Can the US win a war ? ...

... when an enemy actually fights back .

The question is simple enough- can the United States actually win a war when the enemy fights back ?

Notwithstanding the results in Vietnam or ' The Drug War ' - it seems that there are serious flaws in this greatest of militaries. It's possible that these flaws could result in defeat, should the US actually get in a real fight.
Some things to consider :
1. Theft, sabotage, and betrayal are rampant in the Contractor Corps. How about parents mailing body armor to their kids in Iraq... necissary, it seems, because the Iraqis actually shot back. Our kids heaping sandbags and other IADS ( improvised armor devices ) on their so-called ' armored vehicles '.
Does anybody remember Joseph Hellerman's ' Catch 22 ' - where a poor fellow looks for his parachute only to find a corporate stock certificate where it should have been ? Well... don't laugh ( at least not if you're American ).

2. The US military uses lots of high technology that can be easily defeated by a sophisticated enemy. Guided weapons, drones, etc.- rely on secure communications to operate. Jamming is as old as radio... ' nuff said.
Mercenaries ( Russian ) are known to have highjacked various laser guided munitions during the Iraq invasion... causing ( in some cases ) very expensive bombs to fall into empty fields. It's likely that most aborigines cannot figure out laser- light frequencies, but my hypothetical question has to do with people who are MODERN and Who Would Fight Back.

3. People who are of very dubious loyalties apparently have access to our military secrets. It seems that every other year, there's a scandal involving massive intelligence penetrations from one middle eastern nation that is implicated in all sorts of nastiness... some say terrorism.

So, could the US win if it had to ?


[edit on 2-7-2009 by Skelkie3]

if we absolutely had to, we have nukes.

but
i have we could win, if we actually declared war. i think most of the problem with iraq was that war wasnt declared and we werent really prepared for anything long term or even lasting over a couple months.

Sure we could win a war if we are left alone.

The problem isn't technology, betrayal or anything in your list. The problem is simply politicions and anti war groups.

There are so many rules of engagement that we might as well just play hide and seek. These groups do not believe in collateral damage. They feel as if there shouldn't be any and the military has their hands tied trying to make them happy.

Let those who know about war fight it and the rest should sit back and shut up.

Thats how we will be able to win wars.

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


I agree with your assesment of iraq... But, why weren't we prepared ?

This lack of preparedness is a tactical or even strategic deal-breaker if you are dealing with a modern and determined foe, is it not ?

reply to post by jd140


Sure we could win a war if we are left alone ?

Could this mean dump you wherever ( fill in the blank ), send no body armor, don't even send under-armored vehicles and forget about you ?
Just think of the tax money we could all save if we left you all alone !
Unfortunately ( I suspect from your viewpoint ) you ain't alone and won't be anytime soon.

reply to post by jd140


A star for you JD. I agree. If the politicians would stop tying the hands of the fighting men and women we would be fine. It is hard to win when your own country is full of politicians that sabotage you and whine everytime some civilian dies.

The real mistake Bush made in the Iraq War was to say that they are our friends and we are there to free the majority of them. He should have made it so that our military could fight by any means necessary until we broke the will of the entire Iraqi population. That is how you win a war.

Anti-war protestors running around crying everytime some innocent civilian dies doesnt help either. They seem to forget how much better we have become at limiting collateral damage. All I can say is it is war and it is supposed to be hell for at least one side. Trying to play nice in war never works, and our enemies never have and never will extend us the same courtesy.

If we fight the way we are doing now nope. More than 50 years ago when our hands are untied, hell yeah!

reply to post by deltaboy


First of all I would like to say that I am no war protester; that is not the reason for this thread.
Are there problems with the system, which would make winning more difficult ?

So far, alot of snivelling by people who apparently can't shoot straight.
What is ' collateral damage ' but a cowards' way of saying, ' I killed some kids, man ' ? Sheesh.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by Skelkie3]

reply to post by Skelkie3


Collateral damage is just that collateral damage. It means you made a mistake and either over destroyed your target and got some innocents by accident or you missed it all together and blew up something you didnt mean to.

They are not cowards, nor do they intentionally kill kids or civilians. War is chaos and people make mistakes and when you are trying to blow the hell out of things sometimes innocents or even your own troops get caught up in it BY ACCIDENT.

reply to post by grapesofraft


OK... I killed some kids by accident. Sheesh.

But, what about the system. Are you suggesting excuses might help a winning strategy ?

The US has never fought a formidable opponent in 50 years. The Russians would be a formidable adversary in a conventional war. Nukes and technology aside a Russian soldier DOES NOT fight like a sandal wearing Iraqi weighing a buck 50 carrying an AK-47. If America ever got into a conventional war with a real enemy it would be nasty. Not saying we wouldn't win but a real soldier from Russia or China is not some Taliban underfunded and unorganized. You haven't seen anything like a real war with the "war on terror".

reply to post by Skelkie3


Yeah kids do get killed by accident in war. If you do not believe that then you have no understanding of the history of war.

There is way less collateral damage with precision guided weapons then there have ever been. If you want to roll over and let the enemy take advantage of you and your family because you cant stand the thought of some children being accidentally killed in a war then that is your problem.

It is war, stuff happens. Nobody likes to see kids die, but it is part of war. You cannot expect a country to not defend itself or to take the initiative just because some innocent people are going to die.

Do you think the Russians, Chinese, crazy Muslims, etc would have a bit of mercy on us if they could get the upperhand. I think not. Remember how the crazy Muslims cut off our soldiers heads while the record it? Is that what you want for the world?

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


I agree that it would be a hell of a nasty fight. Just think our soldiers would be out there fighting for their lives against the Russians or Chinese while a bunch of the people they are fighting to protect are sitting here whining because a few civilians died in the crossfire. It is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Skelkie3
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

 

I agree with your assesment of iraq... But, why weren't we prepared ?

This lack of preparedness is a tactical or even strategic deal-breaker if you are dealing with a modern and determined foe, is it not ?

yes to your second part.
to answer the first part, if we thought about what we were about to do, then we wouldve have been better prepared. no one will ever be fully prepared for war, but if we dont jump the gun on the next one (and actually get war declared), i think we will be ok.

reply to post by Skelkie3



First off, I think you got the question wrong. I don't believe it is a matter of whether we (the U.S.) can win a war but whether they WANT to win a war.

Why do I say that? Well, because wars that go on and linger and have the potential to flare up if or when we do leave provides a never ending income stream for those that started the war in the first place. Period.

So, could we actually win a war? Sure. Do we really want to? Well, that's probably what needs to be debated.

reply to post by grapesofraft



Sorry but the success or lack there of regarding the might of the US military has only a little to do with ROE.

Shooting back is one thing.............but fighting a nation that can actually launch conventional bombs, artillery, and missiles at you is an entirely different scenario. ROE would matter little in a war with Russia or China or any other first rate power.

reply to post by dariousg


You're talking politics. I don't think that was the intention of the OPer. Might vs. might. America would have a very hard time RIGHT NOW fighting a formidable opponent like Russia or China or many other countries with an established military. Hell Russia has a crap load of natural resources and is still a very heavy industrially based nation. America is NOT the same country as it was during WWII. Do people like you realize just how gutted our manufacturing is in this country? Do you realize just how much of our equipment was manufactured in our isolated country back in WWII? How many Americans would be willing to get behind the military machine and ration gas, make that self sacrifice that helped us win WWII? Americans don't have that same mentality. We are a divided nation.

I think the better question is could we win a war on our own soil? That's a much tougher question to answer. Albeit a scarier one.

reply to post by dariousg


EXACTLY! Very good point.


Can the US win a war ?

Define WIN first.

If you mean that we declare victory then pull out and have a "Victory" Parade. Then yes it's a "WIN"

If you define a loss as.

1. The troops drop their weapons and surrender. Then Yes it's a loss.
Hasn't happened yet.
NEXT?

2. Major bases been over run or destroyed do to enemy fire. Then Yes it's a loss.
Hasn't happened yet.
NEXT?

3. Been defeated on the battlefield. Then Yes it's a loss.
Hasn't happened yet.
NEXT?

4. The present Government is incapable of running the country. Then Yes it's a loss.
Hasn't happened yet.
NEXT?

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by Zosynspiracy

 

I agree that it would be a hell of a nasty fight. Just think our soldiers would be out there fighting for their lives against the Russians or Chinese while a bunch of the people they are fighting to protect are sitting here whining because a few civilians died in the crossfire. It is ridiculous.

A 'FEW' civilians? What, please say, are just a few to you?

A hundred? Five hundred? A thousand?

Tens of thousands????

Hundreds of thousands????????????

Closer to a million???????????????????

Hmmmm, I guess it takes one with a heart and human compassion to understand the true issue here.

You see, the 'Russians' and 'Chinese' don't want to tangle with us. Why? Because they know where that fight will be. Where it always is. Anywhere but in the United States. Why is that? What does that say?

That we're taking it to the enemy before they can come here? Or that we are simply overaggressive to the point where if we perceive a threat, real or not, we blow it out of proportion and set up MSM propoganda to say things like "North Korea has missiles all of a sudden that can reach half of the United States now (even though just last week they could hardly reach Hawaii)" and on and on and on.

Keep buying it.

War is extreme violence.
War is destroying the enemy's means of fighting while killing significant numbers of the enemy.


To truly win a war, you have to destroy your enemy. During the process of destroying your enemy, you're going to kill a huge number of civilians.

If you want to win, you have to fight to win, not fight to win the politically correct heading.

I think that the US is a great fighting force. The US military can inflict massive destruction on any opponent. Yes, the US can win a war, but you might need to take the journalists away from the battlefield while the fighting is still happening.

Then pummel the opponent into submission.