Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Vietnam was not a military defeat, but rather it was a political failure. Eisenhower should've embraced Ho Chi Mihn's communist government & supported him against Red China. But the French would've been outraged. Charlie played it smart though and manipulated the political side masterfully.
The removal of Saddam was a good thing, & that effort was successful. But Bush/Cheney failed miserably initially to stabilize the country with a competent plan - which should've included the middle bureaucracy of the Baath Party & Iraqi military. The 2007 surge got Iraq back on track and the place was relatively stable when he left office in 2009.
Afghanistan was dealt with properly in the beginning - hammer the Taliban from power & keep them from regaining territory. That was a successful course of action, but the notion of "nation-building" there was ridiculous and doomed to failure because of the history of the region.
The US can fight wars, but our diplomacy & political planning suck balls - given the morons we elect to office (from both parties)..
I see this tidbit trotted out incessantly. It's not wrong - the highlighted part - but it is irrelevant. Every war is a political war. Virtually every defeat is political.
Wars are not conflicts between militaries. Wars are conflicts between states. Military force is one (and just one) of the tools states use to prosecute wars. As Clausewitz observed, "War is but a continuation of politics by other means". In addition to military force, states use diplomacy and coercion and economics among other tools in wars.
States have myriad interests, and that includes states at war. Winning a particular war (whatever winning means in a given context - people often fail to realize that more often not, it does not equate to conquest or even the defeat of the opposition forces) is often subservient to various other interests. And even when it is paramount, it is never exclusive. Even a state fighting for its existence has interests beyond winning that fight. If it didn't, then France would not have surrendered in 1940. The Confederacy would not have surrendered in 1865. Those were political decisions. Soldiers and arms remained. But the benefits of surrender had become more appealing than the benefits of fighting. The personal interests of the regime and of the populace always come into play.
Examples abound. The United States scrubbed Kyoto off the list of atomic bomb targets for purely political reasons. The Emporer was allowed to remain for purely political reasons. The UK could have won the Falklands War without losing a man in 1982 by opening a can of instant sunshine over Buenos Aires, but they never considered such an option. Better to lose the islands than suffer the massive fallout (no pun intended) from such a course of action. The Israelis let the Egyptian Third Army, which it had trapped and was in a position to annihilate, live in 1973's Yom Kippur War for political reasons. Political decision-making on all sides played a part in keeping chemical weapons from being used in Europe during World War II. Politics ended the U.S. intervention in Lebanon in 1983. Does anyone really think the British military itself was defeated in 1781? Of course it wasn't. The British had bigger military fish to fry, and the war against the nascent United States was increasingly unpopular in Britain. The Cold War was prosecuted politically (which explains why we didn't pulverize the USSR into oblivion when we had a nuclear monopoly - the public wouldn't have stood for it, and it wasn't in our interests to see Russians maul western Europe in its death throes).
To use an obvious example pertaining to Vietnam, the U.S. could've flung a few dozen nuclear devices at North Vietnam. That wouldn't have rooted out the Viet Cong south of the DMZ, but it would have crippled its supply line and made it manageable. But as with the example of the UK and the Falklands above, losing the war was far preferable to suffering the political damage that such an act would have incurred. Less obvious examples are numerous, and they all dovetail back to the fact that the military does not serve its own end but serves the state.
Militaries are but pawns. They are not actors in the game of war. Nor should they be. And the claim that a military didn't lose a particular war or a battle completely misunderstands the nature of war.
I see this tidbit trotted out incessantly. It's not wrong - the highlighted part - but it is irrelevant. Every war is a political war. Virtually every defeat is political.
Wars are not conflicts between militaries. Wars are conflicts between states. .
Some of the most vociferous America-haters & bashers are Americans.
Vietnam was not a military defeat, but rather it was a political failure. Eisenhower should've embraced Ho Chi Mihn's communist government & supported him against Red China. But the French would've been outraged. Charlie played it smart though and manipulated the political side masterfully.
The removal of Saddam was a good thing, & that effort was successful. But Bush/Cheney failed miserably initially to stabilize the country with a competent plan - which should've included the middle bureaucracy of the Baath Party & Iraqi military. The 2007 surge got Iraq back on track and the place was relatively stable when he left office in 2009.
Afghanistan was dealt with properly in the beginning - hammer the Taliban from power & keep them from regaining territory. That was a successful course of action, but the notion of "nation-building" there was ridiculous and doomed to failure because of the history of the region.
The US can fight wars, but our diplomacy & political planning suck balls - given the morons we elect to office (from both parties)..
First, I think you oversimplify things into either/or. Vietnam was both a military defeat and a political failure.
Second, you think Bush/Cheney should have stabilized the country, but there should have been no nation-building in Afghanistan. 2 principles at odds with each other.
Along with Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do Americans insist on believing that Americans won WW2, when the Soviet Union did most of the work.
What does this have to do with the title of your thread may I ask? As for who won the war, luckily, and thankfully many countries helped stop the disaster, but whether you want to hear it or not: we, the Americans did win the war and yes, so did our allies.
Don't believe everything you read, most views are very slanted. Were you even alive during WW2, did you have a father, uncles, cousins or grandfathers who fought for our freedoms and that of other counties?
Next thing you know, you are going to try and tell us the south won the war between the north and south
What does this have to do with the title of your thread may I ask? As for who won the war, luckily, and thankfully many countries helped stop the disaster, but whether you want to hear it or not: we, the Americans did win the war and yes, so did our allies.
Don't believe everything you read, most views are very slanted. Were you even alive during WW2, did you have a father, uncles, cousins or grandfathers who fought for our freedoms and that of other counties?
Next thing you know, you are going to try and tell us the south won the war between the north and south
As has been stated several times, OP is no longer with us...for what should be obvious reasons.
Ignore original post. Discussion moved on without him/her.
First, I think you oversimplify things into either/or. Vietnam was both a military defeat and a political failure.
Second, you think Bush/Cheney should have stabilized the country, but there should have been no nation-building in Afghanistan. 2 principles at odds with each other.
That's like saying please get a little pregnant but not completely.
First, I think you oversimplify things into either/or. Vietnam was both a military defeat and a political failure.
Second, you think Bush/Cheney should have stabilized the country, but there should have been no nation-building in Afghanistan. 2 principles at odds with each other.
It's all a matter of opinions, and we know what those resemble.
Iraq & Afghanistan were/are two different situations. Iraq has been a nation (more or less) since WWI, while Afghanistan has been a basket case for several generations.
No need to overthink such things, as these forum discussions are wont to do.
One thing for sure though, none of the western nations have had a perfect record of diplomacy. The US gets bashed because we have been the largest and "latest game in town". Probably the clumsiest too.
But yes, Vietnam was a terrible waste in lives & treasure because it was mishandled terribly - same with Iraq.
Even a state fighting for its existence has interests beyond winning that fight. If it didn't, then France would not have surrendered in 1940.
France was disorganized and demoralized for much of the 1930's. There were repeated street riots. Finally France was not interested in being the main theater for war as WW I turned large parts of the country into moonscape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
The Confederacy would not have surrendered in 1865. Those were political decisions. Soldiers and arms remained. But the benefits of surrender had become more appealing than the benefits of fighting. The personal interests of the regime and of the populace always come into play.
Examples abound. The United States scrubbed Kyoto off the list of atomic bomb targets for purely political reasons. The Emporer was allowed to remain for purely political reasons.
Actually the U.S. Civil War, Japan and Germany were great examples of the utility of total war. Kyoto was scrubbed since Japan surrendered before additional bombs needed to unleashed. And the decision was made that Hirohito was likely to be compliant and collaberate in the occupation. It worked out well. But I digress. Japan, Germany and the U.S. South surrendered after overwhelming casualties were inflicted. Germany suffered from the Dresden firebombing and other severe losses. Japan surrendered after the Tokyo firebombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. General Lee surrendered in the wake of the "March to the Sea" in Georgia and after his own armies' near starvation. I have previously started a similar thread, War, to Humane, Must be Total. You made my point for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
The UK could have won the Falklands War without losing a man in 1982 by opening a can of instant sunshine over Buenos Aires, but they never considered such an option. Better to lose the islands than suffer the massive fallout (no pun intended) from such a course of action.
Britain succeeded rather handily without unleashing nuclear weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
The Israelis let the Egyptian Third Army, which it had trapped and was in a position to annihilate, live in 1973's Yom Kippur War for political reasons.
Israel generally doesn't massacre helpless people, whether or not soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Politics ended the U.S. intervention in Lebanon in 1983.
We were beaten. We didn't have the stomach to cause the massive casualties needed to win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Does anyone really think the British military itself was defeated in 1781? Of course it wasn't. The British had bigger military fish to fry, and the war against the nascent United States was increasingly unpopular in Britain.
Britain recognized that guerrilla wars are almost impossible to win. They assumed there was more loyalist support than there was. Frankly they lost before they started since they alienated previously staunchly pro-British leaders such as George Washington and Ben Franklin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
The Cold War was prosecuted politically (which explains why we didn't pulverize the USSR into oblivion when we had a nuclear monopoly - the public wouldn't have stood for it, and it wasn't in our interests to see Russians maul western Europe in its death throes).
I think that had more to do with the fact that the U.S. and Britain were in financially desperate straits after WW II.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
To use an obvious example pertaining to Vietnam, the U.S. could've flung a few dozen nuclear devices at North Vietnam. That wouldn't have rooted out the Viet Cong south of the DMZ, but it would have crippled its supply line and made it manageable.
I think that both Vietnam's loss and Korea's stalemates were more the result of intellecutal malpractice. The Democrats hatched the idea of fighting "limited war." The problem turned out to be that the rules of engagement prevented our armies from winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
But as with the example of the UK and the Falklands above, losing the war was far preferable to suffering the political damage that such an act would have incurred.
Again, the Falklands are still under British rule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
