Trump is Right, America Doesn’t Win Wars Anymore

US Defense Watch ^ | February 16 2016 | Ray Starmann

[pboyington]

JOE SCARBOROUGH: “Have we wasted too much money over the past decade fighting wars? Has that been one of the biggest?”–

Trump – “Well, I’ll tell you what, I don’t mind fighting, but you have got to win and number one, we don’t win wars, we just fight, we just fight. It’s like a big — like you’re vomiting, just fight, fight, fight. We don’t win anything. I mean, if you’re going to fight, you win and you get back to rebuilding the country. We don’t win. It’s really a terrible thing. I mean, our country used to win all the time. We don’t win at all anymore.”

Flashback to the immortal words of General George S. Patton, Jr…

“Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”

Patton died months after the conclusion of hostilities in Europe, a death that was in itself the subject of much controversy. What would old Blood and Guts think of the conduct of US wars since World War II? In fact, what would old Blood and Guts think of the US military today?

When one thinks of the blood, sweat, courage and ultimate sacrifices that Americans have made in conflicts from Korea to Afghanistan, it is almost unfathomable. As Douglas MacArthur stated about the travails of the American soldier (and US servicemen in all branches), they have “drained deep the chalice of courage.”

That being said, since the Korean War, which was labeled a Police Action, the United States of America, the greatest country on earth is 1 for 5, with our only victory being in the Gulf War in 1991.

Korea – The US and UN forces fought the North Koreans and the Chinese to a standstill for three years on the Korean Peninsula from 1950 to 1953. In command of all UN forces, General MacArthur sought to wage full scale war against the Chinese and North Koreans, including possible use of atomic weapons. MacArthur was eventually relieved by President Truman who consistently tied MacArthur’s hands out of fear that any rash actions might somehow trigger World War III. The result: 36,000 Americans killed in action and a cease fire still in place today. The war was a proverbial draw.

Vietnam – With President Kennedy’s death, LBJ and the Pentagon had a green light to move into Vietnam. US involvement in Vietnam lasted from 1959 to 1975. We had first entered Southeast Asia under the guise of halting the spread of communism and in fear of the Domino Theory. The war soon became a mismanaged fiasco of incrementalization, presidential micro-managing of bombing targets and ridiculous rules of engagement. While the US lost the will to fight and sued for peace, the US military never lost one major skirmish, firefight or battle in the war. If the nation would have had the resolve, we could have won that war in a matter of months. Instead, the war dragged on with vacillating strategies, a decline in American prestige worldwide and 58,000 deaths.

Gulf War I – Why was the 1991 Gulf War a success when the other wars since WWII haven’t been? Gulf War I was a bright shining moment in US history where everything came together towards victory. The US military was well trained and superbly motivated and well-equipped. The commander in chief, Bush 41, had served in WWII and knew how to manage without tying the hands of the military. More importantly, the military’s senior leaders had all served in Vietnam and all vowed to never fight a war with one hand tied behind their backs. They had guts and cared about the troops. The US military threw everything they had into the fight and won quickly in 44 days of bombing and 100 Hours of a blazing desert blitzkrieg that resulted in an overwhelming victory that Americans would soon harken back to after the second Iraq War began.

Iraq – Was the Iraq War a tie or a loss; what was it? It certainly wasn’t a true victory. While we did vanquish Saddam’s Army during the initial invasion, the US became engulfed in a gradual insurgency with various factions that all had one underlying goal – kill Americans and make us leave the country. Yes, we toppled Saddam, but that unleashed a power vacuum in the country that led to the rise of ISIS and the strengthening of Iran. Whether there were WMD’s still left in Iraq by 2003 will be the subject of debate for centuries. At the end of the day, the invasion of Iraq wasn’t a strategic necessity. Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Furthermore, the invasion force was too small and while it was sufficient to destroy the Iraqi Armed Forces, it wasn’t big enough to secure the country. The butcher’s bill for conquering Iraq and its vast oil fields: 4,800 U.S. soldiers killed and over 33,000 seriously wounded, many with brain injuries. Estimates of Iraqi dead run from 112,000 to over one million. The Pentagon knows, but won’t release the figures.

Afghanistan – “The War in Afghanistan is the period in which the United States invaded Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. Supported initially by close allies, they were later joined by NATO beginning in 2003. It followed the Afghan Civil War’s 1996–2001 phase. Its public aims were to dismantle al-Qaeda and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power. Key allies, including the United Kingdom, supported the U.S. from the start to the end of the phase. This phase of the War is the longest war in United States history.”

The War in Afghanistan was initially successful in combined US and Northern Alliance conventional operations against the Taliban. But, the Taliban quickly reorganized and began an insurgency against the occupying US forces. The war has now dragged on for nearly 15 years, with 2200 US military personnel killed in action. The Taliban is still fighting and a clear US victory is hard to imagine in any context.

War on ISIS – The US war on ISIS is anything but a war. The US led air campaign is anything but an air campaign. President Obama refuses to take the fight to ISIS in any way, shape or form. Therefore, until a new administration takes power in January of 2017, ISIS will grow in strength across the world. There has rarely been a US led military effort that was so feckless.

It’s high time the United States redefine victory in war. By not redefining victory, by not putting all our strength and might behind these wars, they can linger on forever and they are.

Victory is destroying the enemy and winning the war. To secure victory, the US must fight wars with massive military might. We must adhere to the Powell Doctrine and the lessons of Gulf War I. The nation should avoid conflict if it can. But, if we must fight, the US must have a strategic interest that forces our involvement. And, by God, if we’re going to be in a war, we must throw in everything we have and fight to win!

The only victors in these half-hearted, perpetual wars are the military industrial complex. Everyone else is a loser; the innocent civilians who die, the soldiers who are killed and wounded and who must bear the burden of fighting endless conflicts for the most obtuse of reasons.

The nation has been able to wage endless war in the 21st Century because there is no military draft. No draft equals war ad infinitum. Average Americans don’t care. Why should they? They have no vested interest in the military. If some poor bastard wants to volunteer to hump a rucksack and be a pop up target for Uncle Sam, that’s all well and dandy. The average American could care less.

Trump is right. America used to win wars. It’s high time we start winning again.

[flaglady47]

“Having read his writings over the years, I consider him to be an extremely intelligent person.”

Read the 16 books Trump has written over the years. I consider him to be an extremely intelligent person.

[flaglady47]

“For literally decades we carped and bitched and fretted and whined and moaned and cried because we knew what was taking place in our nation. It was dying for lack of a good man.

That’s right, for the lack of one good man, it was dying.

We knew we needed a man that wouldn’t be a beltway insider.

We knew we needed someone who would shun focus groups and tell us from his heart what he thought without a filter.

We wanted an adequate presence of Conservatism.

We knew he had to be able to handle the MSM.

We knew he had to be someone who would double-down, not back down.

We wanted him to not be beholden to anyone.

We wanted his platform to look like Reagan’s only better,

We wanted our border secure and illegal aliens sent home.

We want a wall, because it’s the only wat to end this free for all.

We wanted a guy that was unabashedly pro life.

We wanted a guy that would defend our right to guns

We wanted a strong supporter of the military.

We wanted someone who would kill Obamacare.

We wanted someone to move us away from single payer,

We wanted someone who grasped our schools are failing our children, who wouldn’t toss out Leftist phrases and leaving at that.

On top of all this, we needed someone who could trounce an adversary. He had to pull across demographics, and be willing to attacking the Left like they attack us.

Then we got the man who could do all this, he rose to the top off national polls and started winning primaries by unheard of margins.

And then we set about to destroy him.”

Oh how eloquent, how well said Doughty One. I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I didn’t lol. But you did. Bravo, bravo, and so true.

[Hugin]

How can you win when you don’t have a clear definition of victory, let alone a realistic strategy to achieve it? Instead we have idiots proposing wars that make no sense so they can look tough, ie. “punch Putin in the nose”.

[Tallguy]

“Victory is destroying the enemy and winning the war. To secure victory, the US must fight wars with massive military might. We must adhere to the Powell Doctrine and the lessons of Gulf War I. The nation should avoid conflict if it can. But, if we must fight, the US must have a strategic interest that forces our involvement. And, by God, if we’re going to be in a war, we must throw in everything we have and fight to win!”

Not when you are the world hegemon and responsible for general security and world trade. The US fights wars today for very nebulous and ever-changing reasons. When the reasons begin to dissapate, or the cost does not cover the perceived benefits to the US political class, the wars end. And not surprisingly they end in a very unsatisfying ‘deal’.

The reason everybody harkens back to WW2 is because we were not recognized as the world hegemon — though by some measures we were since 1919. After Pearl Harbor the US was fighting a defensive war with an outraged electorate.

Until the US is no longer recognized as the singular guarantor of global security we will continue to ‘do deals’ to end the periodic brush-fire wars that we temporarily think are important enough to fight.

[JoeFromSidney]

How can you win when you don’t have a clear definition of victory, let alone a realistic strategy to achieve it?

The book The Generals by Thomas E. Ricks is one of the best I've ever read on the link between strategy and political goals in war. I recommend it highly.

[nathanbedford]

It seems that you have come to my defense and not for the first time for which I am grateful and make this belated thank you. That you are also a Trump supporter reveals you to be exceptional among the class which is remarkable for its degree of objectivity.

For the record, contrary to flaglady47, I too am a Trump supporter if I have only a Democrat alternative to Trump in the general election when I will reach with the lever for one hand as I fall to my knees raising the other hand beseechingly to God for forgiveness for not finding a way to save the Republic from this Hobbesian choice.

I say this fully mindful of post #21 by flying lady 47 which says:

"For literally decades we carped and bitched and fretted and whined and moaned and cried because we knew what was taking place in our nation. It was dying for lack of a good man."

I have two reactions: first, of all people in this election on the Republican side the one man who is clearly not a "good" man is Donald Trump.

Second, this idea that a political savior can ride to our rescue is a very dangerous political philosophy. In America we have several times been favored by a great man in the Oval Office the greatest of whom was George Washington, but virtually every president rides in on high hopes and we find that he inevitably disappoints. In my lifetime we have the examples of FDR and Barack Obama coming into office hailed as our secular saviors only to find that they trashed the Constitution and assumed tyrannical powers, and in Barack Obama's case, he has consciously ruled with the intention to weaken us and expose us to our enemies. In retrospect we have cleaned up the image of the martyred Abraham Lincoln and nearly deified him but we must not be unmindful that among his virtues was also a constitutional overreach. More recently, Ronald Reagan has done wonders in diverting the Republic from a disastrous course, but even he disappointed in some respects partly because he was unable to fulfill unreasonable expectations ignorant of the realities of our entrenched government system. John Kennedy was heard to remark in frustration that he gave instructions to the bureaucracy but nothing happened.

To yearn for the man on horseback to ride in as a political savior is to betray a profound ignorance of the Constitution and the hard-won wisdom of our founders and framers who knew the danger of a tyrant and who brilliantly created a constitutional structure designed to frustrate the ambitions of such a man as Donald Trump.

It is not the want of a savior that is the problem but a culture, an educational base, a political structure, but most especially human nature which is inevitably the problem in politics and that can rarely be solved by a man on horseback. When we yield our Constitution, when we yield our judgment to the dream of a savior we open ourselves to tyranny. We are likely to get something far different than we bargained for. We are liable to get Caesar or, worse, we are liable to get Mussolini, Hitler, Castro or Mao.

To turn to a human creature as a savior is nearly blasphemous because it fails to recognize the biblical reality of human nature and it is in the case of Donald Trump doubly dangerous because he is a man of dubious character.

This may well be the last election for me and I may not survive Donald Trump's term. No one hopes that I am wrong more than I do about Donald Trump. For the sake of my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchild, I do not state my views here to "toot" my own horn but the sound the toxin of alarm about this man and about the psychosis, born of fear and even desperation, which causes our people to turn to an individual like Donald Trump.

[onedoug]

Forrest : Memphis' first White Civil Rights Advocate

[xzins]

You have been a FRIEND a long time. Part of me just doesn’t attack people I know to be long time honorable. I trust their opinions to be sincere. I’ve seen them in the heat of battle and they’ve not gone after cheap advantage. I don’t expect it now either. Your opinions have been honest and integrity based in the past, so I trust the same for the future. Not to say we’ve always agreed, but I’ve always known I’m getting integrity behind every position you take.

That said, in the case of the last 50 years of US military campaigns, too many have been political and not focused on victory. It’s a grossly immoral thing to spill our troop’s blood over some politician’s cheap political advantage, but our “leaders” are in the middle of that again. We’re on the same page on rejecting that, as should be every sentient patriot in the nation.

[going hot]

I believe the theme of "fight to win or get out"....

Used to hear it daily in 1969. Probably originated even before that.

Probably in every incursion or conflict where the general's or politician's heart was not in it, as deep as the hearts of those who were tasked with holding the line.

[xzins]

Yes, it’s an old school lesson.