There can be no denying that the US military capability cannot be regarded as a paper tiger. The political will which directs the military, however, is a paper tiger, for the reasons I stated above.
Your anecdotes go as far back as the War of Independence, and through to Korea, but miss Viet Nam, and brush over the fact that Somalia was an unmitigated disaster. Sure, US firepower killed lots of Somalians - far more Somalians died than US soldiers died. This doesn’t change the fact that this event had a precipitious effect on US deployments abroad. Rwanda - no troops deployed (French troops were, albeit for the wrong reasons). Bosnia - no troops deployed (Brits and other countries’ troops were). Kosovo - no troops deployed. And now Afghanistan - no troops deployed in strength. One mission, which was a failure, and troops on the ground purely to guide air strikes. The current strategy, we’re told, is to fight with small squads of Special Forces teams, rather than a full scale deployment. Yet it was the Northern Alliance which has taken Kabul, in a large offensive. If the US had been prepared to launch a major ground offensive, then it could have achieved the same objective. Of course there were other good reasons why that didn’t happen - but one of the factors is that the US public does not want casualties. Otherwise, we should have seen at least more Special Forces attacks.
The US relies on airpower, because it doesn’t want filled bodybags, and everyone knows it. No one wants casualties, of course. But air wars are rarely successful (Kosovo being the exception), and in not being prepared to deploy ground forces, the US shows that it has a major Achilles’ heel, and has a big limitation on the way it backs up its rhetoric or threats with force.
I don’t deny the courage of your troops, and the capability of your weapons. But the lack of conviction to put ground troops in harm’s way is what makes the US a mentally weak opponent. Countries seeking to oppose the US will and have exploited this.
So Dave, the US is a paper tiger because it’s citizens don’t like our fighting men dying over something doesn’t effect us directly?
The US has shown that is willing for our soldiers to die. How many wars do we need to fight in one lifetime before our willingness to die becomes evident? My grandmother was born in 1912. She was alive for WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Do our fighting men have to come back in bodybags every 20 years to show the world how big our cojones are? Vietnam taught us that we should not accept our men in bodybags for such an asinine reason.
Its not a cojones issue. Its a strategy issue. The US cannot carry out effective military stretgy in most theatres unless it has ground troops. Iraq would not have been repelled from Kuwait, for recent example, if not for ground forces. There were good, economic reasons to expell Iraq from Kuwait. Bush Snr wasn’t just slinging his schlong around.
WW1 taught (or should have taught) everyone that the human cost of initiating modern war does not justify the objectives, not just Viet Nam.
The US has shown that it is willing for its soldiers to die in the past, but not since Somalia. That’s my point. So for the past 8 years, it has been unable to back its threats with anything other than airpower. That’s a paper tiger.
Sorry, I don’t follow your point about your grandmother.
Well Dave, my point is that those are not good enough reasons. When we have good enough reasons we do, in fact, send ground troops in. We’ve done it 5 times in my grandmother’s lifetime.
You seem to be saying that if we don’t send our guys in whenever some other leader starts throwing his schlong around, that somehow makes us impotent. We are not impotent and I don’t believe any other country thinks we are either.
Its not when some other leader starts throwing his schlong around - its when genocide occurs in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing occurs in Kosovo and Bosnia, mass murder occurs in East Timor, and when New York City is attacked by terrorists. These seem to me to be good enough reasons to send in troops. They (sans Afganistan, where the local Northern Alliance is doing the ground work) were good enough reasons for other countries to send in troops, on the ground.
The US is not “impotent” - the US, to repeat, is unable with total effectiveness to carry out threats of reprisal. The policy since 1992 of not incurring casualties has hamstrung US power projection. The most insignificant of America’s enemies knows that a good, proven way to repel the US is to kill some US troops on TV. This makes the US a paper tiger - lots of talk, but limited ability (air power) to back it up.
Drawing upon examples of US assertiveness in WW1 and WW2 is calling upon the ghosts of a different day and age - pre-TV. Now, the US public can actually see their soldiers killed, and America’s enemies know it.
Thinking about it, in a commercial context, the US has been a paper tiger in trade disputes, too. The US Trade Representative threatened New Zealand with Super 301 trade sanctions in 1999 when New Zealand abolished restrictions on parallel importation, threatening American corporations’ ability to sell goods at the price they fix in different regions. NZ said, “Get lost.” Result? No sanctions. Russia repeatedly gets put onto the USTR’s watch list, and should have been hit with sanctions years ago. But the US doesn’t want to upset the Russians, so no sanctions. China and the US were on the edge of a trade war twice in the early 90s, involving, amongst other issues, intellectual property rights. China kept on breaking its word. Result? No sanctions.
Except for the attacks on the Pentagon and the Towers, these are not good enough reasons. Start messing with our oil, or dropping planes on us and we will send our troops in. It is my understanding that we do have Special Forces on the ground in Afghanistan. It is also my understanding that sending in a few platoons of Marines is not a strategically good move at this moment.
Which threats of reprisal have we failed to carry out? I don’t believe we’ve threatened to send ground troops in to East Timor if they didn’t cut it out. Our goal in Somalia was to feed the starving, not wage war with the local musclemen.
Your right about it being a different day and age. This is not the face of modern warfare. We are not storming the beaches of Normandy, we are fighting amorphous cells of raving loonies. Our goals are different too. Our tactics are different. This doesn’t make us paper tigers.
Yea, New Zealand is a big threat to our GNP. We should have whomped them good. Do you think a pissing match with New Zealand would have shown the world how tough we are?
What do you mean in what way was the Administration not doing well before 9/11? Hadn’t you noticed the recession? Accompanied by a continuous Presidential vacation. And even Bush I went out and bought socks. The guy was a lazy doofus, who at least now appears interested in prosecuting the war. But his pre 9/11 performance was just as laughable as the comedians were making it out.
I think this is a bit more complex than just saying Americans are unwilling to see its soldiers killed therefore our vaunted military is a Paper Tiger.
Certainly Vietnam has given the US an abiding fear of seeing its sons and daughters killed for what is now viewed as little cause. A whole lot of horror for nebulous reasons just doesn’t sit well with us.
I too have problems reconciling the US stance of defenders of justice in the world yet we will only use words unless some personal interest is at stake (ala oil in the Gulf). Part of me feels we should put our money where our mouth is. The atrocities in Rwanda deserved as much dismay and disgust as what was done to the Jews in WWII yet the US does little more than shake a finger at the bad guys.
That said I am also tired of the US acting as the world’s policeman. Why should our children die for some problem elsewhere in the world? Why should our taxpayers bear the cost of a hideously expensive military and be expected to stamp out injustice in, say, Africa or worse yet in (the former) Yugoslavia? I say worse for Yugoslavia because that was in Europe’s backyard and clearly a problem Europeans should have dealt with themselves. Instead, the US has to come in to get things moving and only just got Europeans to help with their own problems. The US is often blamed for being late to enter WWII but most Europeans forget that they tried appeasing Hitler over and over again and only got pulled into a shooting war when the Germans started shooting at them first and forced the issue.
Additionally, the US is usually met with resistance if not outright vitriol and hatred when we come into various countries to help (ala Somalia). Whether our mission is as conqueors as in Afghanistan or as peacekeepers the world or country in question rarely, if ever, say “Gee…thanks alot…you really helped out at personal cost and we (whoever ‘we’ is) appreciate it.”
Finally, I would think most nations should be glad that the US doesn’t have a shoot first attitude. Regardless if that attitude devolves from sqeamishness or some more noble ideals the fact that we honestly try for diplomacy first should be considered a good thing. There have been many times where my kneejerk reaction has been “Bomb the bastards and be done with it.” However, in my more lucid moments, I realize that throwing bombs around at the first sign of trouble probably isn’t the best way to go. Hindsight is 20/20 so you can always armchair quarterback and say that we should have started shooting sooner (such as in WWII and that goes for GB as well as the US) but it isn’t always so easy when you’re in the thick of it.
The bottom line is yes…the US is reluctant to enter into a shooting war. That we prefer to use planes heavily doesn’t in and of itself mean we are wimps. I see nothing smart in landing troops in the face of heavy resistance if I can instead bomb that resistance mercilessly for a few weeks and make the job on my ground troops that much easier. While the US may be slow to commit the US can and WILL do it if pressed. We may or may not win the war but God or Allah or whatever help whoever we are attacking because its gonna hurt…a lot.
There’s got to be about a billion threads around here where you guys can discuss whether or not the president is a doofus.
SAVE THIS THREAD! Come on folks, we have the will. . …
Genocide isn’t a good enough reason for you? But oil is? I guess we have different priorities. I’m glad my government (Australia) sent troops to East Timor (certainly makes up for its atrocious handling of East Timor in 1974), to prevent further bloodshed. I’m glad my government has peacekeepers in Cyprus, to quell bloodshed. I’m grateful that Europeans governments have peacekeepers in the Balkans, to prevent bloodshed. But if you value oil over preventing genocide, then we aren’t on the same planet.
I see from preview that Whack-a-Mole shares the same concerns:
but then says his country shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. Well, there is some merit to that (the French certainly agree), and its an interesting issue, but drifting away from the OP.
As far as its been covered in the media, there has only been one mission, which nearly resulted in a helicopter plowing into a fence (it lost its wheel, nonetheless). Special forces are on the ground, as I said, guiding air raids. You might be right - there might be secret raids of which we are not aware (although you’d think al-Jazeera would have convered it in their broadcasts). But the idea that “sending in a few platoons of Marines is not a strategically good move at this moment” is patently wrong. Air strikes haven’t forced the Taleban out of Kabul - although they no doubt helped. Ground troops from the Northern Alliance did.
You are wrong on Somalia. Somalia was an interesting shift in mission objectives. Initially, the goal was to assist the starving, and then it became to fight local musclemen (cite: see, for example, Shawcross’ book, “Deliver us from Evil”, on UN peacekeeping.), which was lost.
You are right on East Timor - Australia asked for US assistance in East Timor, which was rejected. Why? It would have involved ground troops. I will leave Rwanda and East Timor out of the argument from here on end, as the US was not involved in military action in those countries (other nation’s troops were).
You haven’t address the issue of the absolute imperative of the avoidance of casualties. The tactics aren’t different because you are fighting amorphous cells of raving loonies - in Afganistan, you were fighting the Taleban army: in Bosnia and Kosovo, militiamen with artillery. But, no ground troops.
Whack-a-Mole says:
With the very surprising exception of Kosovo, air power doesn’t win wars. Whacksays wearing down the opposition with airpower prior to ground troops invading is a fine idea, and I agree. But, where are the ground troops?
You forgot to deal with Russia and China. So, NZ is too small to have a pissing match with, and Russia and China are too big. I guess then, with these excuses, there is no opportunity to have a pissing match. Paper tiger.
US sanctions against NZ would have had a crippling effect on its economy, and would have achieved US objectives - the US is NZ’s second largest trading partner. But, all threats, no action.
Really, I’m not complaining, because it means that the US has recognisable military and commercial limits on its extraterritorial activities. As Whack-a-Mole says,
And that’s a good thing, for the rest of us. but it doesn’t change the reason for it, which is the Achilles heel of casualties. (The US military must be fed up with it - these men join the army to serve their country, and know when they sign up they might have to die for their country. It must be humiliating and constricting to have to operate within civilian parameters of absolute casualty avoidance.)
But even if you think that your country is not a paper tiger, do you see at least some of the merits of what I’m saying, and recognise why other countries think the US is a paper tiger?
What countries would you consider not to be Paper Tigers? I can think of almost none that share western ideals (except perhaps Israel). Do you see France jumping at fights? Practically never. Great Britain? Hardly ever. Italy? Canada? Australia? Spain? Mexico? No, no, no, no and no again.
By your definition the only non-Paper Tiger militaries in the world are those countries that are willing to lose troops. What countries are those? Iraq, Afghanistan, China, Vietnam, North Korea and so on.
Nice company huh? I like my side better…squeamishness and all.
That western democracies leaders pay a bit more than lip service to looking out for the best interests of their people is a good thing. If that means my President thinks twice before sending me off to some foreign country to fight that’s fine by me. If my general thinks twice before squandering foot soldiers on futile assaults and prefers to be patient that’s also fine by me. If that equates to wimping out to you that’s your own lookout.
I agree that is a debate for a different thread but FTR I wasn’t being inconsistent or at least this inconsistency was written on purpose. I recognize this dichotomy within myself and have yet to reconcile it.
It is easy to forget the US actively opposes the development of European military coordination and has worked to undermine upping Euro decision making in NATO policy.
We say one thing. We do another.
Interests within interests.
Because our interventions come with strings attached. (Or in the case of Somalia, some stunningly stupid policy based on a fundamental ignorance of the society)
Also, read Orwell’s story on shooting an elephant.
Yeah, and me with this reputation of being a tree-hugging bleeding-heart liberal.
I do not personally place oil ahead of genocide. Our country does put self-interest above altruism, however. That’s a good thing. If the US stops thinking about what’s right for the US, then we really will be paper tigers.
What countries think us a paper tiger? Whenever I see the US compared to an animal, it’s always been an 800lb gorilla. The Taliban counted on this. They hoped we’d come in with guns blazing, better to bring about a huge Islamic uprising.
Well, that’s a perfectly rational view (whcih I personally don’t accept - the prevention of genocide was a fundamental aim of the UN treaty to which our respective countries signed in 1947 or thereabouts), and one which caused your military leaders to be at odds with Clinton all the time.
But, getting sidetracked, I don’t see how you can recognise the importance of preventing genocide (unless I mis-state your position) but not think that your government shouldn’t stop it.
China is the one who usually seems to go for the ‘paper tiger’ call - I may be mistaken, but I’m sure I recall seeing it used in the spyplane fiasco in local newspapers (I’m in Hong Kong).
Something rings a bell with Malaysia’s Dr Mahathir using the term too, but I’d have to check that.
Didn’t Chairman Mao popularize this characterization in the first place? I’ve been scanning in some of the more outrageous portions of a Maoist propaganda-laden English-Chinese dictionary printed in the 70’s. If you look at the “B” section, you’ll see the first entry says:
[Takes a bit of time to read further down the thread.]
I see China Guy has straightened that out already.
[sup]Never mind.[/sup]
Seems valid to me. I would be a lot more willing to risk my life chasing terrorists in Afghanistan than deposing a warlord in Somalia.
More of a general impression than any specific quote.
Hmmm, loosing thousands of our troops trying to prevent tribal or ethnic violence that has existed in a region for hundreds or thousands of years vs seeing all of civilazation grind to a halt as we run out of the fuel that indirectly powers everthing from the largest ships to the clock on your desktop. I don’t know, oil seems to me like a pretty valid reason to go to war.
I blame my keyboard.