Because then the deaths of the soldiers who’ve already died would be rendered meaningless! Can’t have that!
[QUOTE=Nadir]
Maybe more to the point you could explain how ongoing suicide bombings and roadside IED detonations fits the bill for “military aims have all been successful?”
[/QUOTE]
Because in the case of Iraq the ‘military aim’ was to defeat the Iraqi military and field force (check), destroy their command and control (check), occupy Iraq (check), remove SH from power (check) and remove the Ba’athists government from power (check).
And exploding IED has zero to do with achieving those military goals, and, if anything, shows failures on the political and diplomatic side. As I said, military goals are transitory and don’t ensure eternal victory, so the fact that in Iraq there is still conflict going on neither demonstrates nor refutes the fact that the US achieved military victory over Iraq in the Second Gulf War (or the first for that matter).
Afghanistan is much the same. The military goals would have been to destroy the Afghani field army and remove the Taliban from power. Both of those goals were achieved. The diplomatic or political goals have as yet not been achieved, though they haven’t failed yet either (in Iraq or Afghanistan), but the initial military goals were certainly achieved.
-XT
We did not set out to conquer a people or acquire land so I don’t understand your premise. As a military objective, we destroyed the 3rd largest standing army in the world. It’s gone. Saddam’s army is not going to invade Iran or Kuwait ever again. The continued use of military personnel (as peace keepers) is a different objective.
Let me rephrase the for you: Decisive mlitary victory enabled diplomacy and politics to succeed going forward. Nothing transitory about that.
Again, allow me to rephrase: Decisive mlitary victory enabled diplomacy and politics to succeed going forward. Nothing transitory about that.
Since you did not examine the Panama example I will conclude that you simply do not wish to spend any more time unsuccessfully attempting to deny that decisive military victories can and do have have many long lasting effects on subsequent history.
Please don’t tell me you are one of those people who believed the Iraq war was over when GWB stepped onto the arcraft carrier in front of the mission accomplished banner? 
That’s the nonsense that pulled America into unwinnable wars. The end of a conflict is always political, there are no two parallel victory goals. They are consequential goals. If military victory is necessary to achieve your political goals, then you’d better have one, but having one doesnt mean you’ve achieved said political goals.
The rest is just beating around the bush.
True, but reading back to the post I quoted, this was in reference to Afghanistan, and remains a gross misconception.
Afghanistan didn’t have an army to speak of to begin with. It consists of feudal “warlords” that span more than one nation. The achievement of a stable government is far more involved because it involves addressing the economic and educational needs of the people.
And just to refresh my memory - who was it spearheading this effort against an armed resistance again?
I think that goes along with my point: that modern technology has not made wars more decisively winnable. The dispersal and mobility of modern weapons instead seems to make battles less decisive. The one exception is nuclear weapons which were immediately decisive in the one war they were used.
To answer the OP’s original question more succinctly:
It depends more or less on the type or war. The War paradigm has majorly shifted since the last time we were involved in a relatively big one. This is a concept not many fully grasp today. That is probably due mostly to the fact that the “wars” have been pretty small since Vietnam. Americans for the most part seem to be comfortable turning it on and off with the TV.
Our dominant technology in strategic and tactical airlift and close air support is what enables us to do what we do in Afghanistan today. It is something the Soviets found unwinnable 25 years ago. It may still be. We shall see. The good thing about the military technology was maintaining an ovewhelming superiority advantage against any possible foe. That advantage is getting smaller.
[QUOTE=Nadir]
Let me rephrase the for you: Decisive mlitary victory enabled diplomacy and politics to succeed going forward. Nothing transitory about that.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, I see. So, what you are saying is that decisive military victories are eternal, right? And you can think of no examples where this is total horseshit? Because, you know, I can think of several. Well, unless you cherry pick and ignore a bunch of other factors, in which case you are absolutely correct!
Again, let me rephrase for you…cherry pick your examples and ignore details and you can twist things to be whatever you want them to be.
Well, you see, I never said that decisive military victories can’t have long lasting effects on subsequent history. What I said was no matter how decisive the military victory you need political and diplomatic solutions for long term success. I’m unsure why you fail to grasp what I’m saying…perhaps I’m being unclear. Or, perhaps you enjoy building men of straw. Not sure which is the case.
Are you one of those who want to believe that ‘We Lost’ is the only mantra available? Why don’t you take your flowers and tie-dyed tee shirts and go have a love in? I can build strawmen and use hyperbolic bullshit as well as the next guy! See? (<—derisive smiley for your silly post)
When you want to have a serious discussion without all the bullshit assumptions, strawmen and deliberate misreading of what I’m saying, let me know. Otherwise I’d say we’ve gone as far as I’m willing to at this stage in this thread.
-XT
[QUOTE=Capitaine Zombie]
That’s the nonsense that pulled America into unwinnable wars. The end of a conflict is always political, there are no two parallel victory goals. They are consequential goals. If military victory is necessary to achieve your political goals, then you’d better have one, but having one doesnt mean you’ve achieved said political goals.
[/QUOTE]
And that is the nonsense that indicates a failure to learn from history. America has gotten into ‘unwinnable wars’ because of a failure to realize that the beginning, middle and end of any conflict is political. Without a clear idea of WHY we are fighting and what our short, medium and long term goals are, no matter how decisively we win the ‘war’ part we can and will lose in the end. We lost in Vietnam because we had no idea of what ‘winning’ meant, no goals as to how to achieve it and no plan for what to do between starting and finishing.
-XT
No. I did cite a few a few commonly understood examples to refute your claim that all military victories are transitory. But keep trying to manufacture what you think I should have said to qualify your stupidity. I’m not going to re-quote myself here for your benefit.
No, I acknowledge there’s plenty. PLenty of BOTH. The only horseshit is your claim that all military victories are transitory. To reiterate, I do believe we still celbrate the 4th of July as heralding the subsequent military victory, do we not?
No thanks, I’m happy simply correcting your obsvevation that all military victories are transitory.
Right. You said they are “transitory,” which implies this in an attempt to trivialize the military aspect of our national policy and of course now explains your indignant attitude.
Call it what you will, it’s built, it’s clear, so there you’re done, good.
Agreed.
This makes so much sense, I can’t stop laughing! :smack:
Again, much confusion here…I prefer to take “winning” in the Clausewitzian sense: victory=destruction of the enemy force. We could have done this in Vietnam…if we were willing to kill over 5 million people (burn Hanoi, raze Haiphong, etc.). Because we were not willing to do this, we could never win.
In Afghanistan, the “enemy force” includes a good part of the civilian population. Unless we are willing to lock them up in concentration camps (and also destroy the border towns in Pakistan), we will lose.
Put ME in command…and I will gurantee victory…but it won’t be anything the USA would be proud of! (My plan involves actions akin to the SS in Russia, ca. 1941).
That is not winning, that is an even greater form of losing.
You seem to be confused about the contemporary war paradigm:
Back in the day that was pretty much all there was to it. It gets more complicated when military actions with limited objectives become foreign policy tools.
I believe the cost vs. benefit study pretty much ruled that out at the time.
Would characterizing you as a “hawk” be an understatement?
Only if by “a good part” you mean some very small percentage of the indigenous poulation which has been recruited by radical extremist outside agitators.
Don’t know if you’re just trying to be funny or what. Maybe more to the point of decisive technology would be something about how lining up prisoners front-to-back for determining the optimal number of killings possible to accomplish with one well-placed 5.56 round?
…merely a realist. It is insane and immoral to ask young Americans to die for nothing. Either we persue “victory” or we get the hell out! What is going in in Afghanistan is this “limited war” that we got trapped in in Vietnam. There were no objectives, no plan, just endless knocks on the doors of grieving parents…and endless military funerals…along with shattered bodies and shattered minds. My older brother’s best friend came home from Vietnam with so much emotional baggage that he wound up a suicide…at age 28.
If we want to “pacify” Afghanistan we need to undertake highly immoral actions that involve:
-letting the Taliban know that they and their families will be hunted down and killed
-that supporters of the Taliban will have their houses destroyed
-any hostility toward US/NATO forces will be dealth with harshly
If “victory” is not worth this, then we should negoatiate a peace treaty with the taliban and get out.
I can see you’re not a hawk, more like a crybaby would be my guess now.
Our armed services have been an all volunteer force for over forty years. Nobody’s “asking” anybody to do anything.
Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” and the Munich agreement comes to mind. :rolleyes:
I’ll agree that fighting a guerilla war on the enemy’s home turf is not a good idea, never has been. Got a better one? That is of course, assuming you wish to even address the problem at all. Like many of your ilke I suspect the truth is you would really rather just whine and complain about it.
Apparently his better idea is genocide and being worse than those we fight.