Quote:
Quote by: sdbest  The facts seem to be that the U.S. military cannot prevail in a war unless it's confined to the use of air power. Once the troops are on the ground, failure is imminent and assured. That's history, that's reality. |
Actually, the facts seem to be that a Canuck here either has
a) an intense desire to troll on an obvious nonsense argument, or
b) sour grapes about being the red-headed stepchild of the Western world.
But those arguments, much like yours, are unfounded, and so I shall move on.
1) You conveniently ignore every military action prior to WWI. The only serious contests for American military prior to that were few and far between... The War of 1812, in which America was a fledgling upstart taking on the world's greatest power at the time (and still managed to win key battles and essentially end the war no worse off than the beginning). And, the American Civil War, in which the US military found a tough opponent - themselves.
2) To say that American participation in WWI was meaningless is silly. The entire war was essentially a meaningless stalemate. AEF contribution was hampered by politics - a trend that continues throughout the 20th Century. In particular, the protracted involvement (the very nature of the AEF, in fact) and the political choices made at home - issuance of the Cheau-Cheau for example (the French-made rifle widely considered to be the worst arm ever used in battle) - blunted the AEF's effect. The military on the ground fought well in a brutal, unwinable war.
3) American involvement in Korea was incredibly effective and your statements otherwise are nonsense. The Americans joined the fight in July, with a protracted involvement while, once again, the politicians wrung their hands. By September, South Korea had been pushed to the last 10% of the Korean peninsula, and American force was finally unleashed in full power from Washington. In about a month they had completely pushed past the former NK border. Once again, politics entered the fray and as the objectives changed, the stalemate ensued. The border stands as it is now because American politicians, further mangled by UN involvement, wanted to keep newly-minted Communist China out of the war (even though both sides were fighting by proxy at that point, with American pilots going so far as to paint their planes with SK markings).
4) American involvement in Vietnam was wholly controlled by political bungling. On a ground-level basis, the American troops manhandled the NVA and VC at pretty much every turn - the problem was that politics in the States forced them to fight a strange war with no objective, supported by incredibly corrupt and retarded South Vietnamese locals. Despite political wranglings at home and South Viet impotence, American troops left Vietnam with the South still being intact. Only after our politicians signed a treaty ensuring our exit did the South fall.
5) The first Gulf War was a rousing success. Our goal was to liberate Kuwait, accomplished in a matter of weeks and with ridiculously low casualties and nearly surgical precision, allowing Kuwait to begin a return to normalcy almost immediately. Politics kept our troops from overthrowing Hussein at that time - are you picking up on a theme?
6) This Iraq War has been a debacle from the standpoint of politics, yes, but in the same way as Vietnam - a lack of a clear objective forces our military to in essence to go to work not knowing what the job is. Militarily, that you would assert a lack of competence is ridiculous - the US military conquered Iraq and overthrew Hussein at a speed and totality that made the Blitzkrieg look like the Hundred Years' War.
7) Finally, your WWII arguments are the most laughable. You claim that the Soviets "won" the war, forgetting, of course, that there were more opponents in WWII than just Hitler's troops on the Eastern front. Put aside the fact that you forget American accomplishments in the largest amphibious assault in history (D-Day), the liberation of Italy, the Battle of the Bulge, and American support of the Allies prior to our involvement, you conveniently ignore (since it smashes your argument to pieces) the American war with Japan in the Pacific. The Soviets were not involved in Pacific operations at all. China was getting beaten handily by Japanese forces until American support turned the tide. And after the bombing of Pearl Harbor sent much of the American Navy to the bottom of the sea, the American military-industrial complex responded to turn the tide against the Japanese and single-handedly push them back to their islands, at which point the most powerful piece of military machinery ever created exploded over two of their home cities, causing the formerly honorable Japanese, who insisted upon death before surrender for every citizen, to fold like a cheap suit.
I don't know how you can look at events of WWII and say the American military is ineffective.
For example, read the story of Taffy III, a small American force of destroyers and destroyer escorts that took on a Japanese force of 4 main battleships (among them the legendary Yamato), 8 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 13 destroyers. The Yamato ALONE displaced more than all of Taffy 3 put together. The battle known as "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" pitted the USS Johnston, a Fletcher-class destroyer with a few 5-inch guns (incapable of penetrating the Japanese ships' belt armor) against the heavy cruisers Kumano and Suzuya. The Japanese cruisers were damaged so heavily they stopped fighting, and the Johnston kept going to take on several other ships until finally succumbing, with 186 crew lost. Johnston's captain Ernest Evans was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor after accounts of the battle confirmed actions such as guiding his ship from the stern rudder linkage after the bridge had been destroyed with a hand blown off and his ship leaking faster than it could be patched.
Meanwhile, the USS Samuel B. Roberts, an even smaller destroyer escort with only 2 5-inch guns and 3 torpedoes, took on TWO heavy cruisers and severely disabled both of them before sinking and entering the history books as "the destroyer escort that fought like a battleship".
The engagement with Taffy III ended with the Japanese fleet retreating, having lost not only control of the battle but 3 of his heavy cruisers to firepower of ships a fraction of their size and armament. 3 more ships were heavily damaged in the withdraw, and the American forces actually PURSUED the vastly superior Japanese navy until ordered to stand down.
But you want to talk about boots on the ground - that's fine. I could go on and on about the Phillipines, or Iwo Jima, or any of the other battles dominated by American ground forces.
To put it kindly, your assertion that the American military really "isn't very good" ranks as one of the most asinine and plainly idiotic assertions I have ever had the displeasure to read.