Why we can no longer fight a war

[JCeasar_911]

We (america) have completely lost our ability to wage war. At the start of the war i was completely against it but now that we have been cast into it by our unreliable government i feel we need to see it through till the end. The problem is that alot of Americans have lost their will to fight a war. We have lost over 2,000 soldiers and already people are saying its too many lives and comparing it to Vietnam. Sure Iraq has the potential to become like vietnam but you cant compare it to that. And yes 2,000 soldiers is alot but when comparing this to D-day when we lost more than 2,000 men in a single day its crazy. It seems we have completely lost the willpower to wage war as everyone is anti-war these days. Now i dont want to come across as a war loving individual as i am not. My brother is heading to the middle east very soon as he is in the military. I just think that people need to protest entering a war during peacetime (unless there is a good reason to enter one like 9/11) and see war out to the end once we are in one.

[kev-o]

Whose "we" that don't want to fight the war. Most of the troops over in Iraq want to be there. And don't back up your claims with polls, because they are biased and can never be relied on.

[Kretchfoop]

Whose "we" that don't want to fight the war. Most of the troops over in Iraq want to be there. And don't back up your claims with polls, because they are biased and can never be relied on.

Haha. Where do you get this "most" claim? The clear majority of people I personaly know who spent time in Iraq did not want to be there at all. And don't back up your claims with polls, because they are biased and can never be relied on.

[kev-o]

Haha. Where do you get this "most" claim? The clear majority of people I personaly know who spent time in Iraq did not want to be there at all. And don't back up your claims with polls, because they are biased and can never be relied on.

Gee, how does one join the army? They volunteer! They volunteered to be over there!

[Black Hawk]

Gee, how does one join the army? They volunteer! They volunteered to be over there!

They volunteered to be in the army not to fight a war in Iraq, most of them where tricked with false promises of not seeing active duty and getting money for college. But the reality is you will be sent to Iraq and won't see a dime of college money since you can only use this money while you are in the army and you can't go to college in Iraq where you will spend most of your enlistment. Also the contract you sign to enlist is on applicable to you, the army does not have to honor it and can change the conditions whenever they please.

[kev-o]

They volunteered to be in the army not to fight a war in Iraq, most of them where tricked with false promises of not seeing active duty and getting money for college. But the reality is you will be sent to Iraq and won't see a dime of college money since you can only use this money while you are in the army and you can't go to college in Iraq where you will spend most of your enlistment. Also the contract you sign to enlist is on applicable to you, the army does not have to honor it and can change the conditions whenever they please.

Oh, I see now. This reminds me of John Kerry. " If you work hard and study you can succeed in life. If not, you get stuck in Iraq." Soooo, those who joined were to stupid to see through the hidden messages, right?

[sdjenkyn]

[quote=Black Hawk;1875996]They volunteered to be in the army not to fight a war in Iraq, most of them where tricked with false promises of not seeing active duty and getting money for college. But the reality is you will be sent to Iraq and won't see a dime of college money since you can only use this money while you are in the army and you can't go to college in Iraq where you will spend most of your enlistment. Also the contract you sign to enlist is on applicable to you, the army does not have to honor it and can change the conditions whenever they please.

False promises? Tricked into joining. Facts sir, please.

[Farnan]

Our military is completely incompetent and largely concerned with bureaucratic turf. The US military has extraordinary amounts of firepower but is borderline useless at everything else, aside from tactical proficiency at the battalion level or lower.

The military is mired in stifling bureaucracy and has ten times more officers than is necessary. Decades after it was developed, the US military remains totally incapable of fighting a third generation war, and it still has no counter-insurgency doctrine whatsoever, despite the experience of Vietnam, and now Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US military is a $500 billion a year joke and is capable of little else than blowing **** up.

I may be forgetting something, but I'm pretty sure we smashed the Iraqi Army in a matter of weeks in a ground war using division size assets using a blitzkrieg Guderian would be proud of. There is a lot of bureaucracy, but no more than any other federal agency.

Also, we have developed counter-insurgency strategies. The lastest counter-insurgency field manual was released a few months ago, one of the authors being General Petraeus.

Oh yea, blowing **** up as you put it is the whole goal of the military. We prefer the term closing with and destroying the enemy.

Like most people, Americans are sheep and can be convinced of almost anything given sufficient propaganda. This is no different than how Germans were convinced they were in danger, or even your own country when it invaded the USSR (and advanced past the territories the USSR annexed in 1940).

Of course you are correct, but it just isn't that simple.


People have little stomach to see their countrymen dying in wars that have nothing to do with self-defense or even justice, and this is a very good thing. I for one support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.


The purpose of a military is to wage war, and this includes non-state wars. The US military has no strategic doctrine or operational proficiency in fighting non-state wars.

Regarding state wars, the US is only successful due to overwhelming material superiority, the credit of which belongs to the US economy, not the US military.


I said that the United States is incapable of fighting a third generation war, not a third generation opponent. The US did defeat a third generation opponent: the Third Reich. The German Army's operational and strategic proficiency was immensely superior to that of its opponents, including the US Army. However, the US Army advanced on a broad front with completely mechanized forces with more firepower than the Germans used during the Siege of Sevastopol. Under such conditions, victory was inevitable. Again, the credit belongs to the US economy. American industrialists won the Second World War.


Strawman. You are well aware that enlisted men have zero say in the priorities, strategy, doctrine, or training of the US military. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the courage and resolve of those who voluntarily give up their lives at home in the service of their country (whether or not the war they are engaged in is just).

I have, however, close to zero respect for American flag officers or the civilian bureaucracy in the Pentagon, which is primarily considered with getting more funding for more pretty toys.

Colonel John Boyd had it right, "It's people, ideas, and then weapons. IN THAT ORDER!" The US military places a very low priority on people and ideas, which is why most US soldiers are poorly trained and why US doctrine is obsolete by about 80 years, aside from technical wizardry.

Where do I start?

I'll ignore the political part first.

I already dealt with the counter-insurgency doctrine. Most of the problems come from the political not military side. They, not the military, disbanded the Iraqi Army and outlawed militia.

Next, overwhelming material superiourity is useless if you don't have competent people pulling the trigger. Else we should have taken far heavier causaulties during the Gulf War and the invasion. Even when vastly outnumbered and outgunned we outperform our opponents. See the Battle of Mogadishu.

Tactically, the German soldier man for man may have been better than the US soldier, but strategically the German Army was hamstrung by Hitler and the Western Allies outperformed it in that aspect. Also, I don't remember any industrialist sitting in a foxhole outside of Bastogne, fighting in the jungles of Burma, landing on the beaches of Normandy or Okinawa, or jumping into Holland.

Actually enlistedmen have a huge say in training, as all training is done by enlistedmen. They also have a good deal of say in doctrine, as there is an enlistedman assigned to every command. At platoon level they are Sergeant First Classes, at company level First Sergeants, and at battalion and higher Command Sergeant Major. The highest is the Sergeant Major of the Army. Enlistedmen may also become Warrant Officers who are specialist in a field and have a good deal of say regarding that field.

I have little respect for the civilian beauracrats, but the flag officers are doing their job well given their circumstances. Also those "pretty toys" save tens of thousands of lives. I personally like the fact that our military is not referred to as "borrowers" and I know I will have sufficent body armor, an excellent sight for my rifle, and good comm gear to communicate with the rest of my platoon once I get back into the real military.

Actually we place very high priority on people. This is why we urge combat lifesaver training, and good equipment. Even the best soldier can do very little with a sharpened stick as a weapon. Also, we are definately not poorly trained. When we are not fighting we are training. Training in such skills as MOUT, Checkpoint Ops, IED detection, small unit tactics, large unit tactics, marksmanship, first aid, and other essential skills. We are not 80 years behind, at OSUT they teach how to fight the current war. I doubt soldiers in 1927 were trained with an emphasis on MOUT and IED detection.

They volunteered to be in the army not to fight a war in Iraq, most of them where tricked with false promises of not seeing active duty and getting money for college. But the reality is you will be sent to Iraq and won't see a dime of college money since you can only use this money while you are in the army and you can't go to college in Iraq where you will spend most of your enlistment. Also the contract you sign to enlist is on applicable to you, the army does not have to honor it and can change the conditions whenever they please.

You are completely wrong. First, there were no false promises of not seeing active duty. I went through this process and they continually emphasize the fact that you can go active duty. Its even in the wording of the contract. Also, you can use that money when you get out of the military. Its the whole idea of the money. Actually if you are active duty you can only use this money after you leave the military. Also the Army is as bound to follow the contract as you are. They cannot change it unless you fail to live up to your side of the bargain.

I wish people knew what they were talking about before the verbal diaherria started.

Oh yea, about your videos in your post after the one I quoted, lying at MEPS is a given. Its mostly a case that MEPS (which is where you get your Army physical) has no overriding body and the people there are too lazy to investigate anything so they just look for a reason to reject you. Such as someone having asthma at age 14 but no longer having it would be rejected if MEPS found out because they are too lazy to look up the fact that you no longer have it and should be waivered. Its difficult to explain.

[Kretchfoop]

Gee, how does one join the army? They volunteer! They volunteered to be over there!

Some have been in the military before the war started.

Besides, I fail to see the relevance of this post. What's your point? That because they are in the military they are suppose to agree 100% with the war? I was not aware that people gave up independent thought when joining the military.

[Daovonnaex]

Some have been in the military before the war started.

Besides, I fail to see the relevance of this post. What's your point? That because they are in the military they are suppose to agree 100% with the war? I was not aware that people gave up independent thought when joining the military.

I think the point is that soldiers are generally supposed to follow orders.

[Hunter Makoy]

Some have been in the military before the war started.

Besides, I fail to see the relevance of this post. What's your point? That because they are in the military they are suppose to agree 100% with the war? I was not aware that people gave up independent thought when joining the military.

i agree with the first response to ur post, and add this. anyone who joins the army at any time better make damn sure they r willing to go to war when ever and where ever it may be during their time in the millitary. to have a mentality otherwise is completely against the aspect of wanting to join ur countries millitary.

[Goudvinger]

Every nation can win an oldfashioned war, one army versus another untill one army surrenders. After the surrender starts the "war" that you are talking about; war against rebels/terrorists. These wars were pretty popular in the last few centuries and cannot be won for there will always be another idiot who believes he should attack the army of the country that occupies his. Different religions make these things even worse.

[Namm]

The peace movement (among other movements) have left its mark on society and Americans (and Westerners in general) are today more civilized than they were before. That's why the opposition to war is stronger nowadays, at least when measured in opinions. Actions is another story. It's not like Washington is paralysed by huge anti-war demonstrations every week...

"More than 2 000 dead" by the way? Yes, more than 2 000 dead. 3 500 American soldiers have been killed and 50 000 have been psychically wounded/injured and a large chunk, 13 % according to one study, of those that have served in Iraq (and are currently serving, supposedly) are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (nightmares, aggressive behaviour, flashbacks, depression).

According to Pentagon there are up to 1 000 attacks every week against American troops and about 100 are killed every month. Many more gets wounded.

You can't compare the occupation duty in Iraq to a conventional war. You need to compare it to other occupations. Such as the Nazi's occupation of Western Europe. They never had this much military trouble, never even close, and they were occupying more people in terrain more suited for guerilla warfare, and the resistance groups that did exist had the direct support of two of the worlds major powers (US and UK).

The Afghan War in the 80's is probably the best occupation/less intense war to compare the current Iraq War to. It went on for ten years and ended up with 13 000 Soviet soldiers (and 1.3 million Afghans) dead. The occupation of Iraq is on its fifth year now and the attacks on foreign troops are increasing.

This war is a continuation of the previous gulf war in which Sadam had violated the treaty of the previous war time and time again but the U.S. had not gotten involved until now.

You're clearly not aware of the fact that the US and UK bombed Iraq frequently, hundreds of times each year, and sanctioned it from the end of the Gulf War up to the 2003 invasion. It led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis according to UN reports and destroyed much of Iraqi civil society. Not involved you say?

We went into Iraq for oil? Where's my 40 cent-per-gallon gasoline, then?

US control of Iraqi oil doesn't necessarily mean cheaper gas for you. The control over the energy resources are mainly used as a political/economical tool to achieve certain goals, such as negotiating trade agreements, gaining access to foreign soil for US military bases, keeping allies in check and so on.

[podshadow]

Well americans dont really know how to wage war. In the two world wars america just got in on the last moment and lost big time in Vietnam. I predict Canada will conquer US in the next 50 years or so.

[Daovonnaex]

Well americans dont really know how to wage war. In the two world wars america just got in on the last moment and lost big time in Vietnam. I predict Canada will conquer US in the next 50 years or so.

American involvement in both world wars was decisive, and Vietnam was a military victory (but a strategic defeat). People forget that by 1972 the essential goals of the American involvement in Vietnam had been realized. Post-Watergate, Congress withdrew from its obligation to the South Vietnamese government, which resulted in North Vietnam invading South Vietnam.

As for Canada taking over the US, neither Americans nor Canadians have no interest in fighting eachother. We are closer to eachother than any other two countries are in the world.

War consists of mass murder, robbery, and quite often slavery. I am quite pleased that Americans don't have the stomach to wage aggressive foreign wars.

If someone attacks America, I'll grab my rifle and fight to the bitter end. I have no interest in dying in a war of aggression, however.

[podshadow]

War consists of mass murder, robbery, and quite often slavery. I am quite pleased that Americans don't have the stomach to wage aggressive foreign wars.

Then why do you atacked iraq(oil)?! I do think usa is the wrong doer on to global politics.

[Daovonnaex]

Then why do you atacked iraq(oil)?! I do think usa is the wrong doer on to global politics.

I agree with you, but I was responding to the creator of the thread. He was complaining that a majority of Americans now want to withdraw from Iraq, which he sees as a lack of willpower.

[JCeasar_911]

I agree with you, but I was responding to the creator of the thread. He was complaining that a majority of Americans now want to withdraw from Iraq, which he sees as a lack of willpower.

I do believe it is from a lack of willpower. People in America are twisted into believing so many lies such as why the war is being fought. And yes oil is a reason and it should be because if America pulls out its enemies will move in and thus they will control the prices of the oil. However, oil was not the main reason why the war was started and i hope no ones believes its because of WMD's. This war is a continuation of the previous gulf war in which Sadam had violated the treaty of the previous war time and time again but the U.S. had not gotten involved until now.

[Daovonnaex]

I blame the war on all who voteted for Bush's "antiterorist" campaign, thats more that 50% of americans, just stop killing people

Like most people, Americans are sheep and can be convinced of almost anything given sufficient propaganda. This is no different than how Germans were convinced they were in danger, or even your own country when it invaded the USSR (and advanced past the territories the USSR annexed in 1940).

Of course you are correct, but it just isn't that simple.

I do believe it is from a lack of willpower. People in America are twisted into believing so many lies such as why the war is being fought. And yes oil is a reason and it should be because if America pulls out its enemies will move in and thus they will control the prices of the oil. However, oil was not the main reason why the war was started and i hope no ones believes its because of WMD's. This war is a continuation of the previous gulf war in which Sadam had violated the treaty of the previous war time and time again but the U.S. had not gotten involved until now.

People have little stomach to see their countrymen dying in wars that have nothing to do with self-defense or even justice, and this is a very good thing. I for one support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

That's a start ...

After all, the primary purpose of a military force is to blow things up and kill people, and do it better than the enemy's military.

The purpose of a military is to wage war, and this includes non-state wars. The US military has no strategic doctrine or operational proficiency in fighting non-state wars.

Regarding state wars, the US is only successful due to overwhelming material superiority, the credit of which belongs to the US economy, not the US military.

Concerning your statement that the United States can't defeat a "third-generation" military, haven't we already done that?

I said that the United States is incapable of fighting a third generation war, not a third generation opponent. The US did defeat a third generation opponent: the Third Reich. The German Army's operational and strategic proficiency was immensely superior to that of its opponents, including the US Army. However, the US Army advanced on a broad front with completely mechanized forces with more firepower than the Germans used during the Siege of Sevastopol. Under such conditions, victory was inevitable. Again, the credit belongs to the US economy. American industrialists won the Second World War.

However, your contention that that the US military is a "joke", the lack of respect ... in this statement ... shown for volunteers soldiers serving their country is quite apparent. If you're an American, you should be ashamed of making such statement. If you're not an American, would your country care to take on these "jokes"?

Strawman. You are well aware that enlisted men have zero say in the priorities, strategy, doctrine, or training of the US military. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the courage and resolve of those who voluntarily give up their lives at home in the service of their country (whether or not the war they are engaged in is just).

I have, however, close to zero respect for American flag officers or the civilian bureaucracy in the Pentagon, which is primarily considered with getting more funding for more pretty toys.

Colonel John Boyd had it right, "It's people, ideas, and then weapons. IN THAT ORDER!" The US military places a very low priority on people and ideas, which is why most US soldiers are poorly trained and why US doctrine is obsolete by about 80 years, aside from technical wizardry.

[Oldgamer]

People have little stomach to see their countrymen dying in wars that have nothing to do with self-defense or even justice, and this is a very good thing. I for one support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Are you willing to accept the responsibility for the consequences of that pullout?