Posted on 09/24/2012 11:24:09 AM PDT by arthurus
n view of the public frustration with a decade of largely unsuccessful U.S. war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the impending cuts to the U.S. military budget, there is an active debate at present as to what military strategy and force structure should be fashioned for the future. Unfortunately, many taxpayers and most politicians are totally illiterate when it comes to the subject of warfare. (Judging from the dismal results in the last ten years, a similar conclusion might to drawn concerning the U.S. officer corps.) In an attempt to fill this critical knowledge void and perhaps raise the level of the on-going national defense dialogue, this essay is offered to provide the lay reader with an awareness of the basics of warfare.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.info ...
Deploy adequate forces to defeat the enemy in the shortest period of time, with the least loss of our lives, and the least cost.
But when we skip the Constitutional provisions for a Declaration of War, to be sent up from the Congress to the President and then funding of the war for only 2 years, what should we expect.
The last declared war was WWII. Since then we have engaged in four major conflicts lasting for years, costing multiple billions of dollars and more importantly over 119,000 dead Americans coupled with over 328,000 wounded and the best the results are one draw, one loss, and two where the jury is still out, but looking like losses.
This is “THEE” basic of war. You win wars by destroying the enemy totally and not by gaining territory.
Politicians make wining wars impossible.
The powers that be have embarked on a plan to make at least 50% of the military female, and to further dilute it and weaken it by making it a family friendly career for dads and moms, and single moms, in fact a well paid, good benefits, refuge for parents.
This form of military is limited in what it can do, what it can accomplish, even who it can fight, and the length of time that it can survive on the battlefield before crumbling internally.
New limits on our capabilities will shape our foreign policy.
Or economics, health care, job creation, and the Constitution.
I have been saying this for the longest time! The American public are NOT long on conflict unless they see the enemy as an imminent threat - WWI/WWII.
Because of this and the US war fighting policies of “limited war,” the US is destined to continue to lose our war-power standing! Don’t get me wrong, China and Russia both know better than to mess with us, but these little piss-ant countries and people (Al Quieda, Venezuela, etc...) know that we are not going to actually invade, destroy all that needs to be destroyed and reside in every town - so they will just piss us off and then wait us out!
We are trying to win wars by using butter and beans (but those are being shipped right out to our enemies as fast as we give them to the towns), when we should be using bullets and bombs (so as to break the enemies’ spirit to fight)!
It is kind of like providing Embassy security without bullets or not using US Marines to guard Ambassadors - we are tying the hands of our military behind their backs and then sending them to war and wondering why we aren’t kicking the crap out of the enemy! FOOLS!
And then the draft too after we have a formal declaration of war.
Where we went wrong was electing Obama as Commander in Chief.
“Where we went wrong was electing Obama as Commander in Chief.”
Where we went wrong was “nation building” and saying it was OK to have a “victory that wasn’t like the one our fathers and grandfathers” achieved in WWII.
The term "limited war" cannot be used without stating just what the limits are. Which in turn means deciding what constitutes "victory." For the Brits, recovering the Falklands was victory. Was pushing the Iraqis out of Kuwait a "victory?" Was destroying the Al Qeda infrastructure in Afghanistan a "victory?" Without deciding ahead of time what our war objectives are, it's impossible to define "victory," and likewise impossible to determine what kind of limits should be accepted in a war.
So long as our leaders don't understand Clausewitz, let alone Sun Tzu, we're going to be mired in no-win wars because we don't know what our objectives are.
-——Was pushing the Iraqis out of Kuwait a “victory?”——
Yes and the objective was defined
“unless they see the enemy as an imminent threat - WWI/WWII”
What imminent threat were we under in WWI? So long as you avoided transatlantic ocean liners carrying ammo belowdecks you were fine. Okay, Japan was a threat. Not so much to invade the US, but they did attack us. What about the whole half of the war that was fought in Europe? Where was the threat there?
Huh? Post-WWII was classic nation building.
[[ Unfortunately there is ambiguity in the term “limited war.” ]]
There can be no “limited war” with Islam.
In its quest for world domination, what are -Islam’s- “limits” ??
Where does Islam draw such a line ??
You aren't kidding there. War, or even peacekeeping, has become a jobs program for half the poor countries of the world.
“or didn’t you know”
I know people pretend as if that’s so, or used to, but not that they could still say it out loud with a straight face. The Nazis could have conquered Britain if they put their besr efforts to it. Never could they have come over here. But that’s moot point; they didn’t want to. Nor did they want Britain. Whoever told you they did?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.