown war with X-country have more support?

In WWII the homefront was part of the war effort and the media wasn't as imbedded as it is now...and in Iraq, the most our homefront is affected is by gas prices, and the family members who lose their son or daughter.

What do you guys think, does the American public have the will to win a war...or are we just pacified beyond belief?

[ed316]

Who ever said Iraq is over.

[kineret]

attitudes change when people themselves feel threatened,like in WW2. Many americans percieve the Iraq war to be 'illigitimate' or unnecessary.

[Pille1234]

I think the key question is "Fighting for what?". People are hesitant to accept casualties for rather unimportant or doubtful reasons like feeding the hungry in somalia or protecting a small group of people in an unknown country like Kosovo. Same can be seen in Iraq. There was a majority that believed Iraq was a true threat for the USA and therefore a majority of ppl supported the war. As they realised that they have been cheated and there never has been a threat their support vanished.
Looking at WW2, the US people where not interested in getting involved until they were attacked directly. Would today's people be willing to carry the burden of a full scale war, e.g. against China? Most probably yes, if they are threatened or at least feel a threat to their country. If they are willing to carry the burden of war to defend Taiwan only? That is another question.

[)I(EHbKA.]

US won't attack China or North Korea, they know that if they do it's the end for them, the only reason US went into Iraq is because Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and only when they were sure of that they went in

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

the only reason US went into Iraq is because Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and only when they were sure of that they went in
One of many stupid statements that people like repeating.


Of course, you're right, that's why we used it as our primary reason to go into Iraq, just so we could embarass ourselves. It's also why our troops practiced for gas attacks.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

If they are willing to carry the burden of war to defend Taiwan only? That is another question.
I think a more interesting question: Does America's nuclear shield extend to Taiwan?

[EvanL]

US won't attack China or North Korea, they know that if they do it's the end for them, the only reason US went into Iraq is because Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and only when they were sure of that they went in
why dont you do yourself and the rest of the country a favour, and move back to Russia where your rertardation will actually make you look like a genius.

[szr]

First and foremost, declining support for the Iraq mission can be attributed to a perception that not enough is being accomplished for the price that's being paid, and that not enough is being done to speed up progress; not this "we feel like we were lied to" crap. Where does the public get this perception? It's been said a thousand times before--the mainstream media--and it's true. The administration's most zealous opponents both inside and outside this country insist that no WMD and "Bush's lies" are at fault. It's convenient for the President's domestic opponents to assert this, and perhaps it's comforting to foreigners in particular to believe this fantasy. As someone who voted for the other guy last election, I'm comfident, however, that "Bush's lies" are not the cause.

The silent majority of Americans realise that Iraq no longer had WMDs at the time of the invasion. But they also realise that you can't undo history and now that we're there we need to make the most of it, which means assisting Iraq transform into a representative democracy where individual rights are protected, because that's good for them and it's good for us. Most know that pussying-out isn't a rational option. And the majority of Americans who keep themselves informed DON'T want to pull out. They want our approach to this conflict to be reassessed to see if there isn't a better way to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish.

What's my personal opinion of the conflict? I think both the military and the government are doing all they can without resorting to other 'tactics'. Unfortunately, in my opinion, lack of imagination and foresight on the part of the current administration have made this more complicated than it ever had to be. "Stay the course" intransigence and an unwillingness to entertain alternative ideas, early on, severely limited our options.


As for the original post, just when Europe and the world thought nobody could possibly stomach another war, them and the rest of the world were back at it again. Regardless of what happens in Iraq, America will fight future wars if it needs to.


)I(EHbKA., when you're done eating the paint chips at your place, I've got some Clorox you can drink.

[cut]

forget about WW1 or WW2, the craziest war that was ever faught was the american civil war, when you think about the biggest losses in WW2 were by soviets with littele concern for individual lives remember that the american civil war, lead to the death of about 3.5 million dead in a nation of 45 million, that's not far off 10% of the population, even rwanda wasn't that bad. And what was it all for? historically in the states it's portrayed as freeing black slaves, but once free they went into a life of segregation that lasted to the 1960s which was arguably worse! The other factor in the american civil war was the imposing of capitalism on the south by the north, followed by the reconstruction of the south, the blueprint for recontruction ever since including WWII and Iraq now).


If you are worried about 2000 troops now we are heading for the collapse of our western system because enemies will be able to exploit our fear of casualties.

[asch]

why dont you do yourself and the rest of the country a favour, and move back to Russia where your rertardation will actually make you look like a genius
well, you know people from Russia? actually? russians who live in Russia? and that give you right to make arrogant and stupid comments?

common statement about americans, for example, that they all fat and stupid. and we, russians, all day drink vodka, play balalayka and walk our snow-fillen streets with bears.

so don't make me laugh at your comments. be reasonable.

[EvanL]

well, you know people from Russia? actually? russians who live in Russia? and that give you right to make arrogant and stupid comments?

common statement about americans, for example, that they all fat and stupid. and we, russians, all day drink vodka, play balalayka and walk our snow-fillen streets with bears.

so don't make me laugh at your comments. be reasonable.
good thing im not a yank then.. cus maybe id be mildly offended.

[asch]

good thing im not a yank then.. cus maybe id be mildly offended
heh, my miss.
btw, you got the point
peace.

[)I(EHbKA.]

you don't like what I said, that's not my problem, and don't be an idiot and make those comments about Russia, you don't know **** about Russia

[fremen]

attitudes change when people themselves feel threatened,like in WW2. Many americans percieve the Iraq war to be 'illigitimate' or unnecessary.

I agree with this statement 100%. The point is that people will support a war fully when legitimacy is not in question.

[RubyRidgway]

Personally, I think that as of now, the American public feels little attachment to the war in Iraq, aside from the lasting sentiment of 9/11. We don't have to ration gas (just pay the damn high prices), we don't have rolling blackouts (in Virginia), and I can still reload .308 for about 16 cents a round. Any war with China, and even a major involvement in N. Korea would definitely impact domestic America's way of life, given globalized trade, and possible civilian infrastructure attacks by America's enemies. Not having power for hours on end and not having fuel for a cute little Honda generator would definitely give the American public incentive to back a war, though an unlikely one, with China or NK. As the situation stands, the majority of what we hear from Iraq is via the media, so everything colored its own way. In the forseeable future, I don't see U.S. victories defined in terms of battlefield wins/losses, I'd be willing to bet that history will will show our "wins" as outcomes which favor U.S. goals (increased stability, human rights inprovement, "regime change," or decreased stability, etc.).

Once reality hits and everybody stops watching "The OC," I think that the horror and occational necessity of war will sink in, and the American public will fully support a large scale conflict which I feel that the U.S. could win.
But that's just me.

[.666 Caliber]

As long as its a fully conventional war fought on open terrain...definetly.( ie: The gulf War). We have an incredible force even with the cutbacks that took away SAC, MAC and other strategic commands in the mid 90s. Guerrilla warfare is definetly not our specialty. I feel as though the situation that is Iraq can and would be a pain in the ass for any modern military because contemporary training, especially in countries that are part of the UN, does not entail dealing with cowards like Juba and so on and so forth. Urban warfare training inmy opinion cannot be fought with tanks and other vehicles if you dont know your blind spots. An Example would be me an insurgent in Baltimore. Say French soldiers are the occupying force. I Know every corner of my home but the French dont'. I could pick off at least a dozen soldiers with little worry of getting caught( if i had military training) becasue i have multiple escape routes.Urban warfare training is good but it still doesnt give a really superiior edge if your enemy has benn fighting/living in these areas for all of his/her life.

[melon]

The only people who think American's would not support another war are all of our possible, future enemies. They will join the historical list of countries that failed to grasp the obvious. Its almost as long a list as the ones who attempted to invade Russia in the winter.


Let them think that America has no stomach for war, its a falsehood. Its an assertion thats not based upon ANY past history or knowledge of America or its culture. We are an independent minded populace, easily angered when attacked. The VOCAL minority in America expouses a dislike for the Iraq campaign, but most here believe in what we are doing. Many are upset at its pace, but as someone pointed out ealier, the ones who pay attention and have a sliver of common sense and proportionality understand what is going on. The same "group think" ones who only parrot the leftist Hollywood anti-war, anti-capitalist, and foreign based anti-American propoganda would just as easily be waving the flag and calling for blood if we were attacked again. They don't pay attention to or understand the dynamics of what goes on outside of America, as only cursory glances are paid to current events. Having a conversation with them highlites their lack of knowledge of issues, or their bias or anger at America, our economic status/system or disagree with the blunt insistance on doing what is right and/or in the best interest of United States.

[TacoDelRio]

We can win another war.

You can do anything, so long as you believe in it.

In other words, make the media shut the f*ck up, and start putting some real figures up instead of deaths deaths deaths.....

So basically it's up to YOU if you want us to win or lose.

[melon]

As long as its a fully conventional war fought on open terrain...definetly.( ie: The gulf War). We have an incredible force even with the cutbacks that took away SAC, MAC and other strategic commands in the mid 90s. Guerrilla warfare is definetly not our specialty. I feel as though the situation that is Iraq can and would be a pain in the ass for any modern military because contemporary training, especially in countries that are part of the UN, does not entail dealing with cowards like Juba and so on and so forth. Urban warfare training inmy opinion cannot be fought with tanks and other vehicles if you dont know your blind spots. An Example would be me an insurgent in Baltimore. Say French soldiers are the occupying force. I Know every corner of my home but the French dont'. I could pick off at least a dozen soldiers with little worry of getting caught( if i had military training) becasue i have multiple escape routes.Urban warfare training is good but it still doesnt give a really superiior edge if your enemy has benn fighting/living in these areas for all of his/her life.


Dont disagree so much with these comments, but SAC, TAC and MAC were not eliminated, but intergrated and condensed into smaller, more usable commands. No separate commands for MAC, TAC or SAC, but command structures where elements of each were placed under multiple, single-command elements. Streamlined, if you will. Older platforms that were less flexible were retired or mothballed as needed.

Also, the ongoing offenses in the Anbar provice, Falluja and Sadr City are examples where our conventional forces beat the guerrilla forces of the bathists and terrorists. They were defeated and destroyed in place. What we have now are IED attacks which are not offensive operations, but nothing more than harrasment attacks with the intent of killing people in an attempt to slowly kill the will to stay in Iraq. Whenever the enemy masses in stregth, they are pounded on, and routinely decimated. Can you name one situation where US troops have lost a battle in Iraq? Casualties to be sure, but defeated? These attacks will NEVER defeat the military, but may kill the will of the supporting populace back home. Every call to bring the troops home before the job is done is almost as effective as a car bomb, as far as the terrorist are concerned.

Just my humble opinion.

[.666 Caliber]

Your opinion has enlightened me. Thanx. Your right we have never lost a battle but it pains me when 4 soldiers on average die a day due to these cowarly IED attacks.

[Seraphim]

you don't like what I said, that's not my problem, and don't be an idiot and make those comments about Russia, you don't know **** about Russia

We can say the same thing about your initial comment.

[JQ24]

attitudes change when people themselves feel threatened,like in WW2. Many americans percieve the Iraq war to be 'illigitimate' or unnecessary.

X2. The Iraq war is an unpopular war because some americans were opposed to it while others were in support of it. When the public found out that Saddam did not have WMD's, some supporters of the war changed their views because Saddam was actually not an imminent threat as he was percieved to be.

[Kitsune]

Russia is a nation of hairy, alcoholic chess genii...

[n.ignomo]

About Taiwan and missile shield, maybe you forgot than when you attack with ballistic missiles, you don't just send one ! You send hundreds, and maybe only two carry nuclear weapons, and then the shield is unefficient.

[melon]

About Taiwan and missile shield, maybe you forgot than when you attack with ballistic missiles, you don't just send one ! You send hundreds, and maybe only two carry nuclear weapons, and then the shield is unefficient.


Thats another misconception about missiles, very rarely would a missile shield be outnumbered in terms of available SAM/ABM's vs the number of inbound projectiles. SAM/ABM's are cheaper and easier to produce and field. Remember, part of the Tawainese shield is AEGIS capable ships, which have 127 VLS tubes each, in the case of a Tico class cruiser. A few of these, combined with Patriot or other available AD systems should even out the score. Newer generation AD is better, faster and more capable than what was deployed in the first Gulf War, which prevented even a single SCUD from hitting a tactical target. The AEGIS system was designed to handle HUNDEREDS of super sonic inbounds per ship/CVBG. IMO, they (China) has a first strike capabilitly only, the launchers would not be able to reload before being destroyed. Nuclear missles will not be flying towards Tawian anytime soon, what possible reason would they do so?

[rocket13]

I think we can win another war, just have to throw out the rules that hold us down. Play like it was world war II again.

[ed316]

The only people who believes this is people who belive this is the decline of the American "empire" whatever that is. If taiwan was to be attacked I think the American public will back military action againt China. Americans know that to let a democratically elected country be taken over and not do anything about is to ignore what America is all about.IMHO

[vryhpyammoadded]

It all depends on the type of war that happens. The US has, since the late 19th century had an approach avoidance thing going on with anything slightly smelling of imperialism so all these little conflicts end up tearing the public support apart. Read up on the wars with the banana republics during the 20’s-30’s and you’ll see some familiar relationships. Nicaragua during the 30s would be one good example. The 60’s and 70’s were not the first time these silly hippie protests made the media. If you could calculate it, you’ll find deep down, the US really hates being the world police.
I guess what I’m getting at is that if the public cannot understand the need for sacrifice, they will not support military action. Iraq case in point being the preponderance of innuendo concerning issues like “Halliburton”, “Invaded for Oil”, “Bush is palsy with Saudi royals”, “Secret Illegal CIA Prisons” etc… This BS tears at resolve making every casualty number sting those who don’t understand.

On the other hand… When a major conflict brews up (WWI, WWII), the US people will not want to enter but, they will go all the way to win, pay any price or die trying once they see the threat for what it is.
Lord forbid, a war with China would ever occur. I can’t imagine a more terrible and tragic mistake of judgment in world leaders than to allow something like this to occur but, if it did, I’m certain the US people will commit and WWII would pale by comparison.

I’ve been following Chinese military leaders for over a decade and I see the same dreadful miscalculations that so many other countries have made in the past when they misjudged US resolve. Since WWI powers have all been saying the same stupid thing. “The US will give in. We’ll negotiate a peace if we kill a few of there boys. They don’t have the stomach for war.” It’s this silly “they won’t fight” thinking that gets lots of people dead.

[joe mama]

Are you wondering if the US has the stomach to win a war where, primarily, military forces fight other military forces? Or are you wondering if the US has the stomach to keep troops in a place where they are fighting, however no unit of any significant size is in any danger of being displaced or destroyed by the enemy?
There is a HUGE difference between the US military fighting, for example, in South Korea against the North Korean army (assume they attacked the South) and winning battles or losing battles (units retreating or captured or destroyed) and the "war" will end when either military is no longer effective AND the US military attempting to keep things calm enough for the Iraqis to build relatively effective police and military forces and set up a system that won't collapse the moment we leave, even if during that time some soldiers are dying and no one can really put their finger on exactly when we can leave.

[ElHombre]

the goal of convincing the american people of fighting a war is dependent on its leaders explaining the necessity and backing it up with facts. it's one reason why vietnam ended up with the US losing (although bad senior military leadership also lent a hand). it also explains the reason for diminished support for iraq. from the beginning, the administration rationale for invading iraq depended less on ideals than it did on exploiting fear of another 9/11 attack. the fact that iraq had nothing to do with AQ was cheerfully ignored and critics were demonized as 'un-patriotic'. you need a united US to lead into war. the administration's own actions guaranteed that wouldn't happen.

[LaoSexMachine]

The question should not be "Could the US win a war ever again" it should be "Will the US public back the Government if the US is not directly threaten"IMHO

[Nightsky]

I think the public will back it, given the media make the public back it.
This applies to almost all western countries, so I think the media is the place where to turn to if you need support for a policy (no, state intervention in media is not desirable, but .... it may happen).

And depending on the media's stance the public will back a war or not.

N.

[dangerclose]

forget about WW1 or WW2, the craziest war that was ever faught was the american civil war, when you think about the biggest losses in WW2 were by soviets with littele concern for individual lives remember that the american civil war, lead to the death of about 3.5 million dead in a nation of 45 million, that's not far off 10% of the population, even rwanda wasn't that bad. And what was it all for? historically in the states it's portrayed as freeing black slaves, but once free they went into a life of segregation that lasted to the 1960s which was arguably worse!


You're right .. the blacks were better off as slaves.

Sorry .. but that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

[Macs.]

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”

- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nürnberg
Trials after World War II.

[Para]

Of course America can win the war, can the politicians stand the pressure from anti war groups. There is nothing wrong with American Forces it is the publics concept that wars can be won with casualties

[Pindeho]

I think a more interesting question: Does America's nuclear shield extend to Taiwan?

Sorry................what cud you repeat that?? WHat Nuke Shield?

[Pindeho]

Of course America can win the war, can the politicians stand the pressure from anti war groups. There is nothing wrong with American Forces it is the publics concept that wars can be won with casualties

ALso mate, war means money for arms manufacturers, which is exactly why Chechnya is still going on............Some people somewhere are making money from wars as we..........Dont know it!

[Eudes]

As has been stated people would like to know what they are getting killed for. Many Americans were pulled from their civilian lives to drive around dirty cities a world away to get shot at and for what? If the Military wasn't pulling from the NG or IRR so much I think public opinion wouldn't be as poor. Leave the war to the professionals, not to the guys who signed up to fill sand bags when the Mississippi floods.

[melon]

As has been stated people would like to know what they are getting killed for. Many Americans were pulled from their civilian lives to drive around dirty cities a world away to get shot at and for what? If the Military wasn't pulling from the NG or IRR so much I think public opinion wouldn't be as poor. Leave the war to the professionals, not to the guys who signed up to fill sand bags when the Mississippi floods.


Any person who signed up post Operation Desert Storm and understood their obligations to be nothing more than parades and sandbagging a flooded village levy are morons. They are not glorified boy scouts, but a RESERVE force attached to the federal government and used when the Pentagon see fit. They are part time soldiers, who train for military operations, and some NG are also are part of the disaster plan in the states they currently are based. They are professionals, in both worlds, civilian and military.

Any other understanding of their role is incorrect.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Sorry................what cud you repeat that?? WHat Nuke Shield?
I mean our collection of nuclear-tipped ICBMs. The same one we developed during the cold war. Would we protect Taiwan with nuclear weapons if China attempts to aggressively subdue the island?

[Teaser]

US won't attack China or North Korea, they know that if they do it's the end for them, the only reason US went into Iraq is because Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and only when they were sure of that they went in

No they went for one thing...... OIL

[Whoami88]

No they went for one thing...... OIL

Lol, I love how people say this and completly ignore the fact that the US gets most of its oil from South America:roll:

[Lerclair]

Yeah.. that's why Chavez is cranky these days.