The US can win ANY war!!!!

[wadestock]

I reported here in detail the latest military strategy championed by Dr. Thomas Barnett and how this has become the state-of-the-art rationale for why we HAD to go into Iraq in the first place and why US military influence is THE KEY to democratization of the Middle East (as well as what he defines as the entire gap, or uncivilized world).

Never got much of a response on that. I seriously thought that Kerry had to completely define the difference between himself and Bush on the issue of the war in Iraq....in terms of it's ultimate importance was FOR OUR FUTURE. I thought it important to define this difference in terms of ....this guy here thinks he can democratize the entire Middle East....whereas this guy over here thinks getting rid of Saddam was more than enough. People haven't really grasped that important difference between these two people....or the parties themselves in this regard.

Well....here's some more interesting news....
I was literally floored last nite watching Gen. Schwartzkopf on the Chris Matthews show last nite expound....

WE COULD HAVE WON VIETNAM!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is some pretty serious schitt floating around here....
I think we have to come to grips with the new notion that there is a core belief that has evolved within the volunteer Army...and championed by the neocons....that we are the only superpower in the world .....and that we are ....almost by definition.....invincible.

In other words, no need to rationalize anything regarding Iraq....not an issue..... when you CAN'T lose.

[tk2kewl]

1. The thinking must go something like this..

WE COULD HAVE WON VIETNAM!!!!!!!!!!!!

sure...

...and we can win in Iraq.

Just like we did in Japan.

[knowbody0]

2. and shame on us

the biggest guns. now the oil.
we are the evil emperor of the planet

[wadestock]

27. We are not really evil....don't go that far....

Approximately 1/2 of us....as polls have shown convincingly....are cronically uninformed.

This is also all about a compound moral degradation fracture within our society. Unfortunately, a lot of it has to do with 911.

[klook]

3. Except the War on Poverty (n/t)

[Worst Username Ever]

8. and the war on drugs

cuz you know, it is pretty much impossinle to find drugs any more :eyes:

[Cleita]

4. Are you kidding?

We haven't won anything since WWII. Even the first Desert Storm stopped short of it's goal of taking our Saddam, which is why we are there now and losing IMHO.

[atreides1]

13. I'm Getting Tired of People Saying This

As someone who was there, taking out Saddam was not the goal. The goal
was to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait, nothing more, nothing less.

We accomplished the misson that we were given.

We are there now because Bush lied our way into the mess, because he wanted a war, and his advisors thought they could win it on the cheap.
Well guess what, the generals who were asked to retire were right and those who sucked up were wrong.

And the troops on the ground are paying for it with their lives and limbs.

[Cleita]

15. So are you saying if we had taken out Saddam then,

we would still have an excuse to invade Iraq for the oil anyway? Because that's whats going on. And how about Gen Schwartzkopf on CNN constantly talking about going all the way to Bagdad back then? Then President Poppy told him he couldn't. He didn't hide his disappointment that well. So my opinion is that Colin Powell and Poppy came to the conclusion that they couldn't win Desert Storm if they took out Saddam and that there would be a big mess like we are having now, so they opted to withdraw in time to save face.

[wadestock]

16. Good points....

and although a few mistakes were made immediately following the war where Gen. S and others agreed to let the Iraqis have helos with tubes on them, etc....the mission was indeed accomplished and Saddam was "de-fanged".

Now comes the reality of how to win this war....and what we're looking at is the fact that the borders have to be completely controlled (300K men, or more?)...plus what internal police force is necessary (200K or more?)....you could be looking at 1 MILLION men to maintain real control....AND martial law on top of it, 24-7.

It's absolutely incomprehensible to me how we could expect the Iraqis to do this themselves. Are we going to resupply them with a fresh new bunch of M1 tanks, Bradley's, helos, etc....now that we've COMPLETELY DESTROYED EVERY LAST PIECE OF THEIR MILITARY!@#@!???

[obnoxiousdrunk]

5. Lets try

to have a war with China.

[wadestock]

23. We're losing the war.....

In this case it's an economic war....the same one which was responsible if anything for bringing down the iron curtain.

China must have been watching...they have us by a minimum of 500B every year now....have captured our manufacturing capability....will soon start taking on Detroit and Microsoft....2 of our last strongholds.

We have very much played directly into their hands.....all at the expense of making a very narrow portion of our population stinking filthy wealthy.

[Dark]

6. Well, technically, we could have won Vietnam.

I remember watching a documentary saying that, I think it was during Christmas of Nixon's first term, that we began an enormous bombing campaign. The general on there said he had heard that the Vietcong were nearing the breaking point, but we stopped too soon and they were able to regroup.

And we do have the best army in the world. We can defeat any ONE country on the planet, but what Dubya is doing is stretching our forces too thin by protecting too may countries. You know the old saying, you can defeat any country but not every country? I think that's how it goes. By invading Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush is pushing us closer and closer to OUR breaking point.

I am scared that the next 'group of folks' we invade will be America's Poland.

[wadestock]

14. China wouldn't have let it happen.....

The supplies to fuel the war for ever could trickle down from there....and we couldn't risk a war with them.

When the military minds get wrapped up in this stuff...they get confused by visions of grandeur....when they should be concentrating on dealing with incremental objectives. (Hitler's downfall and others)

In war.... things constantly change....and if you're not on top of every little development, you could be SOL. You have to be constantly outsmarting the enemy or else you lose.

You can't defeat your enemy unless you fully understand the enemy and his specific weaknesses.

Clint Eastwood said something akin to this when he said...."a man's GOT to know his limitations".

[atreides1]

19. Well, in Theory Bumble Bees can't Fly

There are many thoughts on whether the bombing campaign would have been successful or not, no one is sure. And for a general to say he heard that the VC were nearing the breaking point, that would be accepting hearsay.

The problem is that we don't have the best army, we have the largest, and big does not always mean better.

Currently, including the USMC, but not the NG or Reserves, the ground
forces of the US military number about 665,000. The army only has 10
active divisions, at least 2 of them are in Iraq, part of the 2nd ID,
out of Korea is also in Iraq, and the 25th ID out of Schofield Barracks in Hawaii is split between Afghanistan and Iraq. So that is basically 4 of the 10 active army divisions.

The US is planning to pull out most of its ground forces from Korea,
and plans are in the works to bring most of the army units in Europe back to the states.

There are also units in Japan, but most of them are either USN or USAF, with USMC in Okinawa, and not to well liked by the populace there. We have some troops down in South and Central America as well,
but not enough to really be relevant.

Most of our military is largely located on four continents, and North America is one of those.

The US military has spent the last several years training to fight a conventional style war, this isn't it, and the troops are basically told that Muslims are less then human, and they act accordingly.

We will not win in Iraq, the best we can hope for is a stalemate. And if the "best" army in the world cannot defeat a bunch of rag tag insurgents, then the more they avoid fighting with a real army the better.

Just an opinion from a former soldier.

[wadestock]

22. Please note the important difference between DEFEAT and OCCUPY

In history, you could military defeat someone....in which case you threatened the very existence of their country...but indeed you didn't actually go forth with a complete occupational takeover.

Having the enemy in a compromising position would mean the ability to negotiate for what you want. Any interesting concept isn't it?

In other words, yes we did defeat the army of Iraq (a no brainer)...afterall they had less than a 1/5th of what they had in Desert Storm...but then comes the ultimate irony that IF YOU DESTROY THE VERY GOVERNMENT AND THE ENTIRE ARMY WHAT ARE THEY LEFT WITH TO SURRENDER WITH?

You are then mandated to become an occupational force. One big baby sitting job that means trying to take care of a whole bunch of people that didn't want you there in the first place.

Thus...we can now think back rationally and realize that what Kerry voted for made perfect sense....THE USE OF FORCE...along with inspections....but to the breaking point of actually having to go in and completely destroy the place to the very last tank. Why haven't others in our congress been able to put this "vote for the use of force" in real terms instead of equating it to "a vote for war"....and "utter anihilation"!@#@!??

Actually there was A to Z possible in terms of working force short of destroying every last piece of equipment.

That hell bent overkill has cost us dearly.

To this day, the American people generally don't get it.

[Minstrel Boy]

7. Gotta love that imperial hubris!

That's the kind of thinking that's caused every one of them to fall.

Makes me think of these lines from Rudyard Kipling's "A Pict Song":

Mistletoe killing an oak—
Rats gnawing cables in two—
Moths making holes in a cloak—
How they must love what they do!.
Yes—and we Little Folk too,
We are busy as they—
Working our works out of view—
Watch, and you’ll see it some day!

[LibInternationalist]

9. in that we could have turned Vietnam

into uninhabitable radioactive glass, sure we could have won

[robbedvoter]

10. Let's attack the rest of the planet! The new reality!

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[wadestock]

20. Please read Thomas Barnett....

"The Pentagon's New Map" is also available for download.

[The Minus World]

25. He has a blog as well,

I've read a little of what the man has to say, and - besides being a self-congratulatory narcissist - he seems to have a comprehensive understanding of geopolitics. However, he also seems to be enamored with the idea that democratization is the only way to bring about consonance between nations, and, in turn, that can only be brought about through instituting neo-liberalistic policies which may sometimes engender outrage and upheaval before the people learn to bend over and accept it.

It's a laughably optimistic perception of the world, because he's only focused actions our government can take now to create long-term results; yet he ignores - maybe because acknowledging it would be bad for PR - any circumstances which might derail his plan for future hand-holding between nations. And that's exactly what this man is: a marketing strategist for U.S. empire.

His map of integrating and non-integrating nations smacks of a pseudo-intellectualized diagrammatic of "You're either with us, or you're against us."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. ...waged against mighty Greneda.

With their hordes (about 400) of Cuban guerillas (actually construction workers).

As for "winning" in Vietnam. The general, like almost all brass, refuse to admit that they lost, big time, to a determined people.

Where the USA has really lost is in terms of "war being an extension of diplomacy".

General Swartzkopf should really change is name to something more appropriate, like Scheisskopf (Shithead in German). Just another war criminal awaiting trial.

[aden_nak]

12. Name ANY social problem we declared WAR on and have since beaten.

Drugs. Poverty. Cander. AIDS. Crime.

Terror.

[nine23]

17. This argument is so flawed it's a world-class joke.

And I do mean world-class. It's one of the many reasons we in the rest of the world, who don't wave the stars and stripes and have our own July the fourths, just shake our heads in disbelief.

The best example is happening before our very eyes. Here's Iraq, a country with a shattered military - right from the start of this war, no air force, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, just their AK's and what little else at their disposal, have the US bogged down INDEFINITELY.

Another example: PAKISTAN, just one bullet away from being US enemy number one (if it's leader is ever assasinated), has a well oiled standing army of nearly one million (they've been "practicing" on India for decades), they have a high-tech air force, and they have nukes of all sorts.

Good luck with this thinking. Perhaps you should just take Falluja in the meantime and get back to me.

Funny though, Schwartzkopf even TALKING about Vietnam, innit?

[Chef]

18. Warriors

I nearly gagged when I heard Norman puff up his chest and rip off with "we could'a won" bullshit. Wars about bs don't turn out well. Shure, we could have put another half a million troops in Viet Nam or bombed it worse than we did. And, when the bombing was over, those few remaining North Vietnamese would have crawled out of their caves and thrown rocks at us and we would still have to have pulled out. What, exactly would we have won?

Try this idea. How come we spend half a trillion dollars on defense every year, have 1.2 million service men and women, and have trouble affording keeping 130,000 troops in the the field fighting insurgents?

If anything the current Iraq adventure teaches us, is that we had better not get into a real pissing match with a country with any kind of an army we can't we can't smother to death with dollar bills.

[gordianot]

21. U.S. troops won tactically, but lost strategically.

I understand there are vast off shore oil fields. HMMMMMMM
LBJ=Texas Oil
Makes you wonder?

[bvar22]

24. SURE. The USA can win ANY war!

As long as we are willing to indiscriminately MURDER the indigenous ethnic populations, I guess we can win any war.
Who cares as long as they are not White European....and those damned Frogs and Krauts better watch out too.

[ReadTomPaine]

26. Best quote from the Vietnam era about the war:

Colonel Harry Summers recounts an exchange between himself and a former NVA officer some years after the war.

Summers: "You never defeated us in the field."

NVA Officer: "That is true. It is also irrelevant."

RTP

[wadestock]

28. The proverbial "mission accomplished" mindset

Remember....

WE WON...WE WON....WE WON...WE WON!!!!!

er....didn't we?

Perhaps an entirely NEW science of military strategy...FAR beyond Thomas Barnett...is in order.

Principle #1 - If you take out the principle governing body, you then have no one to negotiate with (hmmm...so think about the consequences of implanting a government).

Principle #2 - Do not necessarily destroy the entire military of the country unless you are prepared to be a long term occupying force and/or you find a way to sell them back a new army.