The US military really isn't very good, is it?

I'm shocked and awed by the U.S. military's technology and fire power. It can fly three times faster than the speed of sound and blow up the world 40 times over. Impressive. But it doesn't seem to be able to, in fact, win a war. Unless of course you call Panama or Grenada wars.

The U.S. military couldn't beat North Korea, North Vietnam, and now Iraq, impoverished Iraq! It was the Soviet Union that won WWII. And, the U.S. had barely arrived in WWI when it ended.

It seems to me, and I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, that despite its massive budget--that is debilitating the social fabric of America--the U.S. military just can't seem to deliver the goods for the American people when necessary.

I know the U.S. military is believed to be the best in the world--at least that's what I'm told over and over and over and over--but if it can't even win an insurgent war in Iraq, and the WWII style wars are a thing of the past so what exactly is the present U.S. military good for? Apart from enriching arms manufacturers and creating dangerous menial jobs for a million or so Americans?

Isn't it about time that the US public started to raise some serious questions about what their tax dollars are, in fact, buying? Sure doesn't look like much from where I stand.

[Milton Bradley]

Hehe, you must be under some misguided impression that our government remains accountable.


Nothing could be further from the truth.


As for the effectiveness of the military, I would be reluctant judge them on their ability to carry out this Commander in Chiefs orders, as they're mostly fabrcated nonsense with no justification, or legitimate purpose.


Now, if we instate the draft, and gear up for a real battle, look the Hell out. You won't want to be on the recieving end of that exchange.

[Clarence]

from what I understand, our military is capable of nearly any mission.
a few of those examples are actually failures of diplomacy and policy in general. That being said, we're only as good as our mission.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Now, if we instate the draft, and gear up for a real battle, look the Hell out. You won't want to be on the recieving end of that exchange.

You mean like in Vietnam?

The U.S. military is in "a real battle" in Iraq. Over 4,000 troops dead. 10s of thousands seriously wounded. More 10s of thousands psychologically wounded. On the Iraqi side 100s of thousand dead, millions displaced. Sounds like a real battle to me, and I haven't even mentioned the financial costs.

With the one exception of the 1st Gulf war, the U.S. military doesn't seem to know how to shoot straight or fight the war its enemies wage. Then when they lose or retreat, some "blame anyone but us" excuse is offered about the enemy not fighting a fair war, or the politicians were wrong-headed, or the moon was in the second house.

The fact appears to be that the U.S. military just isn't very good. Very expensive, very sexy, but not very good and very dumb--something like a Harley Davidson motorcycle or Paris Hilton.

[Milton Bradley]

Vietnam was orchestrated in Washington, not by the Generals in the battle field. The military did'nt lose Vietnam, the politicians were responsible for that.


God I hate being expected to explain every aspect of something that should be well known, and obvious.


And with that, I see whom I'm talking to, and generously bow out of this thread.

[Anmon]

Quote by: sdbest You mean like in Vietnam?

Vietnam was just a turkey run for the US to test their weapons out, they could have gone all the way to Hanoi if they wanted, when the Tet offensive from the North Vietnamese failed in 68.
Try to imagine if America had gone full on the offensive with everything they had, the Nth Vietnamese would have got run over, just like Saddam got run over in 91 and 2001.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Anmon Vietnam was just a turkey run for the US to test their weapons out, they could have gone all the way to Hanoi if they wanted, when the Tet offensive from the North Vietnamese failed in 68. Try to imagine if America had gone full on the offensive with everything they had, the Nth Vietnamese would have got run over, just like Saddam got run over in 91 and 2001.

Exactly, Vietnam was a "Police Action", at least according to those that orchestrated the event.

[JaneDoe321]

It's difficult to win a war (or "police action" or whatever the current term is) with both hands tied behind your back and one foot chopped off at the knee.

The *leadership* sucks. I feel that it's *criminal* that 4K+ servicemembers have died and thousands and thousands more permanently disfigured over the pompous posturings of the imbecile in the oval office.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Few armies of great powers have ever won a war against a guerilla force that came from the populace and land the battle was fought in.

The Soviets only won on the eastern front because they were so ridiculously huge that they could manage to lose literally double german military deaths on all fronts on the one front they fought on. Without U.S. supplies and opening of second fronts, it's arguable that the Soviet advance, (if the slow, bloody, ooze towards berlin could be called that) could have stalled. At any rate, WWII was a joint effort.

Vietnam was orchestrated in Washington, not by the Generals in the battle field. The military did'nt lose Vietnam, the politicians were responsible for that.

Exactly, by no means was the U.S. military beaten in Vietnam. Communist forces lost, by their own admission, over 1 million men. U.S. troops lost around 60,000, while the South vietnamese lost at the very most a quarter of a million, including periods where U.S. troops were not heavily involved. If that is a tactical defeat, with little to no territorial losses, then I'll eat my shoe. As in more recent events like the battle of mogadishu, a tactical sucess was made into a strategic defeat by politicians who had little stomach for war once they realized it involved men dying.

With the one exception of the 1st Gulf war

The 1st gulf war was far less impressive, in my opinion, than the second's beginning phases, and it would have ended up exactly where we are now if Iraq had been occupied. A war is quite different from an occupation. An occupation requires more than an army, it requires a, depending on the people being occupied, level of ruthlessness most would not want the U.S. military to show.


As a side note, In WWI and, arguably, WWII, the U.S. military as we know it didn't exist. What did exist were small armies whose swelling led to a measure of chaos and unorganization in the beginning of both world wars. U.S. troops arrived in WWI just in time to turn back a massive German offensive created by the pulling out of the Russians from the war. This was in many ways the period of the most heavy and brutal fighting of the endgame, and the exhausted and overstretched British and French may not have been able to hold back the last ditch offensive, or mount the effective counter-offensive that finally convinced the germans that progress in France would never be made. While Americans never had to face the years of fighting the French and British had to, they by no means had it easy or were of no consequence in their time in the war.

Hmmm! Once again excuses, excuses, excuses for American military incompetence and failure.

Vietnam becomes, not a war, but a weapons testing exercise. Can't blame the military for losing in Iraq--and soon in Afghanistan--because "Few armies of great powers have ever won a war against a guerrilla force that came from the populace and land the battle was fought in." So I guess that war doesn't count. Soviet victory over Germany in WWII doesn't count because the Soviets lost so many men, and by the way the Allies provided some supplies.

Apologists for the U.S military sound like Hillary Clinton explaining why she's beating Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.

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.

For the most part, the U.S. military has become a massive scam to bleed the American people of as much money as possible by selling them shoddy goods and services at exorbitant, gouging prices.

Marketing, that's what the U.S. military and their business cronies are really good at: convincing the American people that it is a wonderful institution protecting them from the boogey men. Woo, scary, kids, a cave dwelling terrorist, Osama bin Laden, is going to kill millions of American children in their beds, that's why we need a nuclear submarine. Yeah, right! Indeed, the U.S. military has departments whose job is to convince the television and the movie industry to propagate the myth. Don't make the right shows and you can't use their aircraft carriers for your location shoot.

Do you really believe that the U.S. needs to spend 51% of the federal budget on defense? If you do, you deserve to be fleeced over and over in the spirit of that other great flim flam con man P.T. Barnum.

[Morality Games]

Soviet victory over Germany in WWII doesn't count because the Soviets lost so many men, and by the way the Allies provided some supplies.

It has more to do with Operation Overlord (or, less accurately but more popularly, D-Day / the Normandy Landings); sending three million men across the English Channel and liberating the Republic of France from Nazi occupation, and the subsequent two years of brutal military campaigning toward the Rhine and into Germany that followed. Millions of men were involved in these conflicts -- can you imagine how things might have been different if the Nazis had been able to send all the men and supplies they used in massive offensives like the Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes) to combat Russia instead? If the United States hadn't gotten involved in World War II, Britain wouldn't have been able to do anything except defend themselves from Nazi attacks (they didn't have anywhere near the manpower to drive Germany out of France, let fight their way to the Rhine and beyond).

Can you explain how it is sensible to discount nearly a dozen major battles, in which some of the best and finest generals and units in the Germany Army participated, count for nothing toward ending the war? It is complete nonsense to think Russia won the war by itself, just because they got to Berlin first (by sacrificing an overwhelming number of men and for it being geographically closer and more accessible to them).

Additionally, the United States fought against the Empire of Japan almost completey by itself, and they were a huge power.

World War II was one of the best expressions of American military power in history and it is considered by historians the world over to be a huge reason for considering our military the best in the world. You have been reading skewed history books if you think differently.

"Few armies of great powers have ever won a war against a guerrilla force that came from the populace and land the battle was fought in."

Especially when those forces don't follow any of the typical rules of warfare, like not systematically blowing up innocent civilians to de-stabilize communities and make maintenance of order and public well-being all but impossible for the occupying force. Not even the totalitarian Axis power governments did that (although what they did do ultimately caused a greater loss of life).

I'm aware (and take a dim view of) members of the American military degenerating and breaking the standard rules of warfare (with clumsy excuses too), but for the most part, we adhere to the rules.

The United States doesn't do well unless we go in full force -- a "fumbling hand" is usually what we've put out for the last couple decades.

[tivodan1116]

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.

The United States won the War of Independence thanks to France.

In the War of 1812, the U.S. lost to Canada.

WWII. Had Stalin not held off 2/3rds of German forces on the Eastern front, Europe would have fallen, and with it the U.S. efforts in the Pacific. There's little doubt that the U.S. could have defended its homeland from the Axis, but not the Pacific had Stalin not prevailed.

Vietnam? War is an extension of politics, deal with it.

Iraq I; great success, as I've said earlier.

Iraq II: return to form.

Boots on the ground? Are there heroes in the U.S military? Obviously. In fact, the serve an enormous propaganda value to market the military.

And then there's Pearl Harbor, a day that will go down in infamy, because the bone-headed U.S. Navy couldn't defend its own base. The attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the most brilliant military enterprises in history.

The Korean War? Fought at best to a stalemate. The U.S. did not achieve its stated goals, or was a stalemate the goal?

So, I guess you think you're getting your tax money's worth with the military you bought. Great! Cut another check--only your hospitals and schools and security will pay for it.

[Morality Games]

WWII. Had Stalin not held off 2/3rds of German forces on the Eastern front, Europe would have fallen, and with it the U.S. efforts in the Pacific. There's little doubt that the U.S. could have defended its homeland from the Axis, but not the Pacific had Stalin not prevailed.

I don't doubt it, but the other 1/3 (plus some of Germany's finest military minds) and the accompanying supplies was very significant. The West wouldn't have prevailed without Stalin, and Stalin wouldn't have prevailed without the West. Hence 'Allies'.

In a fist fight, there is a substantial difference between fighting two people and fighting three. The man who could beat two might not overcome three.

[Spy_007]

The war is going just fine in Iraq. The most successful war we
ever fought. Let the fight continue.

[Whilletal]

Do you really want the military to win at all costs? I have no doubt that if you were willing to let the military to take the gloves off and "do whatever it takes" to win they would. If there weren't political games to be played and the object was only to eliminate the bad guys and take possession of a territory then I absolutely would not want to be the poor bastard on the receiving end. If all you want the military to do is destroy a country and declare victory then trust me it would be accomplished in short order. Besides why should you care about our ability to win wars? Planning on becoming a citizen?

[Spy_007]

The military does not want to take the gloves off. The basic strategy is
to keep the Muslims fighting each other, and it is working perfectly.
You have to remember the USA is taking less than 5% of the casualties
in Iraq. Also the US death toll is decreasing. The plan is for gradual
US forces stepping back and letting Muslims fight it out. So far the
numbers show it is working. US dead is about 4000. Various others
dead in the fight, including Iraqis,. Al Qaeda, Sunnis, Shia, is in
the area of 100,000.

Within the next year expect US casualties to be near zero as the
Iraqi forces take over 99% of the fight, against terrorists of all
brands in the region.

This is a war that will go on for many years and it will be between
Muslims. That is the beauty of US strategy.

[Whilletal]

Quote by: sdbest So, I guess you think you're getting your tax money's worth with the military you bought. Great! Cut another check--only your hospitals and schools and security will pay for it.

First off you should look at your country's tax burden and the awesome medical system you have before you start spouting off about us. Nothing like waiting 6 months or more to have some basic care provided while I on the other hand can go have a major surgery next week if I need to.Oh and I'm pretty sure if the US collapses or our military ceases to exist you guys are screwed. Not that anyone would want to invade Canada (not that it's not a lovely place to live) but what are you going to do if they did? You have no military to speak of and if anyone of substance (say our local boy scout troop) did attack your country would roll up like Poland under the tank treads of Germany.

[Anmon]

=Morality Games;499007]and the subsequent two years of brutal military campaigning toward the Rhine and into Germany that followed

11 months actually.

Normandy landings - 6 June 1944
German surrender - 8 May 1945

If the United States hadn't gotten involved in World War II, Britain wouldn't have been able to do anything except defend themselves from Nazi attacks (they didn't have anywhere near the manpower to drive Germany out of France, let fight their way to the Rhine and beyond

If America hadn't declared war on Germany, England would have been eventually overrun.
No one is doubting English courage or tenacity, they would have fought to the last man. But without the huge American back up of firepower, logistics and supplies, they would have been simply over run in the end, by numbers and superior fire power.

Additionally, the United States fought against the Empire of Japan almost completey by itself, and they were a huge power.

Don't forget Australia.

World War II was one of the best expressions of American military power in history and it is considered by historians the world over to be a huge reason for considering our military the best in the world. You have been reading skewed history books if you think differently.

WW2 made the US the power it is today, and some would say WW2 was completely contrived and set up by American businessmen and politicians to make it so.
Where did Hitler get all his steel from in the thirty's? Prescott bush, Dubyas Grandpappy and US banks thats who.

I'm aware (and take a dim view of) members of the American military degenerating and breaking the standard rules of warfare (with clumsy excuses too), but for the most part, we adhere to the rules.

I have watched you tube videos sent back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and a lot of the US soldiers behaviour towards the local population, is nothing short of disgusting, immature and downright embarrassing.
They are like little grubby minded 14 year old boys with guns.

The United States doesn't do well unless we go in full force -- a "fumbling hand" is usually what we've put out for the last couple decades.

Exactly, as usual the denouncers of US might in war miss the small details.
The US armed forces in Iraq has a lot of fighting ability, courage, great logistical support(as always) and a lot of very scary smart weapons available for troops on the ground, who are mostly trigger happy maniacs(nothings changed in this regard) I would not want to get into a fight with them, if I was an Iraqi whatsoever.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: sdbest The United States won the War of Independence thanks to France.

Really? Oh, see because I thought you were talking about "troops on the ground". Wait, let me find the quote, I could be wrong.

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.

Huh. Okay, so Rochambeau's 6,000 men were directly responsible for every military victory of the Patriots?

In the War of 1812, the U.S. lost to Canada.

ROFLMAO!!!! Don't they teach Canadian history there? What was "Canada" before the Constitution Act of 1982? Did Pierre Trudeau sign the Treaty of Ghent? Did anyone from Canada even go to Belgium and sign?

And what, exactly, was "lost"? Maybe you should look up the phrase status quo ante bellum before you answer that question.

WWII. Had Stalin not held off 2/3rds of German forces on the Eastern front, Europe would have fallen, and with it the U.S. efforts in the Pacific.

Care to provide any support for this theory? Maybe one military historian that has theorized this? I'll even take a Canadian one.

Europe may have fallen (and certainly would have fallen if it weren't for U.S. involvement with Britain - how much aid did the Soviets send to the UK, again? Remind me...), but it's a loooooooong way across the Atlantic and by 1942-43 American destroyers were doing quite well against the U-Boats, Germany's only real incursion against the U.S. in the Atlantic. Add the difficulty of launching an amphibious assault from that distance, and your theory is quite silly.

Vietnam? War is an extension of politics, deal with it.

But you didn't say "war". You said "the military". Two different things. If you would like to start a new thread suggesting that the United States is incapable of winning a "war" inclusive of political and military concerns, that thread would be perhaps slightly less ridiculous. However, in terms of achieving a stated military objective, U.S. armed forces are nothing less than superior.

Iraq I; great success, as I've said earlier.

Doesn't work very well with your theory of "imminent" failure, though, does it?

Iraq II: return to form.

How so? Militarily the objectives have been achieved. It has only been now that the objectives are murky and the political tide disfavors the efforts that the problems have arisen.

And then there's Pearl Harbor, a day that will go down in infamy, because the bone-headed U.S. Navy couldn't defend its own base. The attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the most brilliant military enterprises in history.

Hysterical that when it comes to American (battle) losses, you have no trouble separating "military" from "war". Militarily, yes, the Japanese attack was pretty successful. However, most historians - even the ones from Canada - agree that it was extremely poor timing representing the beginning of the end for the Axis.

Three bullies were in the woods - they had one small, beret-wearing kid knocked out, a couple of other kids reeling, and the biggest, heaviest kid back on his heels throwing everything but the kitchen sink at them in a desperate attempt to stay standing. Then one of the bullies decided to walk over to a sleeping bear and poke it in the eye with a stick. That poke sure hurt the bear, but was it a smart move?

By the way, you say that when "troops are on the ground, failure is imminent and assured." By what do you establish "failure"? Part of effective military strategy is working with allies, so even if I concede that Soviets did a lot of the work in defeating Germany, the goal we gave to the military at the onset of our involvement - defeat the Axis - was accomplished. You have a nonsensical definition of the word "failure".

The Korean War? Fought at best to a stalemate. The U.S. did not achieve its stated goals, or was a stalemate the goal?

The stated goal at the outset was to defend South Korea... ::checks map:: Yup, still there.

Only when the goals became murky - defeat communists? Unify Korea? Dig in and strengthen defense? - and the political will contested did the military slow down.

How do you figure it was "at best" a stalemate? What else could it be?

So, I guess you think you're getting your tax money's worth with the military you bought.

I didn't say that. That is a different argument. What I am saying is that, when called upon, our "troops on the ground" have, contrary to your unfounded and clearly biased points, performed extremely well with respect to their military objectives.

Great! Cut another check--only your hospitals and schools and security will pay for it.

LOL... Speaking as someone who lives a few miles from the border I can't stop laughing at your statement.

The best one is "security"... Exactly where did just about every Muslim terrorist of the last 20 years enter this country from? Our best option for security would seem to be taking over your pathetic efforts.