You really think the US did a tremendous job, ‘kicked ass’ as you say, in invading and defeating countries like Afghanistan and Iraq?? You really think so?
I think those two would easily have qualified as some of the weakest nations on earth in terms of military might. Afghanistan never had any real organized military to begin with. As far as Iraq is concerned, the sanctions over the past ten years and the Inspections had reduced it to a non entity.
You people are patting your backs at defeating THEM?? Come come!
My point is that we should not have been telegraphing our belligerent intentions to NC and Iran years ahead of time so as to give them ample time to build up their defences.
Because, of course, North Carolina has given us nothing but trouble. :smack:
I, for one, welcome…
oh wait…
If God be for us, who could be against us?
That seems more the tone here. 
Yes, I really think the US did a tremendous job, kicked ass, etc etc in both Afghanistan and during the invasion phase of Iraq as well (leaving aside for a moment of whether we should have invaded Iraq at all of course). When Tiger Woods hits a ball it looks easy too…but when I try the same thing it doesn’t work out the same.
You seem to be forgetting that this is the same Afghanistan that fought the Soviets to a standstill and eventually drove them out, and who were predicted to give the US all kinds of trouble, be a blood bath for us, etc etc. I’m fairly sure Osama thought it would be a bit more difficult for the US to toss out the Taliban than it turned out to be. A lot of other nations were equally surprised by just how easy it was.
As for Iraq, this is the same Iraq that fought the numerically superior Iranians to a stand still and invaded Kuait, taking that small nation over with little to no problem. It was STILL considered one of the top military powers in that region, despite its defeat at the US/Coalition hands in GWI. Certainly the sanctions kept the Iraqi army weaker than it could have been, but it wasn’t exactly non-existant, nor was it exactly lacking equipment nor manpower. Funds were getting through, as well as new or replacement equipment. I doubt Iraq could have invaded anyone easily…but then, they were defending, not attacking.
I think you are vastly under rating Iraqs capabilities if you only look at how effective it was against the US. Its like comparing the Super Bowl champs to a good college team. And the US is pretty much in a league by itself…no one has the military capabilities the US does. Pit Iraq against someone more in their weight class and it would have been a different story.
In addition, its always more difficult for the attacker, attacking into an enemies home territory and easier for the defender to defend such territory. You seem to think it SHOULD have been a cake walk, and certainly it WAS a cake walk…because of how much more superior the US military is to anyone else in the world right now. Another nation or coalition of nations probably could have won also…but it wouldn’t have looked nearly so easy, nor would it have been so easy.
As to your assertion that these nations were the weakest on earth…its to laugh. There are plenty of weaker nations out there. There are nations with no military at all. Afghanistan had been on big battle ground for over a decade, fighing civil war and before that the Soviets. Iraq also hadn’t exactly been a peaceful place filled with flowers and puppies.
You are over rating the various militaries out there if you think they looked at Afghanistan/Iraq as weak or push overs…in comparison to their own military. I think at a fundamental level you are failing to really deeply look at exactly what the US achieved in both campaigns, or what it looked like from the perspective of other nations that are perhaps hostile to the US.
From a purely military side I think some back patting IS in order. Politically I think Iraq was a disaster for the US on many levels, but militarily it re-emphasized just how superior the US military is to anyone else…to those who know what they are looking at anyway. You can be sure that OTHER nations aren’t taking your view of how easy it was, or how weak and helpless (snort) either nation was.
-XT
In so far as Osama Bin Laden is still at large (as far as we can tell), and that he was able to bring about the carnage of the WTC destruction with just 20 fanatics I’d say that he is still the largest threat to our peace and security; however, according to the President, “who cares where he is?”
This is all useless without effective logistics, which they have been unable to overcome shortages of. Attacks on South Korea would be ineffective if they cannot get more than 10 miles into the country.
I think its all bluff, yes, they have millions in the military, but remember, Saddams was one of the largest in the world and well maintained and equipped, and look how that crumbled. SK has wanted American troops off because they can handle such a war by themselves by now. A large percentage of NK population is malnurished and unfit for military service, and this is even evident in the military.
Do you just make up facts and assume that the folks here will swallow them? There are independent military analysts who believe that North Korean artillery need not advance at all in order to rain 10,000 artillery shells per minute on Seoul. Cite.
And find me one military analyst who believes that fighting North Korea would be the cakewalk you make it out to be. A single one. Note that press reports indicate that the US has plans to send 690,000 troops to the Korean penninsula if war broke out. That’s more than double what we sent to the Persian Gulf in 2003.
I think the main worry is that N. Korea has enough artillery pointed at Seoul to effectivly nuke it, and they’ve had 50 years to harden it against air-strikes. Regardless of how effective the rest of the N. Korean army is, they would probably be able to destroy the city that house a quarter of the S. Korean population and a huge proportion of its infrastucture. Here’s an article that details the threat.
I agree with the rest of your analysis, the bulk of the N. Korean army is probably little more then civilians with gov’t issue footwear and many would probably want the S. Koreans to win. But again, the cost of the initial artillery barrage against Seoul means it probably wouldn’t be worth it for the S. Koreans to win.
Close to 100%.
Bush failed to bring sufficient pressure on China, to get them to muzzle NK for us.
This Mar., 2003 thread details that policy: A Rationale for the Bush Administration’s North Korea Policy.
This slightly later thread, details how North Korea, how do we avoid a war? details how conservative in congress ensured the failure of Clinton’s rapprochement with the North.
Now we’ve got two failures under our belts, and it’s starting to cost us.
Yes, I really think so. Xtisme laid out a lot of it but I’ll add a bit more.
In Desert Storm-I coalition casualties numbered 378 (and only about half of that was from direct combat). Iraqi casualties numbered something like ~100,000 (estimates vary). The ground campaign was completed in what…100hours?
That is a staggering victory. That the US outclassed Iraq was no secret but this was beyond the wildest expectations of anyone.
Certainly they were not near their 1990-91 strength but the US rolled over them again.
I disagree with the war personally but no question the US military is premier in the world today. Second place isn’t even really close to them. Lesson learned is fight guerilla style or have nukes. Going toe-to-toe with the US military in a straight-up fight is a losing proposition these days.
While I’ll generally agree that the U.S. effort was excellent ( albeit this armchair general thinks it was foolish to risk a deep penetration spear-headed by a lightly armored Marine division - it worked very well in the end, but it was a bad risk to take against an armored opponent - also they should have waited for the other heavy division and added some more besides to properly “secure the peace” ). That said, just a small correction…
The Soviets were welcomed with open arms by the Afghan regime, only to be worn down by guerilla opposition. The U.S. is only lightly engaged, unlike the U.S.S.R. and nobody is really on top the situation, leaving Afghanistan currently rather balkanized. The situation really isn’t very comparable.
I was a bit surprised at first as well. But really none of us should have been. That is exactly how the Taliban took power - a quick couple of victories ( mostly in taking Jalalabad ) and a majority then switched sides and hopped on the bandwagon and they swept into power. It says a little about the Taliban, rather less about the Northern Alliance and the U.S., and a bit more about the nature of Afghanistan’s fractured countryside.
With a major material advantage and frankly not that bad of a manpower deficit. The problem was that Iran was never as good at mobilizing its populace as Iraq was. As it was Iraq hopelessly botched that first invasion of Iran.
Kuwait had ( and I’m sure has ) a toy military. It was ( and I’m sure is ) pretty useless.
While I wouldn’t sell the U.S. victories short ( they were impressive ), especially in GW I, I also wouldn’t overrate Iraq, especially in GW II. I’d probably stake out a position somewhere between you and wisernow.
- Tamerlane
Well, you know North Koreas desire is to unify the homeland and with that Einstein, they have to advance into the enemys territory with the added fact NK military would need large amounts of trucks, cars, tanks etc to get through the DMZ and substantial aircover to make this succeed, is very limited.
Also given the fact NK has cronic shortage of everything, makes the threat diminished, I’m not saying that its not dangerous or that it would appear to be bluff, but NK is a walkover after the initial stages.
People seem to forget the capabilities of the South Korean Army, heres an introduction.
and
Homeland reserve,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/hrf.htm
The 690,000 troops is a precaution against NK desires to advance South, but I’m quite confident SK can knock the shit out of NK and quickly at that too.
Given that they never had a chance to rebuild the military after the 1st Persian Gulf War (the Iran-Iraq) war, its not particularly surprising. Just another example of the military playing up their opponent for PR and funding reasons, IMHO.
Thats complete rubbish, Iraq was principle military power of the Middle East before it invaded Kuwait, it was its economy that was just bankrupt.
What’s complete rubbish? Were you referring to my post?
Iraq was the largest military in the Middle East before the Kuwait invasion. It almost certainly wasn’t the best qualitatively. Nonetheless, the coalition’s thorough dismantling of it in GW I was very impressive, without a doubt. I don’t think I indicated otherwise.
- Tamerlane
No one is disputing that the U.S. has the most powerful military force ever.
The question is, regarding NK’s supposed acquisition of nuclear weapons and flaunting of disarmament talks, has Bush’s foreign policy:
- helped the situation?
- exacerbated the situation?
- accomplished nothing one way or the other?
Shame I was referring to CynicalGabe
Slipping back to the subject of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal for a moment:
It was amusing to watch Rumsfeld avoiding the term “weapons of mass destruction” on the evening news tonight. Here’s how he put things:
It’s a far cry from 2002’s public handringing over the ‘threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the world’s most ruthless and brutal dictators.’