Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/24/2012 11:24:11 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: arthurus
Not sure if they still do, but the Service War Colleges used to teach the principles of Mass.

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.

2 posted on 09/24/2012 11:48:47 AM PDT by ImpBill ("America, where are you now?" - Little "r" republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: arthurus

This is “THEE” basic of war. You win wars by destroying the enemy totally and not by gaining territory.

Politicians make wining wars impossible.


3 posted on 09/24/2012 11:59:42 AM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: arthurus

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.


4 posted on 09/24/2012 11:59:59 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: arthurus
most politicians are totally illiterate when it comes to the subject of warfare.

Or economics, health care, job creation, and the Constitution.

5 posted on 09/24/2012 12:02:17 PM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: arthurus

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!


6 posted on 09/24/2012 12:03:53 PM PDT by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: arthurus

Where we went wrong was electing Obama as Commander in Chief.


8 posted on 09/24/2012 12:14:15 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: arthurus
Unfortunately there is ambiguity in the term "limited war." A war may be limited in geographic area (we didn't attack China during the Korean war). It may be limited in the weapons used (we didn't use nukes in any of our wars since 1945). It may be limited in the objectives (recover captured territory but inflict no further punishment, as the Brits did regarding the Falklands).

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.

10 posted on 09/24/2012 12:44:13 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney ( New book: RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. Buy from Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: arthurus
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.)

You aren't kidding there. War, or even peacekeeping, has become a jobs program for half the poor countries of the world.

19 posted on 09/24/2012 3:00:14 PM PDT by Sarajevo (Don't think for a minute that this excuse for a President has America's best interest in mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson