the results change when you change sides in the middle
And you can add on Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Lebanon.
When your main objective becomes not hurting someone’s feelings...
The military is very good at breaking things and killing bad guys. When left to those tasks we never lose. It’s when we try to be something else it falls apart. We should stick to just breaking things and killing bad guys.
Perhaps it’s because we shouldn’t have been fighting those six wars. We’re also losing the one we’re not fighting (indeed, enabling) which is stopping and reversing the invasion of the US.
The military is supposed to kill people and destroy infrastructure. Use the military to utterly destroy the enemy and his stuff, or stay home. Any attempt to win hearts and minds, or build nations will fail.
The answer is as simple as the nose on your face. Ever since the war we won, WW2, the politicians have changed how a “WAR” should be fought. We fought and won WW2, by killing our enemies any where and every where we found them. During WW2, our enemies had no compunction in killing our civilians, and we returned the favor by killing as many of their civilians. When we killed more of their civilians, than they did of ours, they surrendered. Now, these politicians have made it impossible for our soldiers to do their jobs properly, by making all kinds of very stupid rules on how we must fight our enemies. In the mean time, our enemies are fighting the war the same way we won WW2. Our enemies of today don’t seem to want to fight this war in a civilized manner.
The answer is as simple as the nose on your face. Ever since the war we won, WW2, the politicians have changed how a “WAR” should be fought. We fought and won WW2, by killing our enemies any where and every where we found them. During WW2, our enemies had no compunction in killing our civilians, and we returned the favor by killing as many of their civilians. When we killed more of their civilians, than they did of ours, they surrendered. Now, these politicians have made it impossible for our soldiers to do their jobs properly, by making all kinds of very stupid rules on how we must fight our enemies. In the mean time, our enemies are fighting the war the same way we won WW2. Our enemies of today don’t seem to want to fight this war in a civilized manner.
Despite the fact that none of these were fought with the intention of completely destroying or rendering our enemy unable to ever fight again, we are 5-1.
The problem is that the objectives with which we went into these actions did not constitute war as traditionally understood, therefore no "winning a war" was possible.
Had we actually fought ANY of these six as a war---with the exception of Korea---we would have utterly annihilated the enemy. But this brings with it problems. In Afghanistan and Iraq, especially, there was no real possiility of a post-WW II type "rebuilding" of a democratic, stable society because neither had ever experienced western style rights, liberties, and government. Contrary to many here, I don't think that development of such concepts was impossible there, only that it would take a helluva long time.
Korea was a different matter. The US military, absent atomic bombs, could not "defeat" the Chicoms on the mainland. We would have either pulled out altogether, or started a nuke war. I think Truman was extremely wise in his delicate balancing act in Korea.
But all this is beside the point, which is the proper approach to a true war is to win, and by winning you mean eliminating the emeny's ability AND WILL to resist. We haven't sought to do that anywhere, so it's hard to claim we have failed in not doing something we didn't attempt.
Obama's wars have been a huge disaster with incredibly bad lasting consequences for the world. Democrats once again have worked from within to destroy America and done a brilliant job of it.
It used to be we fought until one side surrendered or an armistice is called.
I guess the point I am making is that when you are fighting an “idea” it is not possible to negotiate.
The ONLY way to stop this process is to get medieval on them. And with our current leadership, that is simply not going to happen.
I think the use of the word “disasters” implies that absolutely nothing good came out of any of it and I disagree with that assertion.
The U.S. Has Been Involved In More Than 5 Wars
WRONG, Those were all United Nations Peacekeeping missions, we have not “Officially” been at “WAR” since WWII.
Perhaps we should try avoiding wars altogether.
Had we just walked away from Japan after WWII, or had no involvement in Europe after WWII, we would have ‘lost’ those victories as well. If we had imposed American administration over Iraq after that war, the anti-American crowd would be screaming about imperialism, but there would have been no ISIS in Iraq. What would have been better for the Iraqi people?
There is reasoned discussion on this thread. But if any presidential candidate or freeper posting questions the endless continuing of this same path, they are excoriated.
“Do something” can be an expensive, deadly, and fruitless plan.
And will continue to be disasters until the entire Hill pulls their heads out.
To win you must either kill all enemy, or kill their desire to fight further.
We have become to pansy assed to kill them all, or do what is necessary to kill their desire to fight further.
When we start leveling cities, hanging them as spies and for war crimes, bombing funerals, speeches, and parades the terrorists are attending. THEN I will know we have gotten serious and actually want to win.
Most of the time you actually dictate that you will NOT WIN because you've intentionally tied your hands behind your back.
Actually the USA hasn’t fought a war to win it since 1947 when the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the USAF were created. We have been losers for 67 years.